Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
hmmmm, I think you PURPOSELY almost completely missed my point.
|
It's not so much that I missed your point, but rather your point is beside the point.
The point is that the federal government is about to redirect land, labor, machinery and equipment towards the big three automakers and away from some other unseen, unspecified use. It is an undeniable fact that so long as Person A works for GM than he does not work
somewhere else. Hence, one cannot argue that the Federal Government does not thwart
something else when it goes to great length to keep Person A employed by GM. To say that we must keep these automakers making autos is to say that the labor and capital (real capital, not fiat dollars) should not be put to use doing something else. Hence, the folly in the argument of proponents of such bailouts is they do not and will not adequately count the costs, because the costs are unseen opportunity costs.
And...as for negative returns on t-bills, etc., etc.....yeah, I get this. At precisely a time when fed is trying to push cash through a system despite the fact that a lot of people aren't borrowing and a lot people aren't lending, there's a huge build up of cash looking for a place to go. The negative returns on t-bills are just the next fed reserve created bubble (when this one pops, it's gonna be real ugly).
So....saying that it causes no harm to anyone else for the government to nationalize the auto industry, and pointing to negative returns on t-bills as evidence of this, is a bit like saying it would cause a person no harm to take up a meth habit since he's already fucked from years of crack cocaine abuse anyway. There would be a grain of truth to this statement but it's not that I missed your point, it's just that I don't care.