tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post6887032484658719092..comments2024-03-03T04:40:39.492-05:00Comments on Fire Megan McArdle: Actuallybradhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06907349163323395529noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-87563697774086149012009-08-20T21:40:09.117-04:002009-08-20T21:40:09.117-04:00Another historical claim that's wrong, wrong, ...Another historical claim that's wrong, wrong, wrong:<br /><br /><i>"What's good for General Motors is good for America" was a Great Society slogan, not a libertarian, or even a conservative one.</i><br /><br />From Wikipedia: <br /><i>In 1953, Charles Erwin Wilson, then GM president, was named by Eisenhower as Secretary of Defense. When he was asked during the hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa". Later this statement was often misquoted, suggesting that Wilson had said simply, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."</i><br /><br />Hardly a "Great Society slogan." Sounds much more libertarian/conservative to me, slogan or whatever.<br /> <br />When will the "But I wasn't born then!" explanation be brought out?M. Bouffanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04519088858760760560noreply@blogger.com