If you had $25,000 to invest....

[Greenranger]

Right. The government isn't exactly running Chrysler. Fiat has a 20% stake and are handling the management. There are constant US-Italy (Detroit-Torino) trade exchanges going on over it. The unions got a 68% share and the governments (US & Canadian) got the rest. The problem with Chrysler was that the Germans (Mercedes) had gutted them for their own purposes and stopped making small cars (Neon) and fell in love with big cars (300/Magnum/Charger) and trucks. The small cars they made (PT/Caliber/Patriot/Compass) were all little trucklets because Mercedes was obsessed with trucklets (like the crossover Pacifia) and the Toyota Matrix. They stopped making small cars and when the market went bad Mercedes let them rot and then spun them off. The management company that took them over simply cut costs and did not deal with new production at all. Besides, they were still indebted to MB in the form of using parts/powertrains, etc. Ford prepared for the lean times and weathered it fairly well. The bailouts of GM and Chrysler helped Ford because if Ford were the only game in town the suppliers would dry up and they'd be completely isolated. GM is another whole animal. They sell as many cars as anybody, but still lose money.

It also helped Ford because a lot of people, myself included, refuse to buy GM or Chrysler because of the bailouts. Combine that with everyone's confidence in Toyota being shaken after the recalls earlier this year, and Ford is beginning to make a come back.

[THE ILK]

Right. The government isn't exactly running Chrysler. Fiat has a 20% stake and are handling the management. There are constant US-Italy (Detroit-Torino) trade exchanges going on over it. The unions got a 68% share and the governments (US & Canadian) got the rest. The problem with Chrysler was that the Germans (Mercedes) had gutted them for their own purposes and stopped making small cars (Neon) and fell in love with big cars (300/Magnum/Charger) and trucks. The small cars they made (PT/Caliber/Patriot/Compass) were all little trucklets because Mercedes was obsessed with trucklets (like the crossover Pacifia) and the Toyota Matrix. They stopped making small cars and when the market went bad Mercedes let them rot and then spun them off. The management company that took them over simply cut costs and did not deal with new production at all. Besides, they were still indebted to MB in the form of using parts/powertrains, etc. Ford prepared for the lean times and weathered it fairly well. The bailouts of GM and Chrysler helped Ford because if Ford were the only game in town the suppliers would dry up and they'd be completely isolated. GM is another whole animal. They sell as many cars as anybody, but still lose money.

Which is why they should not have been bailed out.

They are in that shape because of the unions, which is also why they were bailed out, no?

[Greenranger]

Which is why they should not have been bailed out.

They are in that shape because of the unions, which is also why they were bailed out, no?

Well if we didn't bailout the unions...you know...

[THE ILK]

Well if we didn't bailout the unions...you know...

What, no more sending out 6 people to do the job of 1?

Full work weeks?

[#27TheDominator]

Which is why they should not have been bailed out.

They are in that shape because of the unions, which is also why they were bailed out, no?

It's pretty much political. I'm basically a Libertarian at this point, but IF the government is going to be on the hook when these companies are out of money and not paying health insurance, pensions, etc, it's cheaper to just keep the companies afloat. It worked well with Chrysler around 1980, but things are bigger and more ungainly now. The automakers conceded a lot to the unions from back when things were good and it made them bloated and unable to react when things went bad.

[Greenranger]

What, no more sending out 6 people to do the job of 1?

Full work weeks?

That and someone's base would not be happy.

[bitonti]

You do realize we are the only thing standing between Russia trying to take over Europe and China taking over Asia right?

um... who cares? let em have those continents. they are dumps... and frankly none of our business.

So basically you all are saying doom is inevitable and the USA is on a highway to hell.

and avoiding _that_ is your investment strategy.

[THE ILK]

It's pretty much political. I'm basically a Libertarian at this point, but IF the government is going to be on the hook when these companies are out of money and not paying health insurance, pensions, etc, it's cheaper to just keep the companies afloat. It worked well with Chrysler around 1980, but things are bigger and more ungainly now. The automakers conceded a lot to the unions from back when things were good and it made them bloated and unable to react when things went bad.

True, but I don't believe the government took any ownership control over Chrysler.

How long can you keep a company that's hemorrhaging money afloat, by throwing more money away on it?

Obviously that's not the answer, and something else needs to be done.

[Greenranger]

um... who cares? let em have those continents. they are dumps... and frankly none of our business.

So basically you all are saying doom is inevitable and the USA is on a highway to hell.

and avoiding _that_ is your investment strategy.

Thats what they said in the 1930's regarding Japan and Germany.

Doom is avoidable, we need to pay down our debt and we do that by ending the Welfare state and working within the Constitution.

[THE ILK]

um... who cares? let em have those continents. they are dumps... and frankly none of our business.

So basically you all are saying doom is inevitable and the USA is on a highway to hell.

and avoiding _that_ is your investment strategy.

You should really just run for office already.

If they could have those continents what makes you think they would stop short of ours?

We are cutting back on defense you know.

[Greenranger]

It's pretty much political. I'm basically a Libertarian at this point, but IF the government is going to be on the hook when these companies are out of money and not paying health insurance, pensions, etc, it's cheaper to just keep the companies afloat. It worked well with Chrysler around 1980, but things are bigger and more ungainly now. The automakers conceded a lot to the unions from back when things were good and it made them bloated and unable to react when things went bad.

Back in the 80's though the Market share was a lot smaller. Japanese makers like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi, etc, were not big deals back then.

[THE ILK]

[Greenranger]

What? He said let them have what land they want, and thats what everyone did leading up to WWII and he also said that Doom is inevitable and I'm saying that if we cut back Government and pay the debt down then everything would be ok.

[THE ILK]

What? He said let the have what they want, and thats what everyone did leading up to WWII and he also said that Doom is inevitable and I'm saying that if we cut back Government and pay the debt down then everything would be ok.

I know, but the fact that you had to tell him this, makes the face necessary.

[#27TheDominator]

True, but I don't believe the government took any ownership control over Chrysler.

How long can you keep a company that's hemorrhaging money afloat, by throwing more money away on it?

Obviously that's not the answer, and something else needs to be done.

As I said, the governments of the US and Canada have about a 12% stake in Chrysler. They may have kept it just to be able to keep them honest. Fiat is running the show, though Chrysler is actually a larger company. Fiat wanted the dealer network and they sell Jeep and big Mopars here (Europe). You see tons of them and many cost 50,000 Euro which is around $70K. I assume they sell much worse outside of the rich northern cities, but still that's a ton of money for cars going for $30K in the states.

Back in the 80's though the Market share was a lot smaller. Japanese makers like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi, etc, we not big deals back then.

True, but the market is bigger. People are just buying more cars Let alone the Chinese market openig up. There is money to be made. Chrysler was doing great right up until the MB takeover.

[Greenranger]

I know, but the fact that you had to tell him this, makes the face necessary.

Oh ok, I thought I miswrote something again and it didn't make sense.

[villain_the_foe]

Didn't Ford and Nissan get that money to further development for "fuel-efficient" vehicles?

Sure did. The difference is that Nissan wasnt in a position to "need" that money in order to pay off existing debt. Their purpose was to solely expand production. And if they didnt receive the loan for whatever reason, they simply would have had to save up capital over time and do it themselves. No harm, no foul.

Ford on the other hand needed the money...because if they didnt take that money how were they going to pay those billions in existing immediate debt when the debt immediately owed was too much for them to satisfy and have liquid to maintain daily operations.

Knowing you Greenranger, you can see the difference in the two statements and see how one is a "loan" and how the other is a "bailout".

[THE ILK]

As I said, the governments of the US and Canada have about a 12% stake in Chrysler. They may have kept it just to be able to keep them honest. Fiat is running the show, though Chrysler is actually a larger company. Fiat wanted the dealer network and they sell Jeep and big Mopars here (Europe). You see tons of them and many cost 50,000 Euro which is around $70K. I assume they sell much worse outside of the rich northern cities, but still that's a ton of money for cars going for $30K in the states.

I hear you, but I was comparing Chrysler to GM, when I said ownership control.

Does not the government own around 60% of GM, isn't that why they are lying about the mileage of their electro car?

I was also talking about GM when I said: How long can you keep a company that's hemorrhaging money afloat, by throwing more money away on it?

Obviously that's not the answer, and something else needs to be done.

[Greenranger]

Sure did. The difference is that Nissan wasnt in a position to "need" that money in order to pay off existing debt. Their purpose was to solely expand production. And if they didnt receive the loan for whatever reason, they simply would have had to save up capital over time and do it themselves. No harm, no foul.

Ford on the other hand needed the money...because if they didnt take that money how they were going ot pay those billions in existing immediate debt when the debt immediately owed was too much for them to satisfy and have money to maintain daily operations.

Knowing you Greenranger, you can see the difference in the two statements.

So what your saying is that Ford took that money instead of the bailout money so they could say they didn't take the bailout money, but used that money in the same way.

[villain_the_foe]

So what your saying is that Ford took that money instead of the bailout money so they could say they didn't take the bailout money, but used that money in the same way.

exactly. They took the money later down the line but the way it was worded was as if it wasnt a bailout but a loan soley for expansion (though how can you expand with existing debt having to be paid immediately unless you have the capital which they didnt? lol).

Obviously we both understand that those are both loans. True, however, the difference is one loan was for the sole purpose of expansion and the other was to free up monies to pay off debt that if they didnt receive...they wouldnt have been able to do....hence having ANOTHER company too big to fail.

Could you imagine Ford in the news because they have to liquidate assets because they couldnt pay the debts that they could have paid in 08 if they would have taken the bailout money? You and I both know how crazy that would have been in the media. Instead of making it a big deal the govt gave them a loan, called it "something else" and they used the money to pay of the debt.

What that does is it allows the Fed to "monetize" the debt making the Tax payer (all of us) absorb the debt. That smells exactly like a bailout doesnt it? lol.

[Dude Love]

So what your saying is that Ford took that money instead of the bailout money so they could say they didn't take the bailout money, but used that money in the same way.

LMFAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6pSfpQ9ms&feature=related

Actually, this is pretty tame compared to what I could have videotaped during my 5 years as a "there's no I in team" Teamster.

[Greenranger]

exactly. They took the money later down the line but the way it was worded was as if it wasnt a bailout but a loan soley for expansion (though how can you expand with existing debt having to be paid immediately unless you have the capital which they didnt? lol).

Obviously we both understand that those are both loans. True, however, the difference is one loan was for the sole purpose of expansion and the other was to free up monies to pay off debt that if they didnt receive...they wouldnt have been able to do....hence having ANOTHER company too big to fail.

Could you imagine Ford in the news because they have to liquidate assets because they couldnt pay the debts that they could have paid in 08 if they would have taken the bailout money? You and I both know how crazy that would have been in the media. Instead of making it a big deal the govt gave them a loan, called it "something else" and they used the money to pay of the debt.

What that does is it allows the Fed to "monetize" the debt making the Tax payer (all of us) absorb the debt. That smells exactly like a bailout doesnt it? lol.

That actually was smart on their part. Knowing the public opinion on these bailouts, they avoided the entire backlash from that, and din't have to give up control of anything to the Federal Government like Government Motors did.

[Greenranger]

LMFAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6pSfpQ9ms&feature=related

Actually, this is pretty tame compared to what I could have videotaped during my 5 years as a "there's no I in team" Teamster.

The hard working unions where would we be without em.

[villain_the_foe]

That actually was smart on their part. Knowing the public opinion on these bailouts, they avoided the entire backlash from that, and din't have to give up control of anything to the Federal Government like Government Motors did.

I think that they had to give up something, however "under the table" if you will. It was smart though, too many things were failing around that same timespan. Ford had enough overhead to continue alittle longer and then get help further down the line. And because it wasnt a "sudden" collapse they were able to go about it in a way that wasnt as alarming as the prior ones.

2 mins of talking to you you picked it up immediately. Talking with Dom for 2 days and this dude still didnt get it.

[Dude Love]

The hard working unions where would we be without em.

$6 billion dollars to bail them out--- well spent!

[Greenranger]

$6 billion dollars to bail them out--- well spent!

and that was just for the beer

[bitonti]

If they could have those continents what makes you think they would stop short of ours?

We are cutting back on defense you know.

the chances of China and Russia taking over the world and showing up on our doorstep are slim. China can't even get milk without poison in it to their babies. And Russia is a corrupt petro state.

if there's something to be worried about it's a tiny rogue nation like North Korea doing something nutty. and that's also unlikely, as tiny rogue nations aren't as dumb as we pretend they are...

the cold war is over the new century will not be about big countries fighting big wars against each other. That's bad for business.

[Greenranger]

the chances of China and Russia taking over the world and showing up on our doorstep are slim. China can't even get milk without poison in it to their babies. And Russia is a corrupt petro state.

if there's something to be worried about it's a tiny rogue nation like North Korea doing something nutty. and that's also unlikely, as tiny rogue nations aren't as dumb as we pretend they are...

the cold war is over the new century will not be about big countries fighting big wars against each other. That's bad for business.

Russia has previously stated its wishes to recoup not only it former Soviet Republics, but former Warsaw Pact States like Poland, Germany, Hungry, just to name a few. We may look at them as corrupt, but the people like Putin, they would do what he wants. And China isn't poising their babies, their poising ours. and now would be good time for them to make a move because the wuss wouldn't do a damn thing about it.

[THE ILK]

the chances of China and Russia taking over the world and showing up on our doorstep are slim. China can't even get milk without poison in it to their babies. And Russia is a corrupt petro state.

if there's something to be worried about it's a tiny rogue nation like North Korea doing something nutty. and that's also unlikely, as tiny rogue nations aren't as dumb as we pretend they are...

the cold war is over the new century will not be about big countries fighting big wars against each other. That's bad for business.

Thanks Nostradamus, but why increase the chance by giving away all of Europe and Asia?

What if China can get un-poisoned milk to there babies over here?

I always give corrupt petro states, the benefit of the doubt.

No wonder there are big countries that allie themselves with tiny rogue nations, now if only we could get the president to see that.

Unlikely aye, try telling that to Israel, perhaps we are not as smart as we pretend to be.

Do you have anything for the Rangers fans on the 2003 NHL Entry Draft, and why Hugh Jessiman was not such a bad pick yet?

[Greenranger]

Thanks Nostradamus, but why increase the chance by giving away all of Europe and Asia?

What if China can get un-poisoned milk to there babies over here?

I always give corrupt petro states, the benefit of the doubt.

No wonder there are big countries that allie themselves with tiny rogue nations, now if only we could get the president to see that.

Unlikely aye, try telling that to Israel, perhaps we are not as smart as we pretend to be.

Do you have anything for the Rangers fans on the 2003 NHL Entry Draft, and why Hugh Jessiman was not such a bad pick yet?

Who would you have wanted the Rangers to take? Dustin Brown? Corey Perry? What have they done? Oh wait...

[THE ILK]

Who would you have wanted the Rangers to take? Dustin Brown? Corey Perry? What have they done? Oh wait...

Zach Parise, but I'd take anybody picked in the first round and be happy, anybody except Huge Specimen!

[Greenranger]

Zach Parise, but I'd take anybody picked in the first round and be happy, anybody except Huge Specimen!

Him or the two Right-Wings I posted would have been good. All All-Stars, unlike Jessiman, who can't even become an AHL or ECHL All-Star.

[THE ILK]

Him or the two Right-Wings I posted would have been good. All All-Stars, unlike Jessiman, who can't even become an AHL or ECHL All-Star.

At this point, I just wish bit would come up with something to make me feel better about it.

[Greenranger]

At this point, I just wish bit would come up with something to make me feel better about it.

He was a beast at Dartmouth

[THE ILK]

He was a beast at Dartmouth

I know but he became such a bust, and the one time they don't go with the home town kid story, Parise lands in NJ to haunt them.

The entire 1st round made it to the NHL, except Jessiman. Bit and only bit can come up with something to disparage that draft year.