View Single Post
      08-17-2012, 12:31 PM   #4
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 316
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by xbook View Post
Yeah because having a million jobs lost due to GM & Chrysler folding would have been so much better for the economy.
That's ONLY assuming the billions of dollars used to bail these companies out would have simply vanished into the ether had it not been used on GM & Chrysler.

What if those funds were spent on bailing out other companies instead? Companies that dont pay highschool dropouts 30 bucks an hour (+outrageously generous benefits) to drop a bolt in a hole on some assembly line.

GM & Chrysler were, to a large degree, architects of their own demise in that they made many poor decisions over and over for many years, in terms of the cars they offered that nobody wanted, to the crazy compensation plans for their unskilled workers. Yet, they get bailed out.

There are other companies, who in 2008 had a business model that was just as sustainable (if not more so), and did not make as many bad choices, but those died due to market conditions outside their control. Their millions of jobs vanished, not because they weren't worth saving, but because they were not "too big to fail".

That's the problem with government deciding who gets to win and who gets to lose.
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote