CapitalistSwine Posted August 14, 2010 Report Share Posted August 14, 2010 (edited) Oh god, the liberal comments on the digg thread I found this on make me nauseous. Why I am I doubtful it is this simple?? Also, someone posted in the comments: AND the gov't appointed CEO, Ed Whitaker, is stepping down at the end of next month. http://digg.com/d31ZSiH It sounds like GMs recovery has been quite successful. Another quarter like this and they should be able to start paying back the bailout money they borrowed, all $43 billion of it: http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html http://digg.com/business_finance/BAILOUT_SUCCESS_STORY_GM_Posts_1_33_Billion_Profit I am sure the liberals will think this a "great victory that repudiates the economic claims of the right" They scuttled $67B in debt, closed about 1000 dealerships, laid off 30,000 workers, sold Hummer, Saturn, and Saab...and only turned a $1.3B profit ?!?!?! Edited August 14, 2010 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted August 14, 2010 Report Share Posted August 14, 2010 And of course the Bastiat/Hazlitt "unseen" is the countless efficient jobs which were destroyed by the subsidy's deflection and those which will never come about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted August 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2010 The liberals will say many more jobs would have been destroyed if we let them fail. That is one of the main arguments for having bailed them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted August 14, 2010 Report Share Posted August 14, 2010 The liberals will say many more jobs would have been destroyed if we let them fail. That is one of the main arguments for having bailed them out. How did they measure these two amounts to conclude which was more utilitarian? We, on the other hand, can know that subsidies can only take a dollar out of the hand of someone who, by definition, had a better use for it before it was taken away from him, and redirect funds from the efficient to the inefficient. So we can conclude that taxpayers lose at least as much as GM gained via bailout, and no one can measure the jobs not brought into production due to withdrawing the funds from efficient use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th3ranger Posted August 14, 2010 Report Share Posted August 14, 2010 I know it's so stupid. GM sold how much in assets and got rid of how many expenses, and made just 1.3 billion? So next year I assume they will already be in the red again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted August 14, 2010 Report Share Posted August 14, 2010 How's Ford doing? That would be a better comparison to make against GM 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.