GM = Government Motors

graphicgr8s · 04-30-2010, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

The point is that the demand for cars would not change just because there were fewer companies making them. The same number of cars would have been sold and those cars would have required the same number of parts from sub-vendors, and the same number of man hours to build, and the same amount of equipment to build them with. The argument for not letting them fail is like saying that if Starbucks went bankrupt, people would drink less coffee.

Didn't I say that?

Starbucks coffee sucks.

Parallax · 04-30-2010, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by graphicgr8s

Didn't I say that?

How would I know. I don't read your posts!

graphicgr8s · 04-30-2010, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

How would I know. I don't read your posts!

Now that I believe. First thing you've ever said I believe.

cardinal43 · 04-30-2010, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

How would I know. I don't read your posts!

That makes 2 of you. He abviously doesn't read his posts either.

graphicgr8s · 05-17-2010, 06:38 AM

Well GM made a 1st quarter profit. HOwever:

Quote:

The Detroit automaker said it made money because debt and other expenses were slashed by its stay in bankruptcy court, and because of strong new-model sales. It also generated higher revenue from fast growth in Asia and South America.

Man if I had my debt load slashed I'd be a millionaire!

Of course if the debt wasn't slashed they still wouldn't have made money. They just wouldn't have lost as much.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A new Government for Australia	wizofoz	General Talk	18	09-10-2010 04:31 AM
Big Government	gokenin	General Talk	10	08-13-2010 02:23 PM
Fun at Obama Motors aka GM	Phil1	General Talk	10	02-21-2010 06:13 PM
The Government comes through	KrisK10D	Post Your Photos!	2	07-19-2008 09:54 PM
Camera/Lens Motors - where are they?	R.ticle One	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	03-07-2008 07:15 PM

04-30-2010, 08:54 AM	#496
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by Parallax The point is that the demand for cars would not change just because there were fewer companies making them. The same number of cars would have been sold and those cars would have required the same number of parts from sub-vendors, and the same number of man hours to build, and the same amount of equipment to build them with. The argument for not letting them fail is like saying that if Starbucks went bankrupt, people would drink less coffee. Didn't I say that? Starbucks coffee sucks.

04-30-2010, 08:55 AM	#497
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by graphicgr8s Didn't I say that? How would I know. I don't read your posts!

04-30-2010, 08:57 AM	#498
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by Parallax How would I know. I don't read your posts! Now that I believe. First thing you've ever said I believe.

04-30-2010, 08:08 PM	#499
cardinal43 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,412	Originally posted by Parallax How would I know. I don't read your posts! That makes 2 of you. He abviously doesn't read his posts either.

05-17-2010, 06:38 AM	#500
graphicgr8s Guest	Well GM made a 1st quarter profit. HOwever: Quote: The Detroit automaker said it made money because debt and other expenses were slashed by its stay in bankruptcy court, and because of strong new-model sales. It also generated higher revenue from fast growth in Asia and South America. Man if I had my debt load slashed I'd be a millionaire! Of course if the debt wasn't slashed they still wouldn't have made money. They just wouldn't have lost as much.