Chrysler to file bankruptcy

[ragtopdodge]

Fix It Again Tony, it Drips Oil and Drops Grease Everywhere   

I agree, the worst part is the US Gov't being involved in ANOTHER industry.  I always thought they'd creep socialism into the mix slowly but in the first 100 days of the Obamantion looks like we are jumping in with both feet.  First, gov't owned banks, now gov't owned auto companies, Up next - UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! Can you say Swine Flu Epidemic?   We all know the only people that can save us from this dreaded disease are the mighty members of Congress and the Annointed One Himself! 

In my best Princess Leia voice "Help Me Barack Obama, You're my only hope!"

I'll take universal healthcare over dying in the streets if you lose your job.  That's the case now.

I take it you don't read your history, but Herbert Hoover stood back and did nothing and the soup line wrapped around the blocks w/the banks going belly up and people losing their life savings.

W/o the gov't backing us up, then what's the use of Gov't?  Just to build fighter planes and bombs?

[priderocks]

The fear of huge job losses should one (or all) of the Big Three go under doesn't stand up to economic facts. Here's why. Let's say you need a new vehicle. You go down to your Chrysler dealer and find they are out of business. So, do you NOT buy a new vehicle? No, you go to another manufacturer, Nissan, Ford, whoever. So do the other hundred thousand guys who were going to pick up a new Chrysler this year. The other manufacturers now have to ramp up production to meet the increased demand. They hire more people.

Sure, some jobs are displaced, and some are lost permanently. But others are created.
Econ 101.

[73Chally]

I'll take universal healthcare over dying in the streets if you lose your job.  That's the case now.

I take it you don't read your history, but Herbert Hoover stood back and did nothing and the soup line wrapped around the blocks w/the banks going belly up and people losing their life savings.

W/o the gov't backing us up, then what's the use of Gov't?  Just to build fighter planes and bombs?

Are you willing to part with 50% of your pay?  I believe that's about what other nations that have universal healthcare are paying to cover it, along with all the other taxes.

[ragtopdodge]

Are you willing to part with 50% of your pay?  I believe that's about what other nations that have universal healthcare are paying to cover it, along with all the other taxes.

Add up what you pay now for health insurance?  Including deductibles.  Add up college tuition (most 1st-world countries, college is free or very cheap).

We're probably paying 60% out of pocket if you compare apples to apples.

[ragtopdodge]

The fear of huge job losses should one (or all) of the Big Three go under doesn't stand up to economic facts. Here's why. Let's say you need a new vehicle. You go down to your Chrysler dealer and find they are out of business. So, do you NOT buy a new vehicle? No, you go to another manufacturer, Nissan, Ford, whoever. So do the other hundred thousand guys who were going to pick up a new Chrysler this year. The other manufacturers now have to ramp up production to meet the increased demand. They hire more people.

Sure, some jobs are displaced, and some are lost permanently. But others are created.
Econ 101.

It's just simple as that eh?

You really think the 2M cars that Chrsyler makes each year is going to be made up by another US car company?  Doubt it.  Maybe 20% will buy GM, 20% will buy Ford; the rest, foreign.

What about parts?  The 30M cars/trucks out there need parts.  They gonna get that from a Ford dealer or Nissan dealer?

What about dealers and their employees?  They're all going to get jobs at Mazda or Ford or Subuaru or GM?  Nope.

[t1971Chally]

The fear of huge job losses should one (or all) of the Big Three go under doesn't stand up to economic facts. Here's why. Let's say you need a new vehicle. You go down to your Chrysler dealer and find they are out of business. So, do you NOT buy a new vehicle? No, you go to another manufacturer, Nissan, Ford, whoever. So do the other hundred thousand guys who were going to pick up a new Chrysler this year. The other manufacturers now have to ramp up production to meet the increased demand. They hire more people.

Sure, some jobs are displaced, and some are lost permanently. But others are created.
Econ 101.

Man priderocks, I think you have econ 101 figured out!!!  Unfortunately, the theory is not working very well!!!  Here are the latest unemployment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.   
April 03, 2009
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline sharply in March (-663,000), and the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.5 percent. Payroll employment has decreased by 3.3 million over the past 5 months. In March, job losses were large and widespread across the major industry sectors.

If it were as easy as you describe we would not be in the middle of the 2nd worst recession in history!!!  People would be employed getting jobs by walking across the street and going to work for Ford, Nissan or whoever (As you describe).  UNFORTUNATELY, YOU FORGOT ONE THING!!!  IT IS NOT JUST CHRYSLER WHO IS STRUGGLING, IT IS ALL AUTOMOTIVE, ALL MANUFACTURING BASED COMPANIES, HOUSING INDUSTRY, FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES, ETC,,,,,,

Your ECON 101 theory will not work and here's why.....

• companies are closing
  
  • jobs are being lost
  • people who loose jobs dont buy cars
  • If they cant buy cars, you cant increase production
  • If you cant increase production, you DO NOT create jobs
  • Thus, the current loss of jobs continues and unemployment continues to rise
  
  This naughty little cycle is happening in every type of business throughout America .....
  
  I'll will say this,,,,I hope you never have to go through what some of us are currently going through with Chrysler.  I would not wish this on my worst enemy and I certainly would not make light of the situation!!!
  

[73Chally]

Add up what you pay now for health insurance?  Including deductibles.  Add up college tuition (most 1st-world countries, college is free or very cheap).

We're probably paying 60% out of pocket if you compare apples to apples.

Not even close.  I am healthy, and pay minimum for insurance, and I went to a service academy, so no tuition, etc, which is exactly my point.  Why should I give up an extra 20% of MY hard earned dollars to pay for someone else's insurance when they can't put down that 3rd donuts or that 2nd pack of cigarettes?  It's already bad enough that we as a whole have to pay for other people's car insurance who are too damn ignorant to pay their own.  I'll gladly pay my own way through life, and do not need the government to prop me up.  This is fast becoming a Socialist state, and anyone who doesn't see that is just plain blind.

[priderocks]

Maybe this will help. What if every single car the Big Three made, as fast as they could make them,  were sold overseas? Every stinking one- they were all exported. Would that make you happy? Full employment in the US auto industry. The Big Three are all smiles. The parts suppliers are all smiles. No "Buy American" involved here. Do you think for a moment any of the Big Three would quit making cars because they weren't being purchased by "Americans"? They could care less! If they don't care who buys their cars, why the heck should you? As long as SOMEONE buys them. Overseas buyers are thrilled. Think about this. Do you think German car makers are encouraging Germans to buy German? I doubt it. They are doing quite well selling German cars to Americans, thank you.

Now, say you are in Japan. Same situation-all Japanese cars are sold in the US. Japanese auto makers are happy. Their parts suppliers are happy. Americans are happy to buy their cars. Dealers are happy to sell them. Mechanics are employed keeping them running. Everyones happy.

Buy American? Buy foreign? Nobody cares. Everyone is prospering. Don't buy foreign? Don't buy American. Everyone loses. That's what is happening today- a global downturn in demand- nobody is buying, and everyone is losing. And, FYI, it is much worse in China and Japan than here. Chrysler and GM were much less well-positioned financially to handle this downturn than there foreign counterparts.

What I am saying is that economic principles are not about to bow their knee to some misplaced sense of economic nationalism. If American products are competitive, Americans, and everyone else, will purchase them. If they are not, they won't.

Case in point. In the February 21 edition of The Economist magazine, there is a table showing the percentage of domestic auto parts suppliers also selling to Asian and European car companies. As an example, 65% of parts suppliers selling parts to Ford also sell to Asian car companies. Nearly half of the Ford suppliers also sell to European companies. Unless you are an economic idiot, you should be happy those suppliers are selling to foreign companies. But if we don't buy Toyotas, Audis, as well as Fords, those guys feel it.

I encourage everyone to read a book called The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford. It is a layman's language book on economics. It explains how grain from Iowa, pumps from Ingersoll-Rand, and jetliners from Boeing cross the ocean and return as Toyotas and cell phones. And we all win from it.

[Ornamental]

Are you willing to part with 50% of your pay?  I believe that's about what other nations that have universal healthcare are paying to cover it, along with all the other taxes.

I'm paying 36% in Norway.

[73Chally]

I'm paying 36% in Norway.

I guess things are better off than I thought over there.  We're paying around 35% right now, so when Obama adds all his other great ideas, we'll be up close to 50%.  Another thing not included in out income tax is property taxes, which can be as much as another 10% depending on where you live.  I live in Texas so we only pay federal, but we get raped on the sales tax and property/school taxes.

[wiiildcat]

wow this went partisan quick, so you guys that want to help Chrysler and GM, what do you suggest we do? Keep giving them money to pay people and not sell cars? When do the handouts stop? 2 billion more,5,10 what amount of our tax dollars is enough  to say enough.

[ChallengerGary]

I'll take universal healthcare over dying in the streets if you lose your job.  That's the case now.

If you are that sick that you are "dying in the street," go to any hospital that accepts public funds.  They CANNOT refuse to treat you.  What do you think the Illegals do?  Why do you think they come across the border to get treatment.  If the Gov't takes over health care, all innovation will virtually cease. Private industry is responsible for the vast majority of advancement in almost any field.  Yes, gov't funding usually has a hand in it, but not direct control over it.

I take it you don't read your history, but Herbert Hoover stood back and did nothing and the soup line wrapped around the blocks w/the banks going belly up and people losing their life savings.

There are those that argue that Roosevelt's New Deal actually lengthened the Great Depression by not letting the market forces work. So who was right, Hoover or Roosevelt? 

W/o the gov't backing us up, then what's the use of Gov't?  Just to build fighter planes and bombs?

Last time I checked, the Gov't does not build a single thing.  They hire private corporations to build fighter jets and bombs.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that in 2009, we know what kills people when they get sick. Most of the time, the deaths that are possible from various viral infections are averted because of that knowledge.  In 1918, they just died.

[ChallengerGary]

Also, the last time the Gov't bailed out Chrysler, it was in the form of a loan.  Now, they own part of it.  BIG DIFFERENCE.  Lee Iacoca pulled Ma Mopar out of the dregs by being innovative and changing the way cars were built.  He based many cars on the same platform thus reducing suppliers and parts.  He introduced the Minivan to the world and revolutionized family transportation.  All this led to increased profits which allowed Chrysler to pay back their note years ahead of schedule. Let's not forget, they went on to become the most profitable US car company in the land (on a per unit sold basis) UNTIL Daimler Chrysler came in and raped the company.

I don't doubt that Chrysler can come back from this but I have to wonder why the Gov't felt that they needed to own part of the company.  Gov't bailouts are nothing new but gov't ownership of industry is. 

[ragtopdodge]

So your solution like so many "patriots" are to just do nothing, stand by, and look at Chrysler crumble and jobs go down the drain, which affects many people's lives directly and indirectly (whole communities dep. on those jobs, whether you work for Chrysler or not)

What's wrong with the TAXPAYERS, which is the US Gov't, temporarily own a company until it's paid back?  That way if the co. STILL goes down the tubes, the TAXPAYERS can reap some of the assets liquidated.

What do you think happens when a bank goes under?  The FDIC takes it over, which guarantees the deposits of the bank's customers.  They then, strip it of bad assets, and either offer it for sale, or let it crumble completely with the TAXPAYERS getting any assets.

W/o the FDIC, no one would be putting money in banks, which then the whole financial system would collapse.  I.e. Herbert Hooverism.

Pure capitalism does not work; w/o gov't intervention, we'd all be drinking tainted water, lead and mercury in our homes and food, and be working for the man for $1.50/hour, 80 hours/week.

The middle class was created post WW2 b/c of the gov't giving vets $$$ via the GI bill and putting tons of money in US manufacturing.

Don't give me that crap about Herbert Hoover would have been a better Prez than Roosevelt.  Read your history and not from just FauxNews and Limbaugh.

[priderocks]

ragtopchally, you are absolutely correct in saying pure capitalism won't work. Half the communities in the country would be Love Canals. But the point is moot- we are so far from pure capitalism (I assume we both mean unfettered free enterprise) that it merits little discussion. Witness the amount of government involvement in every aspect of our lives. Some necessary, perhaps, but much of it dubious.

More germane to the discussion here is the attitude typified by the photo accompanying your posts- that of what I assume is a minimally educated disgruntled union type advocating "buy American" to save his job.

Every day millions of consumers make economic decisions based on their own economic self-interests. You do it, I do it. From the loaf of bread we buy to the cars we buy to the college our kids select. But let's confine the discussion to autos here. We buy our cars based on a number of reasons, right? Towing capacity, gas mileage, reliabilty, resale value, snob appeal, performance-you name it, whatever factors are important to us. THIS is what sells cars, not where they are made. If Chrysler, or any other auto maker, foreign or domestic, makes what people want, they WILL sell cars. Whether their headquarters are based in Tokyo or Detroit is of little or no consequence to 99% of the consumers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I read you and some others advocating is we should set aside our economic self-interests when it comes to the purchase of automobiles and let where the car is manufactured by the most significant factor in our decision. We should do this in clear disregard of the possibility we COULD be supporting a poorly-managed company producing subquality cars manufactured by unionized workers, half of whom probably drive Hondas or Toyotas or Fords?