Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let the automakers go bankrupt?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Let the automakers go bankrupt?

    With expectations of a Chrysler bankruptcy by the end of the month, and GM being pressed to come up with a plan to salvage itself, do you think that these two automakers ought to be allowed to go bankrupt? Do you think allowing them to go bankrupt would a good or a bad thing for the automakers and the economy in the long-run?
    75
    Yes, let both to go bankrupt
    70.67%
    53
    No, let neither to go bankrupt
    21.33%
    16
    Allow GM to go bankrupt
    1.33%
    1
    Allow Chrysler to go bankrupt
    6.67%
    5
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    Hmmmm a double edged sword here , go B/R = skills lost, jobs lost, more on welfare ,if the management is at fault then get rid of them , BUT, its due to the economic downturn worldwide , due to the greedy world management , no,one is buying now and tightening belts , so its B/R ,,no,one has the right to be propped up by public money , and that includes the Banks . Bad management does not deserve reward .But its always the small guy who suffers , lose job = lose home , family in ruins , jeez warra mess the planet is becoming.
    Last edited by tankie; 28 Apr 09,, 09:51.

    Comment


    • #3
      If Chrysler and GM go bust, the world will still need cars. Some company(s) will have to pick up the short fall. Motor industries are not and should not be a protected species; the rest of the world of business works by the law of the jungle, "survival of the fittest." Why should 1 manufacturer be exempt? Yes, they employ many thousands of workers, but so does small business. Do you bail them out too?

      Maybe it's time for a new world order in the car industry? I can hear the gasps now as some of you suck in the curtains. How did these auto makers get into this pickle? Part of it is the utter contempt the CEO's have for everyone but themselves. When the CEO's of the big three went to Washington, cap in hand for a bail out, each CEO flew in his dedicated corporate jet at an estimated cost of $30,000 each. Then they proceeded to tell the Govt that "business and PRIVATE use of the corporate jets was a NON NEGOTIABLE benefit". Well, I've news for them, obviously they had no idea there was a drama with the worlds economy.

      Being an Australian, does my vote count? Well, I think it should. Why? well the Pontiac GTO, that great American muscle car; well, it comes from the land of OZ. Holden (the arm of GM here) stopped production of the Manaro so they could make the GTO, the same car, just re badged with the steering wheel on the wrong side. They exported it so they could get better tax breaks here. Same deal with the Ford Capri some years ago. It to was made in OZ, but it was a heap of crap.

      The Australian car industry is heavily protected by import tariffs. An example is the Dodge Nitro, sells in the US for $22,985, here the base model, with the poverty pack starts at $38.990, that's a difference of $16,000. You do the math.

      Maybe it's time for a change. Yes, there will be a huge loss of employment but I believe we have not seen the last of the hardship in the economy. The job losses of the motor industry may only be a drop in a bucket when we finally emerge from this economic drama.

      One thing you may like to keep in mind. All the major economic recessions/depression had it's origin in Wall Street and the rest of the world gets sucked into the vortex of recession and depression.

      The US economy sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold. Maybe it's time to relocate the worlds economic center to Shanghai. They're warming up on the interchange bench as you read this.

      Freddie
      Never hold your farts in, they run up your spine, and that's where shity ideas come from.
      vēnī, vīdī, velcro - I came, I saw I stuck around.

      Comment


      • #4
        a view from Europe

        as the overall cause of this malaise was neither GM's or Chrysler's doing I feel that it important to assist them to survive as in the long run it would bring positive elements to the US and world economies. One can argue for ever over their mistakes in model policies etc but one should now look forward. Part of the responsibility has to be also held by the great American public who prefer huge environmentally unfriendly cars as as the 'customer is always right', the big three, followed by the Japanese on their coattails, obliged. GM has had a pathetic brand management history...creating Saturn, ditching Oldsmobile, buying Hummer, buying Daewoo and rebranding their cars Chevrolet in most markets (for most people a Chevrolet is not a dinky Korean car, but a decent sized US car, with the Corvette as a halo vehicle), investing in Isuzu, Suzuki, (for what? could they not just have sourced vehicles from them like Fiat does the Suzuki SX4 and badge it as a Fiat...at least here some of the engines come from Fiat) maintaining three other brands abroad - Holden in Australia, Vauxhall in the UK and Opel in Europe and some other overseas markets...in a global world, people expect global brands and not small parochial ones, regardless of the success of Holden and Vauxhall in their home markets...this raises overall cost and the 'badge engineering' which goes along with it does not help build brand image and loyalty. Oh, and then then buys Saab and totally misses the point of its own brand values...the litany of missteps is prodigious.

        Chrysler's woes are fewer but Daimler mismanaged it to the point of rendering the company without a solid foundation...basing the 300C on an old E-Class platform was OK, but forcing the Sebring to be built on a stretched Mitsubishi Lancer platform when Ford was using good old Volvo underpinnings made Chrysler look rather week kneed, soulless and gutless...Jeeps are OK, but they diluted the brand too much...e.g. who needs the Pilot? And the Dodge Caliber...is it supposed to be sporty? well, if yes, is it? no...its more of a crossover truck. Dodge should become a mainstream brand with sporty overtones (and now that Pontiac is out of the way it should have more potential to grow..keep the Viper!!!!) and Chrysler can grow into a semi premium brand challenging Buick and Cadillac if not Infiniti and Lexus as well.

        Fiat can be of more help than people think...they have great small/mid-size platform technology as well as fantastic engine technology which can be had by Chrysler practically off the shelf.

        Overall, saving them is a much better solution for America, its workers and technical knowhow being generated at home.

        Philip
        Switzerland

        Comment


        • #5
          The only reason I would be opposed to letting these companies go bankrupt is national security. The USA needs to preserve domestic heavy manufacturing capability in case it is needed for war production.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by NapalmHeart View Post
            The only reason I would be opposed to letting these companies go bankrupt is national security. The USA needs to preserve domestic heavy manufacturing capability in case it is needed for war production.
            We produce so much more as a nation than we did during WW2, it's not even funny. Losing the Big Three still leaves us far ahead (and when they go bankrupt, some form of consolidation will occur, and so it's only a partial loss of their capacity). This is a fallacious argument.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #7
              Considering that the US Government paid to bail-out the Banking industry and the Banks used the money to buy different Banks in trouble and then raised the interest rate on consumer credit cards they gained one has to wonder what exactly congress will do about this situation. The real question is, will bankruptcy cause these companies to fold like a house of cards with the loss of jobs or will they continue to operate and now be more profitable without the spector of pensions and benefits owed over their heads?

              Comment


              • #8
                Bankruptcy is a dreaded word associated with lost jibs, unemployment and generally it hits the average guy who is at it is low paid.

                Just pumping in money into these sick industries is just going to prolong the pain, because overnight they are not going to become world beaters in terms of technologies or productivity. Let them go bankrupt and then let a smaller and meaner comapny arise out of the shambles.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NapalmHeart View Post
                  The only reason I would be opposed to letting these companies go bankrupt is national security. The USA needs to preserve domestic heavy manufacturing capability in case it is needed for war production.
                  If we look at who makes heavy weapons in the US, GM makes 40% of the worlds armored vehicles. Westinghouse, GE and Email also make a large number of weapons. I'm sure if GM were to fall over the void of Armour manufacturers would soon be filled by specialist manufacturers using the old GM factories and re employing former GM workers. All it would do is clear the decks and start all over again, but this time be more streamline with a leaner and more efficient workforce. Just because the big 3 have been there for decades, doesn't mean they will be there for ever. Times change and we all have to be prepared to change with them.

                  Freddie
                  Never hold your farts in, they run up your spine, and that's where shity ideas come from.
                  vēnī, vīdī, velcro - I came, I saw I stuck around.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For GM a controlled chapter 11. For Chrysler I favor a semi-controlled Chapter 7 with Nissan-Renault picking up the IP. The Dodge brand get successful and American ready B, C, and D-class platforms, the NV2500 van to replace the weak selling and underpowered sprinter, and Nissan gets the Ram platform for the next Titan and Jeep platforms/help for the next Xterra and Pathfinder as well as the Caravan platform for the qwest. The current plan to hook up with Fiat might have the least chance of success of any plan I've ever seen. Chrysler has no money to develop new vehicles, has only a C (EPA compact) class sedan with the rest being hatches (hatches do not sell at all in North America) and a weird minivan type thing instead of a midsize car and to top that off, all if it is designed for European ECE regulations and even close to being certified with FMVSS regulations which will require completely redesigning the front and rear end.
                    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Going bankrupt doesn't mean they go away. It means even more restructuring. So I vote to let them declare bankruptcy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Johnny W View Post
                        Going bankrupt doesn't mean they go away. It means even more restructuring. So I vote to let them declare bankruptcy.
                        There's two kinds of corporate bankruptcy.
                        Chapter 7 Corporate liquidation.
                        Chapter 11 Corporate restructuring
                        F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bad decisional along the way

                          Originally posted by Johnny W View Post
                          Going bankrupt doesn't mean they go away. It means even more restructuring. So I vote to let them declare bankruptcy.
                          Yes, correct. And, I concur.

                          As of this morning, GM said it would like to trade stock to be owned by the US Government in exchange for some financial relief.

                          Under yesterday's announced restructure plans, GM will split off and sell SAAB and Hummer, plus delete some 2,500-plus dealerships in the U.S. Line of Pontiac and maybe Buick will be discontinued.

                          Many of the GM product lines, especially Buick, have for decades relied on Block Sales - to rental car companies, US government and other agencies, for sales on vehicles that otherwise were not profitable.

                          All the US manufacturers defers opportunity to replace gasoline engines with either hybrids but in particular electric engines, after the 1970s Arab oil embargo. Long series of 'short-term' profitability decisions, often driven by stock prices and bonuses over the years, were sufficient justification to defer the hard decisions to convert the GM (and Ford, Chrysler) lien to Electric cars or invest initially in the R&D needed to get adequate electric batteries (the major problem in the early years of the mid-70s).

                          Their leaderships decisions were abominations for the long-term success of the companies, it just took an event like the recent Wall Street collapse to push them over. How fragile they had become!

                          CH. 11 means restructuring under Court and judge supervision; however, it also means Bond holders will loose out significantly - maybe 10-cents on the dollar if the US Government takes over GM;

                          Chrysler is privately owned by an investment group, different from GM, Ford, IIRC. Would have a bigger and broader impact, even if a smaller company.

                          Interesting that Chrysler just rolled out the prototype of a new small Electric powered car - small, inner city vehicle for 35-mph roads only (no freeway speeds) - that looks like it would be a great hit, with a $16K price tag. It could end up as being a help but could end up being a lost opportunity!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by geminif4u View Post
                            Yes, correct. And, I concur.

                            As of this morning, GM said it would like to trade stock to be owned by the US Government in exchange for some financial relief.
                            Oh great does this mean we can look forward to the 2010 GM Pelosi?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BadKharma View Post
                              Oh great does this mean we can look forward to the 2010 GM Pelosi?
                              No, don't think there will be a new 2010 model - they can't design them that fast....

                              and, should be not name it after Michigan's governor instead (aka Detroit) ?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X