travelnutz wrote:
spoon59,
Sir, you surely do have a warped sense of how a free-market economy works! By not helping a huge corporation like GM to remain viable whether by loans or bailouts, the economy would shrink drastically and your example of a $200,000 house would have slim to zero chance of being worth $500,000 in anyone's lifetime. A shrinking economy is NEGATIVE growth and citizens/persons not working are a further drag on a shrinking economy as they produce zero goods, receive no paycheck, pay no taxes, and will qualify for welfare which is even a further drag on a failing economy. Just where do you think the growth will come from to make $200,000 grow 2.5 times to $500,000?
GM's bailout was a very small fraction of the bailouts the banks, Freddie mac, Fannie may, Ins and investment entities, etc and that's taxpayer's money that will likely never be repaid! It was the housing market relaxed rule issues that actually caused the deep recession and then took the U.S. automotive industry with them. It all came to a head at the same time!
Try waving the whole dog instead of using the end of it's tail to wag him! The auto bailouts really went mostly to the unions to soften the years of false promises in the contracts and very little went to the corporations. The investors are the ones who actually took it in the shorts!
You sure could use a real course in economics 101 as it pertains to the U.S. economy and marketplace!
How is my sense of the free market warped? How can you and some of the other posters on here assume that GM going out of business completely wipe out their entire market share of business? GM wouldn't sell their vehicles, those customers would either decide to never purchase another vehicle ever again in their life or else they would buy from a competitor.
You are assuming that GM is the ONLY vehicle manufacturer and there is no other company to absorb its market share or else GM buyers are so brand loyal that they would never buy another vehicle. Your comments about my theoritical house and the complete lack of jobs/income/welfare just all point to the theory that you believe GM's collapse would plug up the ENTIRE auto industry. That is faulty reasoning. I am assuming that the other manufacturers would step up and take over GM's market share.
I am fully aware, as you can see from my other post, that there were a litany of reasons why the economy collapsed. You write your little comment as if I didn't understand the back story. Please feel free to read the entire post before you decide to "correct my mistakes". I am not attempting to argue that GM was the only company to receive bailout money. If this was a banking forum, I would be complaining about them. If this was a real estate forum, I would be complaining about them. This is an RV forum, specifically discussing tow vehicles, specifically GM. I am focusing my argument to GM, not the entire economy right now. I am assuming that the economy is a very large pack of dogs, each with an individual identity. I am just worried about the "GM bailout dog" right now.
I made my argument based upon facts which you can research yourself and verify are true. You made slighting comments towards me and my intelligence without basing it upon a single fact. I would request that you either debate me using FACT not baseless opinion to support your arguments, or pleae simply keep your comments to yourself. Debate like an educated adult or ignore my posts please.
e it to the
