Never Buy a Chrysler Again!

[top gun]

They could easily have found a partner in bankruptcy as it was.

Coulda woulda shoulda... but probably not Rob.

There's nothing easy about the US car industry right now and I think you're pretty aware of that. The great likelihood (as reported nationally numerous times) was if Chrysler went into bankruptcy without a partner and likely came without a partner the option left was selling off assets.

They might have sold Jeep off... or heck they might have just BEEN JEEP!

By this logic we can never let a company go out of business because someone will lose their job.

Well THIRD LARGEST EMPLOYER IN AMERICA isn't just any company... but I have said I'd like to see most large companies not be allowed to grow to "too big to fail status". I think we need a whole new set of anti-trust laws that not only address monopolies but also address the "too big to fail problem". Or at least real regulation with stress tests so we have the transparency to know if a company is going down a bad road.

All anti-monopoly laws do is break up business that have not enough competition. We're in a place now where super mega banks and car companies have competition but still bring America down way too far if they fail.

Who cares if they were the largest employer? Companies fail, and when they do they need to fail, not be propped up with billions of dollars only to result in exactly what they could have had without spending the billions.

I'm pretty sure all the little kids in school and the babies of those families care not to mention Mom & Dad care. All the jobs created around servicing all those families care. Their mortgage company cares. This administration cares... I care.

If the death of capitalism means an enormous victory for the President, then I want no part of it. We could have put them in bankruptcy from the get go and been where we are today minus blown billions.

Well like I said before I don't believe that's the case. We've been through this before ironically with Chrysler. The government bailed them out... over a few years time got all it's money back plus some interest. And Chrysler has been around a long time now since then being America's third largest employer.

Not too shabby in my book. I think we can repeat it. We're Americans we can do anything we put our mind to!

 

[BigRob]

Coulda woulda shoulda... but probably not Rob.

There's nothing easy about the US car industry right now and I think you're pretty aware of that. The great likelihood (as reported nationally numerous times) was if Chrysler went into bankruptcy without a partner and likely came without a partner the option left was selling off assets.

They might have sold Jeep off... or heck they might have just BEEN JEEP!

Well it is up for debate I suppose, however I would bet that they could have found a partner. Even if they did not however, it would have been better long term for the country to take them straight to bankruptcy right away.

Well THIRD LARGEST EMPLOYER IN AMERICA isn't just any company... but I have said I'd like to see most large companies not be allowed to grow to "too big to fail status". I think we need a whole new set of anti-trust laws that not only address monopolies but also address the "too big to fail problem". Or at least real regulation with stress tests so we have the transparency to know if a company is going down a bad road.

There is no such thing as "too big to fail." That is a made up to term to give us all an excuse to bail everyone out. No company is too big to fail, period.

I'm pretty sure all the little kids in school and the babies of those families care not to mention Mom & Dad care. All the jobs created around servicing all those families care. Their mortgage company cares. This administration cares... I care.

I might personally care and feel bad for them, but the government does not need to be handing out billions to ensure everyone has job. Will it have a negative impact on the economy short term? Yes. Long term however, we do not have massive inefficient companies kept alive by the taxpayer. That is better for everyone.

Well like I said before I don't believe that's the case. We've been through this before ironically with Chrysler. The government bailed them out... over a few years time got all it's money back plus some interest. And Chrysler has been around a long time now since then being America's third largest employer.

If it "worked" why are they back screaming for more money? Does this "paid back with interest" count the billions we have just blown on them yet again?

 

[Dr.Who]

Chrysler and the other auto makers are either very lucky or very unlucky.

First the pubs give them preferential treatement with tarrifs on foreign goods and then the dems give them preferential treatment in the form of cash gifts.

Why is it that to some when the pubs help them it is wrong but when the dems help them it is not?

In both scenarios it the government action is not consistent with the ideals of our constitution and capitalistic way of life. In both situations it weakens our economy as a whole and for the long term. In both cases a few are helped at the expense of the many - and no one can argue that the few being helped are those in need of compassion.

The only common denominator is that the politicians benefit by the game.

 

[asur]

The only way that Chrysler can succeed now is if Obama purposely
hurts the competing car companies. He can't influence people
to buy unsafe junk, no matter how much he asks.

I expect him to punish Ford, Nissan, Honda and Toyota somehow.

That would result in more lost "real" jobs in the US.

Note government funded jobs like at Chysler are not "real"

Now for you union workers that work at Chrysler, your jobs got easier.
You can arrive late on Monday, call in sick on Tuesday and leave early on Friday
since you are now gov't employees. Of course maybe you already were on
the gov't schedule, being union workers.

 

[Andy]

The only way that Chrysler can succeed now is if Obama purposely
hurts the competing car companies. He can't influence people
to buy unsafe junk, no matter how much he asks.

I expect him to punish Ford, Nissan, Honda and Toyota somehow.

That would result in more lost "real" jobs in the US.

Note government funded jobs like at Chysler are not "real"

Now for you union workers that work at Chrysler, your jobs got easier.
You can arrive late on Monday, call in sick on Tuesday and leave early on Friday
since you are now gov't employees. Of course maybe you already were on
the gov't schedule, being union workers.

No, there is actually another way Obama can save Chrysler and harm the public. He can offer government rebates and incentives to buy really crappy cartoon cars. Like solar panels where the public gets to pay for other peoples free electricity.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;95245]Well it is up for debate I suppose, however I would bet that they could have found a partner. Even if they did not however, it would have been better long term for the country to take them straight to bankruptcy right away.

Debate is good... and like I've said Chrysler has been teetering for years so I know what you're saying. Still if stringing things out and galvanizing the Fiat move saves Chrysler & all it's American jobs... I'm on board.

There is no such thing as "too big to fail." That is a made up to term to give us all an excuse to bail everyone out. No company is too big to fail, period.

On this we are not in agreement. I understand your point and while technically true I feel it is also a very limited & misdirected truth.

Sure America would not just disappear if any particular company no matter how large failed. But it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT 100% absolutely undeniably also true that a cascading effect from say a major banking melt down which would probably come from multiple failures in other sectors could crash the United States into a Great Depression with 25% unemployment possibly even more.

That's a gamble that doing nothing can create. I predict that by the middle of 2010 doing something will look like a pretty smart thing.

I might personally care and feel bad for them, but the government does not need to be handing out billions to ensure everyone has job. Will it have a negative impact on the economy short term? Yes. Long term however, we do not have massive inefficient companies kept alive by the taxpayer. That is better for everyone.

Well Rob it was you that said... Who cares?

And the government shouldn't be in the business of forever keeping businesses alive with taxpayer money. And that's not the intent here. This is basically a government loan to save jobs no matter how it's structured. The government stake in these companies is the collateral. It will be sold back at some point to the private sector... when the economy turns around and buyers are once again present and looking to invest themselves.

I mean in reality we give corporate welfare all the time by means of corporate tax breaks. Money that has to be made up taxing something or someone else. And we do that in the name of what? Job creation of course.

If it "worked" why are they back screaming for more money? Does this "paid back with interest" count the billions we have just blown on them yet again?

Well let's think about this...

The Chrysler bailout way back in 1979 of which the government got every dime of its money back plus interest kept America's third largest employer employing all those AMERICANS and all the other businesses that revolve around each & every one of those employees (statistics show that every job loss adversely affects 5 other jobs).

So let's see 2009 -1979 = 30 years of the third largest employer American jobs... yep I'm seein' this as a damn good thing.

GO USA!!! We just need to repeat that now. Rolling the dice by inaction when this is the loosing roll... is just not for me.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sure America would not just disappear if any particular company no matter how large failed. But it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT 100% absolutely undeniably also true that a cascading effect from say a major banking melt down which would probably come from multiple failures in other sectors could crash the United States into a Great Depression with 25% unemployment possibly even more.

That's a gamble that doing nothing can create. I predict that by the middle of 2010 doing something will look like a pretty smart thing. [/COLOR]

While I still do not agree that bailouts were needed.

Ask yourself:

How many banks were there before Clinton took office and then ask how many big banks there were after?

 

[top gun]

While I still do not agree that bailouts were needed.

Ask yourself:

How many banks were there before Clinton took office and then ask how many big banks there were after?

What's your point?

The fact is that if you are going to let these mega mergers go through then there needs to be "enhanced" supervision/regulation. Which the mega deregulaters the Republicants fought tooth & nail to dismantle at every turn.

Should the goal not be to detect and act quickly when a bank is coming up on shaky ground and not just go along until it crashes... or threatens to crash?

I personally believe it should.

 

[Dr.Who]

What's your point?

The fact is that if you are going to let these mega mergers go through then there needs to be "enhanced" supervision/regulation. Which the mega deregulaters the Republicants fought tooth & nail to dismantle at every turn.

Should the goal not be to detect and act quickly when a bank is coming up on shaky ground and not just go along until it crashes... or threatens to crash?

I personally believe it should.

The point is that mega mergers were created by design by our government. They wanted a small number of big banks.

If we had had a large number of very small banks like we did before then we would not be talking ever about a company being too big to fail.

 

[top gun]

The point is that mega mergers were created by design by our government. They wanted a small number of big banks.

If we had had a large number of very small banks like we did before then we would not be talking ever about a company being too big to fail.

I don't think I disagree... and I'm sure I agree on the last line.

 

[Andy]

What's your point?

The fact is that if you are going to let these mega mergers go through then there needs to be "enhanced" supervision/regulation. Which the mega deregulaters the Republicants fought tooth & nail to dismantle at every turn.

Should the goal not be to detect and act quickly when a bank is coming up on shaky ground and not just go along until it crashes... or threatens to crash?

I personally believe it should.

Once again, the banks that merged under the changes Clinton signed into law, are doing fine. They were not the cause of the problem. To say otherwise is a lie you can't support.

 

[Jarlaxle]

As far as President Obama his Ford Escape got 26 mpg on the highway and a Chrysler 300 gets 26 also so I guess I'm missin' your point

Err, that's wrong. With the old EPA tests, a Hemi-powered 300C gets 25MPG highway. The new tests drop that to 22 or 23. (I have a mechanically-identical Dodge Magnum.)

The only reason Barack replaced his 300 with a half-baked hybrid was because of the bad PR from him driving a "gas-guzzling" luxury car.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Very simply, Chrysler was pillaged. It was a highly-profitable company (making money hand over fist for 15+ years) when Daimler bought it. They essentially gutted it, let it wither, and dumped what was left to Cerberus.

 

[top gun]

Once again, the banks that merged under the changes Clinton signed into law, are doing fine. They were not the cause of the problem. To say otherwise is a lie you can't support.

This is a thread titled NEVER BUY a CHRYSLER AGAIN.

I do believe in general though that it's very dangerous for our economy to let any company of any kind to be allowed to grow unchecked so big that should it ever fall it would be in a "too big to fail category". Not wanting to completely disallow it though it makes sense to have regulators steadily making sure the company is sound as they go along.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Only good things Chrysler has ever done (aside from the Viper) was importing foreign cars and re-badging them as American. (GM and Ford have also done this a few times).

The "Dodge Colt" was a re-badged Mitsubishi Mirage. Reliable, economical, everything a real Chrysler wasn't. And the turbocharged ones were a ball.

And the Sunbeam Alpine sports cars they imported from Rootes Group in England in the 60s, were the best-handling sports car of the day, though no more reliable than any other British sports car.

Then when other Brit manufacturers started putting larger 4cyl engines (and even 6cyl) in their competing sports cars, Rootes was caught flatfooted. Would have taken them years to design and develop a good engine to match. So they sent a couple of engineers over to the colonies with a notebook and a yardstick, who started going to American car dealers, opening hoods, and measuring engines. They found that only the Ford 260 V8 would fit in the Alpine, sort of, so started buying them from Ford by the thousand. Result was a fireball of a car called the Tiger.

But it put Chrysler in the odd position of selling Ford products through its (Chrysler's) dealer network, supporting them with parts and service, etc. And emissions laws kept tightening, so eventually Rootes quit making them.

Those were the days.

But, buy a Chrysler-designed-and-built car nowadays? What am I, nuts? They'll soon make the Trabie look good.