i_am_the_swammi Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 usually the burden of proof goes the other way really? even though you are the one preaching that it wasn't worth it? You stated so...all I am asking for is the data to back up your argument. Your hollow argument in prior posts in this thread was the stock price of GM. how many housing construction jobs were lost since, say, 2006? should the government have stepped in to keep those folks employed building houses there was no demand for? Are you really comparing the global impact of having one of our Big 3 automakers go under to the impact of a slowing housing market? any fool should be able to see why that is inefficient in the long run, and thus a bad idea in general. and yet it was conceived and approved of by hundreds of people much smarter than you. BTW, your dancing, but you still didn't (or won't) answer the question. Likely because it was already answered by those I refer to above, and the answer was a landside decision in favor of rescuing GM (again, at that particular time in our economic cycle). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Please stop trying to spin, and re-read my post. Prove that the cost of keeping GM afloat outweighed the cost of letting it die. What do you mean by "letting it die?" Is it your belief that had the government not intervened, GM would have just closed its doors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.