|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 12, 2011 20:06:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 12, 2011 20:35:38 GMT -8
Newsflash!!! Stop the presses!!! President spins facts to make his presidency look better!!!
Like that hasn't happened for 200 years or so...
I would agree with your writer that bankruptcy doesn't necessarily equal liquidation. In this case, however, it most likely did. Or at least the industry thought it did.
One of the biggest supporters of the bailout was Ford -- and they were doing fine. They supported it because they realized that if GM and Chrysler went down, they would go all the way down (liquidation). And they would take most of Ford's suppliers with them.
That's where the million jobs claim comes from. It was a lot more than GM and Chrysler; it was everybody in the supply chain. That is not a concern you have if you think that bankruptcy will result in anything but liquidation.
Yoda out...
.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 12, 2011 22:43:13 GMT -8
That's what Obama would like you to think. There are several things wrong with the spin, however. First of all, bankruptcy would NOT automatically mean liquidation. Well, for Chrysler, perhaps, but that sorry relic of past glories (i.e., the period form about 1935 through the early 50s) should have been left to die a natural death. As it stands, Chrysler is about where American Motors was in the early '80s when they "partnered" with Renault of France.
The Renault products did not sell, and AMC was therefore out of options. Chrysler bought AMC in 1987 in order to get the Jeep division (which AMC had bought from Kaiser in 1970 or 71). The Kenosha AMC plant was demolished but the worthwhile part of AMC, the Jeep, was kept alive. The same would have happened to Jeep had Chrysler been allowed to die rather than getting enough taxpayer money to stay afloat for yet another European company to come along, a company as foolish as was Daimler a few years earlier.
As for GM, Chevy, Cadillac, GMC (and perhaps Buick) were still viable and would have survived under new management. Those divisions would have continued to need parts suppliers. Sure, it would have been wrenching, but better to do that than to put the taxpayer on the hook for billions in bailouts.
I won't even go in detail into the illegal deal cooked up by Obama whereby those with a legal right to be first in line to be paid were screwed in favor of giving billions to the UAW.
There is, by the way, a historical precedent of a car company going through bankruptcy and surviving. Studebaker did it in 1933 and came out stronger than before. The company went on to build cars for another 30 plus years.
The worst part of this whole deal is that GM is going to need billions more in bailouts. The Volt is a dead dog selling in the hundreds each month, and even that is with a hefty taxpayer-funded rebate. GM, as with all companies, is going to have to have a fleet average of well over 30 MPG by 2016. There is no way in hell that GM will have enough money to design and build a fleet of that mileage by then and stay solvent. Obama is going to have to relax the CAFE goals or funnel billions more to GM.
We now have, to be kind, crony capitalism in the U.S. In other words, we are about where Argentina was under Peron. There is no way you can sugar-coat this. . . America is on its way to being run by gangsters. That is, gangsters smart enough to become politicians instead of robbing banks or sending thugs around to extort money from shop owners.
Hope and change. Well, we surely got change.
AzWm
|
|
