Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
Idealogy is great when you don't have to deal with reality.
Suppose the Feds didn't loan GM or Chrysler money.
GM was going to close their doors shortly after new years 2009 if Bush hadn't coughed up money to keep them going. That's reality.
If GM had shutdown permanently (with Chrysler following by year's end), that would have thrown not only those directly working for GM out on the streets. That would have also thrown those companies that supply GM with parts into the same situation. Shutting down plants and sending even more people out on the streets.
Then there's the companies that supply the suppliers with raw materials & machinery that keeps them going. Those companies would shut down, throwing more people on the streets.
Then there's the communities where these companies are and where these people live.
Now.....
You have all these people drawing unemployment. There's also these people whose pensions are guaranteed by the government. Then there's the fact that those unemployed do get state supported medical coverage.
Those are paid for not just by the feds, but also by the state.
Now, you are already in the midst of the biggest recession since the great depression. That means revenue (taxes) have slowed to a trickle. That's both the feds as well as YOUR state and local governments.
Combine that tremendous reduction in revenue (people already not working and businesses already not paying as much taxes because they are making a lot less) and you suddenly throw every person who works directly or indirectly in the automobile industry as well as the communities that depend on them, the people who are paying on homes, and so forth.
Simply doing as you propose would have instantly turned Michagan into a 3rd world country. It would have sent Ohio, and Illinois into bankruptcy. The fallout would have decimated pretty much every state's finances on the entire western United States and would have cascaded across the entire United States.
The cost of letting GM and Chrysler go under (in lost revenue, increased unemployment, pensions, medical spending, grants to states to enable them simply to have money to keep the lights on, as well as undoubtedly some type of relief to the multitude who were about to lose their homes) would wind up in the TRILLIONS or dollars!!
Now, it doesn't take much more than a 1st grade math education to figure out that "TRILLIONS" is a whole lot more than "BILLIONS", and it doesn't take more than a room tempreature IQ to realize that if the US Auto Industry was allowed to fail, it would take the economy of the United States of America with it. And you thinks things have been bad already?!
What the Feds did was hit the issue 110% correctly.
They made damn sure that they got to the root of what the problems were first. They issued a report on it that was made public and posted on this very website that hit the nail on the head. Then they laid out terms that addressed those issues. Chrysler needed product that they didn't have the resources to create and GM was too big, burecratic, and had a culture that put cars almost as an afterthought.
The Feds bankrolled the cash for GM to turn itself around and the UAW coughed up most all the cash Chrysler needed.
Today, you look at GM and compare it to 2008. Ditto Chrysler.
Then you look at the pricetag (keeping in mind that most all the money the feds loaned either has been or will be paid back).
Compare that pricetag with what it would have cost the country in both economic and industrial collaspe.
In the real world, where people have to actually make the hard decisions and actually weigh things out without hiding behind some type of dogma, the right thing was actually to step in and try and save the industry.
Only those people who don't know any better, have never had to weigh financial options, or had to be responsible for anything other than themselves would look at this as "socialism".
So, if you want to stake a position believing that the Feds should never ever step in, that's your right.
However, in this instance, THEY were right.
And not only are you wrong in this, you are taking a view that is insanely irresponsible.
Than god you aren't running the country.
Suppose the Feds didn't loan GM or Chrysler money.
GM was going to close their doors shortly after new years 2009 if Bush hadn't coughed up money to keep them going. That's reality.
If GM had shutdown permanently (with Chrysler following by year's end), that would have thrown not only those directly working for GM out on the streets. That would have also thrown those companies that supply GM with parts into the same situation. Shutting down plants and sending even more people out on the streets.
Then there's the companies that supply the suppliers with raw materials & machinery that keeps them going. Those companies would shut down, throwing more people on the streets.
Then there's the communities where these companies are and where these people live.
Now.....
You have all these people drawing unemployment. There's also these people whose pensions are guaranteed by the government. Then there's the fact that those unemployed do get state supported medical coverage.
Those are paid for not just by the feds, but also by the state.
Now, you are already in the midst of the biggest recession since the great depression. That means revenue (taxes) have slowed to a trickle. That's both the feds as well as YOUR state and local governments.
Combine that tremendous reduction in revenue (people already not working and businesses already not paying as much taxes because they are making a lot less) and you suddenly throw every person who works directly or indirectly in the automobile industry as well as the communities that depend on them, the people who are paying on homes, and so forth.
Simply doing as you propose would have instantly turned Michagan into a 3rd world country. It would have sent Ohio, and Illinois into bankruptcy. The fallout would have decimated pretty much every state's finances on the entire western United States and would have cascaded across the entire United States.
The cost of letting GM and Chrysler go under (in lost revenue, increased unemployment, pensions, medical spending, grants to states to enable them simply to have money to keep the lights on, as well as undoubtedly some type of relief to the multitude who were about to lose their homes) would wind up in the TRILLIONS or dollars!!
Now, it doesn't take much more than a 1st grade math education to figure out that "TRILLIONS" is a whole lot more than "BILLIONS", and it doesn't take more than a room tempreature IQ to realize that if the US Auto Industry was allowed to fail, it would take the economy of the United States of America with it. And you thinks things have been bad already?!
What the Feds did was hit the issue 110% correctly.
They made damn sure that they got to the root of what the problems were first. They issued a report on it that was made public and posted on this very website that hit the nail on the head. Then they laid out terms that addressed those issues. Chrysler needed product that they didn't have the resources to create and GM was too big, burecratic, and had a culture that put cars almost as an afterthought.
The Feds bankrolled the cash for GM to turn itself around and the UAW coughed up most all the cash Chrysler needed.
Today, you look at GM and compare it to 2008. Ditto Chrysler.
Then you look at the pricetag (keeping in mind that most all the money the feds loaned either has been or will be paid back).
Compare that pricetag with what it would have cost the country in both economic and industrial collaspe.
In the real world, where people have to actually make the hard decisions and actually weigh things out without hiding behind some type of dogma, the right thing was actually to step in and try and save the industry.
Only those people who don't know any better, have never had to weigh financial options, or had to be responsible for anything other than themselves would look at this as "socialism".
So, if you want to stake a position believing that the Feds should never ever step in, that's your right.
However, in this instance, THEY were right.
And not only are you wrong in this, you are taking a view that is insanely irresponsible.
Than god you aren't running the country.
The rest of your post is simply your opinion, nothing more. To say you know with certainty that all of GM's vendors would go under if GM did collapse is your opinion of one of many possibilities. Ford, Nissan, or a combination of others might step in and buy parts of GM they are interested in. Probably at fire sale prices, but my guess would be suitors would be bidding against each other. Or they may not. The Governments role should not be to keep any company going. I thought about this a lot. The liberals screamed, conservatives say entitlements are the problem, but yet the Government should step in on the side of the Corporations. With the exception that this is not conservative for Government to step in at all, they were right.
GM, and Chrysler's collapse or success should be the result and consequences of how GM and Chrysler got to this point. This today, is the best scenario, and it is socialism, that could have taken place and I regret it. Suppose today GM and Chrysler both collapsed? Would your opinion be different? Just curious.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
If the government hadn't stepped in and they waited for some savior to come along to "save" GM and Chrysler; their so-called "saviors" most likely would have kept the branding and technology; liquidated all the other assets and moved manufacturing overseas.
Please explain how that would have helped the North American economy?
Please explain how that would have helped the North American economy?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
If the government hadn't stepped in and they waited for some savior to come along to "save" GM and Chrysler; their so-called "saviors" most likely would have kept the branding and technology; liquidated all the other assets and moved manufacturing overseas.
Please explain how that would have helped the North American economy?
Please explain how that would have helped the North American economy?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
Hey ya, thats a good idea 
nothing like giving out some more keys to the country (as if China doesn't have enough crap to muscle the US with already).
People bitch about foreign oil being a security risk, but letting anybody with the money in to pick over whatever industry they want apart just because they can is a risk as well.
Its been well discussed here how intertwined a company like GM is to our economy, imagine China getting ahold of it. All those jobs and connected industries become a power bargining chip for them when it comes to whatever US policy they dont agree with on top of the power they already have.
nothing like giving out some more keys to the country (as if China doesn't have enough crap to muscle the US with already). People bitch about foreign oil being a security risk, but letting anybody with the money in to pick over whatever industry they want apart just because they can is a risk as well.
Its been well discussed here how intertwined a company like GM is to our economy, imagine China getting ahold of it. All those jobs and connected industries become a power bargining chip for them when it comes to whatever US policy they dont agree with on top of the power they already have.
I honestly think if someone did buy GM it would be running just like it is now. The only problem I see is the government covering the pensions. The only thing the gov provided GM was money and a way around bankruptcy laws. The gov didnt run GM or make decisions for them on how to run the company, but after hearing the new CEO talk maybe they are changing their tune.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
You guys need to look at the history of this country. Look how many car companies have come and gone over the last 100 years. Did the gov bail them out? Hell no and we all survived.
A big problem in todays America is noone is allowed to fail. If you do we have a government program to bail you out. It doesnt matter if you are a homeowner who is in to deep or just wont take responsibility of your own debts, or a huge bank who made bad loans, or a huge auto company that is overbloated, we the mommy gov will take care of you. And now look at our gov, they cant even take care of themselves, yet the people of this country keep demanding from the gov. A gov that is out of money and broke.
A big problem in todays America is noone is allowed to fail. If you do we have a government program to bail you out. It doesnt matter if you are a homeowner who is in to deep or just wont take responsibility of your own debts, or a huge bank who made bad loans, or a huge auto company that is overbloated, we the mommy gov will take care of you. And now look at our gov, they cant even take care of themselves, yet the people of this country keep demanding from the gov. A gov that is out of money and broke.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
If the government hadn't stepped in and they waited for some savior to come along to "save" GM and Chrysler; their so-called "saviors" most likely would have kept the branding and technology; liquidated all the other assets and moved manufacturing overseas.
Please explain how that would have helped the North American economy?
Please explain how that would have helped the North American economy?
Government should not be steping in with business. Worse than that they should not be buying stock or have ownership in business.
- That puts the Government in the position of both the Government who makes the rules, regulations, and tax guidelines of one or more of the businesses that has to abide by the rules. That is like playing a sport against a team that is both the opposing team and the referee.
- In addition it has Government investing, subsidizing, and risking tax dollars with business. A position Government should not be in.
That is Socialism again by definition. At least be honest about it. Some of you seem uncomfortably comfortable with the Government stepping into business as owners well past regulation such as buying stock and interfering e.g. firing CEO Rick Wagoner, and reducing the amount of divisions GM has. While I agree GM probably benefits from reducing divisions, I believe it should be their choice.
This was a deal with the devil I hope never happens again...
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
SAAB is ripe for a make over, if not for Cerberus-Chrysler level miss management it would aleady be profitable. Hummer could easily have lived on making high priced, low volume niched life, like Land Rover. Saturn could easily be pofitable for any Chinese marque looking to break into the US. Heck if Penske could have found a long term partner it would still be around.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,688
From: Middle of Kansas
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
A big problem in todays America is noone is allowed to fail. If you do we have a government program to bail you out. It doesnt matter if you are a homeowner who is in to deep or just wont take responsibility of your own debts, or a huge bank who made bad loans, or a huge auto company that is overbloated, we the mommy gov will take care of you. And now look at our gov, they cant even take care of themselves, yet the people of this country keep demanding from the gov. A gov that is out of money and broke.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
Reality?
Before you start confusing wishful thinking with reality and worse case scenarios with facts, let be bring up a few points.
1) General Motors was was hopelessly in debt to it's creditors. Let me bring up this tidbit once again: The General Motors Corperation was going to shut it's doors after January 1st 2009 if Bush hadn't given it money (an actual bailout versus the LOAN the got from the Treasury when the next administration came in. Once GM shut it's doors, it would be those who were owed money who would get paid first. Then if anything was left, only then would investors get anything. And it would have been less than what the feds offered.
2) The country was well in the depths of a recession by mid 2009. There wasn't a company in Europe or this hemisphere that was intrested in buying ANY automobile company, let alone one with the debtload of GM.
3) The only companies on the face of the planet that were intrested in purchasing failed American car corperations were in India and China. Both companies far more than willing to not only gain a foothold in the American car market (which is stagnant in total volume, and has been for years), but to leapfrog into building better cars for their market as well as gaining the technologies both companies had.
So, if..... and that's an almost imaginable IF.... anyone at all bought some part of GM or Chrysler....
a. It would be the Chinese or Indians.... the exact same people who actually bought car company parts, ie: Saab, Volvo, Jaguar, and almost Hummer... or the Russians who almost bought Opel (AKA: General Motors Europe).
b. There would be harping and whining that those "evil Chinese" now own American technology, are running what used to be American companies.
" The new 'American' Chevrolet Camaro..... made by a company from China"
Worse case?
Hardly.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
Hey ya, thats a good idea nothing like giving out some more keys to the country (as if China doesn't have enough crap to muscle the US with already).
People bitch about foreign oil being a security risk, but letting anybody with the money in to pick over whatever industry they want apart just because they can is a risk as well.
Its been well discussed here how intertwined a company like GM is to our economy, imagine China getting ahold of it. All those jobs and connected industries become a power bargining chip for them when it comes to whatever US policy they dont agree with on top of the power they already have.
nothing like giving out some more keys to the country (as if China doesn't have enough crap to muscle the US with already). People bitch about foreign oil being a security risk, but letting anybody with the money in to pick over whatever industry they want apart just because they can is a risk as well.
Its been well discussed here how intertwined a company like GM is to our economy, imagine China getting ahold of it. All those jobs and connected industries become a power bargining chip for them when it comes to whatever US policy they dont agree with on top of the power they already have.
There are people who simply don't, or perhaps can not grasp the idea that the alternative to loaning General Motors money and getting the UAW to finance Chrysler for their emergence from bankruptcy, the potential results were horrible looking at it back then, but is catastrophic when you can now look back and see how bad things were, how close we all came to a total economic collaspe, and how saving the US auto industry was the one right thing that the government did... and did perfectly in retrospect.
People who have selective memory forget that it took a Republican president (and I give Bush high praise for this) to be the one person to act like a grownup instead of an assinine idealogue, finally and see the cliff the we'd all be going over if nothing was done.
People also forget that Obama, much like the Representatives Shelby and Corker (who happened to be Republican) was ready to let them fail. The demands that were placed all but decimated the UAW (no strike clauses, big wage cuts, less benefits, less pension) with a "take it or else" stance. They forced out the heads of both companies as well as most all of the board of directors (which would have happened in any other company long ago).
Bond holders were given another "Take it or leave it" offer that was more than what they would have gotten if GM slid into bankruptcy. Sure, stockholders lost out, but when you look at the actual value of their stocks, it was in negative numbers because the market value of GM was well into negative numbers.
But what still is telling on how silly, how polarized, how far we have gone from being able to think things out and reason for ourselves (and why China is going to own us in a few years) is that people.....on a CAR ENTHUSIAST SITE of all places(!).... would rather see literally millions of people out of work, state finances collapse, the federal government fall into insolventcy (dramatically less taxes paid as the industry and it's workers and those that depend on it become unemployed, but dramatically more money being paid out to states and individuals and pension and medical funds), and China scoop up the pieces (with labor cheaper in China, where do you think most of any saved jobs would have gone?), all for what?.......
.... an idelogical point????!
..... and those same people will still bitch and moan that the Chinese are taking over everything and we should throw up tarriffs.
It's hard to accept, but that's how bad we all as a nation have become. We're giving everything in this country away because we're too dumb to know better!!!
That's why I'm typing this on a Sony computer, my Toshiba TV is on in the background, I'm sitting on my couch that was made in Korea eating my dinner between strokes on a plate and wearing clothes that came from whatever department store.... and none of it was made here in the US.
I'll be damn if I'll support sending the American car companies overseas too.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
Its interesting that you throw out "don't know any better" when refering to this as Socialism. The Government bought shares in GM. That by definition is Socialism. Talk about dont know any better... By the way it is obvious this thread is about the "dogma" or "ideology" that you are trying to endorse as the correct action by those who "have to deal with reality."
The rest of your post is simply your opinion, nothing more. To say you know with certainty that all of GM's vendors would go under if GM did collapse is your opinion of one of many possibilities. Ford, Nissan, or a combination of others might step in and buy parts of GM they are interested in. Probably at fire sale prices, but my guess would be suitors would be bidding against each other. Or they may not. The Governments role should not be to keep any company going. I thought about this a lot. The liberals screamed, conservatives say entitlements are the problem, but yet the Government should step in on the side of the Corporations. With the exception that this is not conservative for Government to step in at all, they were right.
GM, and Chrysler's collapse or success should be the result and consequences of how GM and Chrysler got to this point. This today, is the best scenario, and it is socialism, that could have taken place and I regret it. Suppose today GM and Chrysler both collapsed? Would your opinion be different? Just curious.
The rest of your post is simply your opinion, nothing more. To say you know with certainty that all of GM's vendors would go under if GM did collapse is your opinion of one of many possibilities. Ford, Nissan, or a combination of others might step in and buy parts of GM they are interested in. Probably at fire sale prices, but my guess would be suitors would be bidding against each other. Or they may not. The Governments role should not be to keep any company going. I thought about this a lot. The liberals screamed, conservatives say entitlements are the problem, but yet the Government should step in on the side of the Corporations. With the exception that this is not conservative for Government to step in at all, they were right.
GM, and Chrysler's collapse or success should be the result and consequences of how GM and Chrysler got to this point. This today, is the best scenario, and it is socialism, that could have taken place and I regret it. Suppose today GM and Chrysler both collapsed? Would your opinion be different? Just curious.
You have posted here before about the free market system but you also have posted views that indicate you believe government is always bad, and that companies are best run without government intervention.
Yet, GM ran itself into oblivion (in the end, something like $80 billion in assets and $180 billion in debt if I remember), but now with Fed loans and terms, GM is turning the best profits it has had in decades. Chrysler has paid back it's loans, and in the end, the Feds saved hundreds of billions if not trillions of yours, your kids, and you grand kids money.
As far as what my opinion on "IF GM and Chrysler had collapsed, that's a really ridiculous question on 2 fronts:
First, That's like saying "What if GM and Chrysler wouldn't have collasped back then???... They wouldn't have needed government help!!" Sounds pretty pathetic, doesn't it? The point is they fell on their own. The point is the feds helped them get back up.
Second, the way things were structured, it would have taken an economic depression for them to have collapsed. Both car companies were forced to become profitable at far lower volume... lower than they were operating at during the worse part of the recession. Labor costs were forced to fall in line with what non-union import companies were paying by value. GM was forced to close or sell brands that weren't profitable. At GM they installed a CEO that has a track record with turning around companies, destroying corperate bureacracies, and making money. At Chrysler, they offered larger shares of the company for hitting sales, product, and (just as important) repayment milestones.
In both cases, it was almost impossible for them NOT to turn around.
As for the other items you mention:
1. Socialism is the centralized goverence in which all members are treated equally. What you mean is "Lemon Socialism", named so because a "Lemon" of a company is nationalized and controled by the government. That obviously didn't happen with GM, but lets not let something as trivial as the truth get in the way of a catchy cliche, right?
2. To take what I said about the vendors as opinion and nothing more is beyond silliness. I know it's far easier to rewrite history without even looking in a rearview mirror, but any notion that GM wasn't going to fail is downright alarming. Go back and review what was happening back there and come back here with specific points.
Key areas:
a) GM's cash reserves,
b) GM running out of money to pay creditors,
c) What would happen if GM failed to pay creditors,
d) Did creditors have the power to shut GM down and sell off it's assets in order to recover money owed.
e) We're they positioning themselves to do just that if the deal with the Feds fell apart.
As far as your ideology, I've said enough and made my point on how that Liberal/Conservative crap is pure hogwash in this instance because we were talking about a looming economic conflagaration that George W. Bush (not some liberal, mind you) saw coming, and worried enough to get $17.4 billion to them through the back door when the "Democratic" and so-called "Liberal" congress (how quick we forget) didn't pass a bill to help the auto industry.
I suspect Wikipedia might be seen as some vast liberal conspiracy, since it doesn't back your view, but it's easier for me to access than what I wrote on the subject, and it's written in easy to read form. Plus they have plenty of references at the bottom
Here's a couple of areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_bankruptcy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._Auto_Industry
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
In your make beleive scenerio that of course would be bad for America. I am guessing they would not move any manufacturing unless the factory was a money looser. Why have Honda, Toyota, Nissan Subaru, and BMW not closed down all their factories here and moved them whete labor is cheap?
2. We buy the largest quanity of their cars, trucks, and crossovers.
3. BMW doesn't build in 3rd world countries.
None of the car companies you mention are based in home countries where labor is cheaper than it is here.
That is not true with China.
Also, China has a car market that is significantly bigger than the US market, with the potential of being twice the size of the US market in 5 to 8 years.....
.... that means it would be more economical for them to make in China and export to the US.
China owns most of our debt via bonds, securities.
So what was your point supposed to be anyway?
You guys need to look at the history of this country. Look how many car companies have come and gone over the last 100 years. Did the gov bail them out? Hell no and we all survived.
A big problem in todays America is noone is allowed to fail. If you do we have a government program to bail you out. It doesnt matter if you are a homeowner who is in to deep or just wont take responsibility of your own debts, or a huge bank who made bad loans, or a huge auto company that is overbloated, we the mommy gov will take care of you. And now look at our gov, they cant even take care of themselves, yet the people of this country keep demanding from the gov. A gov that is out of money and broke.
A big problem in todays America is noone is allowed to fail. If you do we have a government program to bail you out. It doesnt matter if you are a homeowner who is in to deep or just wont take responsibility of your own debts, or a huge bank who made bad loans, or a huge auto company that is overbloated, we the mommy gov will take care of you. And now look at our gov, they cant even take care of themselves, yet the people of this country keep demanding from the gov. A gov that is out of money and broke.
Back then, about 95% or more of all cars bought in the United States were made in the United States. The US was also THE world's biggest industrial power
One US car company dying meant buyers simply went to another US company.
Today, US car makers own less than 50% of the automobile market.
If GM and Chrysler collaspsed, it would haved dropped to no more than 20% and that's if Ford increased from it's 15%. But with GM and Chrysler wiping out most US based OEM suppliers, Ford would have no doubt had to either shut down temporarily to find new parts, or would have seen production drop dramatically due to lack of a similar sized parts supply line.
By the way, the US is no longer an industrial super power. Korea makes more steel, and China outstrips us.
As far as the government taking care of you, sure.
But if you really want to go back to the good old days, then be advised: In the 1950s the top tax rate was well over 60% and the corperate tax was a whole lot higher than it is today.
In constant dollars, the government took in less last year than at any time since the 1950s.
Feel free to look it up.
Last edited by guionM; Jun 12, 2011 at 12:37 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
SAAB is ripe for a make over, if not for Cerberus-Chrysler level miss management it would aleady be profitable. Hummer could easily have lived on making high priced, low volume niched life, like Land Rover. Saturn could easily be pofitable for any Chinese marque looking to break into the US. Heck if Penske could have found a long term partner it would still be around.
BTW... Cerberus-Chrysler didn't manage Saab. It was GM.
Ok...too many posts here. I'm moving on.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Re: Fiat now owns Chrysler....still no Fiat sign seen on Chrysler headquarters.
As far as what my opinion on "IF GM and Chrysler had collapsed, that's a really ridiculous question on 2 fronts:
First, That's like saying "What if GM and Chrysler wouldn't have collapsed back then???... They wouldn't have needed government help!!" Sounds pretty pathetic, doesn't it? The point is they fell on their own. The point is the feds helped them get back up.
I assume you are saying GM had to succeed, and since I am saying Government intervention is bad then without Government intervention that would mean it had to have survived back then on its own. That may not be what you meant, but that is the only thing I can decipher from this statement.
And no, it is not like what I was asking at all. I reject your premis GM had to succeed. For that matter since you are naming specific politicians, I reject George Bush's premiss that any company is "too big to fail"
What I was trying to ask is
Would your opinion be the same if the Government bought GM stock and lent GM the money, and GM failed anyway?
any notion that GM wasn't going to fail is downright alarming. Go back and review what was happening back there and come back here with specific points.
Key areas:
a) GM's cash reserves,
b) GM running out of money to pay creditors,
c) What would happen if GM failed to pay creditors,
d) Did creditors have the power to shut GM down and sell off it's assets in order to recover money owed.
e) We're they positioning themselves to do just that if the deal with the Feds fell apart.
As far as your ideology, I've said enough and made my point on how that Liberal/Conservative crap is pure hogwash in this instance because we were talking about a looming economic conflagaration that George W. Bush (not some liberal, mind you) saw coming, and worried enough to get $17.4 billion to them through the back door when the "Democratic" and so-called "Liberal" congress (how quick we forget) didn't pass a bill to help the auto industry.
Yes you mentioned Obama and Bush several times and Liberal Congress throughout this thread several times through out this thread, and you are the ONLY one! I can only assume this is because you have the notion Bush is a Conservative who did something that was not conservative at all but Socialist therefore Bush who you deem a conservative in your mind whom only you mentioned doing something very socialist, making conservatism hogwash. Unfortunately you can not separate people or political parties. Why you can not do this escapes me...
A Christian doing something un Christian like does not make Christianity hogwash.
I suspect Wikipedia might be seen as some vast liberal conspiracy, since it doesn't back your view, but it's easier for me to access than what I wrote on the subject, and it's written in easy to read form. Plus they have plenty of references at the bottom
Here's a couple of areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_bankruptcy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._Auto_Industry
Here's a couple of areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_bankruptcy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._Auto_Industry
Since we are using Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system
To borrow from your Wikipedia references
Originally Posted by wikipedia General_Motors_bankruptcy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_bankruptcy
New GM (after July 10, 2009)
Vauxhall Motors
Chevrolet
Cadillac
GM Daewoo (70.1%)
GMC
Holden
Buick
Opel
US Dealerships 5,000
Ownership The United States Treasury, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, Government of Ontario, Old GM bondholders, and UAW and CAW unions
New GM (after July 10, 2009)
Vauxhall Motors
Chevrolet
Cadillac
GM Daewoo (70.1%)
GMC
Holden
Buick
Opel
US Dealerships 5,000
Ownership The United States Treasury, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, Government of Ontario, Old GM bondholders, and UAW and CAW unions
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; Jun 12, 2011 at 04:05 AM.