One of Obama's slogans, or at least a slogan of Obama's surrogates, is that he got rid of America's #1 enemy in Usama, and he saved General Motors. Are either of these true.
Many Seals say that Obama had little to do with ridding the world of Obama, and that Obama exaggerated the story for political purposes Regardless, Usama is is dead and the world is better off without him. For that we'll give Obama credit.
So what about GM? It is true that GM has seen an uptick in sales, as much as 10 percent growth. But this is anemic compared to the growth of Kia at 21 percent and Volkswagen at 37 percent. Plus GMs stock has diminished by nearly 50 percent since the bailout.
So is GM really better off since the bailout? I don't know, but my dad sold Chrysler products for over 30 years, and my grandpa wouldn't buy a GM if his life depended on it. And Chrysler makes the best minivan.
So even though I'd prefer to buy an American made non-bailed out and government funded Ford when the time comes, well, it's probably going to be a Chrysler once again.
Anyway, is GM really any better under Obama? Is America really better? Is Obama really responsible for many Michigan jobs for saving the auto industry? No one knows. Yet a planned bankruptcy would have allowed all three to stay in business too, and that may have been better for everyone because that would have been the capitalist thing to do.
Think about it. For every Obamacare sold (Volt) GM loses $50,000. In the free market, such a car would never be a money loser. Under capitalism firms don't invest in losing causes, such as the the volt. Surely it would be nice to have such a car, but the government should provide incentives to do so, not punish those who do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment