Chrysler to Go Bankrupt, GM to Kill Pontiac Monday

[Jason]

I guess this is the place for this article.

GM and Chrysler have hit rock bottom (http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Chrysler+to+Go+Bankrupt+GM+to+Kill+Pontiac +Monday/article14961.htm). Burning through bailout money and hounded by creditors and union retirees alike, the companies are facing a fight for survival. After both companies had their most recent bailout plans rejected, and were ordered to make vast changes, both companies have struggled to meet their deadlines. And despite recent reports that the government is finally going to offer some more bailout cash, both companies still appear to be teetering on the brink for disaster.

[National Kato]

I passed by a Chrysler dealership this morning and they had a banner hanging on the side of their building that read: "Oil Change $17.95"

They just don't fucking get it, do they??

:D

[Johan]

I feel sorry for these kids. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/news/economy/detroit_youth/index.htm)

I also feel badly for retirees who had their money tied up in GM or Chrysler stock.

I don't feel too badly for autoworker retirees who have, honestly, been part of the reason the companies have died, due to their incredibly generous benefits. It's just not realistic to retire at 55 and live with free health care and a pension for the next thirty years. I expect Social Security will soon see a means test (higher income = no SS), a raised retirement age, and Medicare/Medicaid will see rationing, since a huge percentage of our health care spending goes down the drain in the last three months of life, trying to save people who end up dying.

Tough times. :(

[pomeroy]

I don't feel too badly for autoworker retirees who have, honestly, been part of the reason the companies have died, due to their incredibly generous benefits. It's just not realistic to retire at 55 and live with free health care and a pension for the next thirty years.

I actually sort of feel bad for the retirees. I mean, they did what they did because they were promised that money.

But I also realize they are one of the big reasons GM couldn't make any money.

I dunno. It's just a terrible situation, really.

[BlackPete]

Boy, I sure am glad that they received so many billions of bailout money instead of simply being told to GTFO from the beginning.

And yeah... I can't really shed a tear for the retirees either. It was completely unrealistic in the long term, and I can't think of any other industries that offered similar benefits, so they should just count their blessings they got what they did, because that's still more than most retirees.

[Narradisall]

I figured Chrystler wouldn't make it, I expect GM would be broken down or 'reorganised' into smaller companies since they still have some profit making areas.

We've all gone over how inefficient and out of touch they have been in other threads. I just feel bad for all the people losing jobs over this, even those that can be considered in actively contributing to the current mess.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I figured Chrystler wouldn't make it, I expect GM would be broken down or 'reorganised' into smaller companies since they still have some profit making areas.

We've all gone over how inefficient and out of touch they have been in other threads. I just feel bad for all the people losing jobs over this, even those that can be considered in actively contributing to the current mess.

Well, hopefully they get bought out by Japanese competitors, because then the only jobs we lose are at the highest levels.

[Johan]

Well, hopefully they get bought out by Japanese competitors...

Fiat is the primary suitor right now, and we all know how well run Italian car makers are.

[BlackPete]

I really wonder who in their right minds would buy these companies as-is. Fiat took a look at Chrysler, saw the true shape they were in, and sniffed their nose, and basically said, "Get back to me when you're run like a REAL company."

[Bingley Joe]

Fiat is the primary suitor right now, and we all know how well run Italian car makers are.

Even still, if they do go through with that, I'll be the first in line for the 500 Abarth SS -- 1.4L 16V 135HP Turbocharged engine in a car that weighs as much as a package of spaghetti, and can park in a phone booth? Yes please

http://www.mrcbr.com/wp-content/uploads/fiat_500_abarth_leaked.jpg

I'll just need to get a bumper sticker that says "My other car's a taxi" ;)

[CES]

Chrysler and Pontiac be damned, I want to know what GM plan to do with Opel, their only good marque.

[Stmfuller]

wow...I hate that two of my favorite brands are being killed off. Always was a Chrysler/dodge fan...same with Pontiac.
RIP my friends.

[Serapth]

Chrysler and Pontiac be damned, I want to know what GM plan to do with Opel, their only good marque.

Actually, Opel is being targeted by Fiat and Magna ( Magna is a Canadian tier 1 supplier/contract manufacturer) are both looking at purchasing Opel. To my understanding, the EU basically now owns 50% of Opel as a consequence of lending money to GM ( they refused to fund all of GM, so they required GM to spin Opel off into a seperate entity, which they funded 4B and took a 50% stake in ).

Would be kinda cool in my opinion if Magna bought Opel. Frankly, it makes me sick seeing the Canadian government put a cent into Chrysler, who have been grade A douchebags in negotiations these past months. Besides that point, both GM and Chrysler have done some pretty underhanded shit in Canada after receiving massive government funding.



Personally, I want to see Chrysler a worm ridden corpse. They are owned by a fucking hedgefund that isn't willing to invest their own capital??? Unless Cerberus is taking the lions share of loss in this case, fuck em. They are the least viable company, especially after having been fleeced by Daimler. Worse, the US government is putting forward Fiat as the saviour.

FIAT!!!! Does anyone realize just how fucked up a company FIAT is??? I mean, GM took a 3-4B fine to prevent having to take a majority stake in FIAT just a few years ago. This is a company that has been propped up by the Italian government more than once. They are sure as hell not roll models... hell, look at the rejection news from Opel, because they question the value/viability of FIAT. UGH. The government really really really shouldn't be getting involved in the car industry.

Oh, and I don't believe Chrysler is acutally bankrupt yet, the government is simply preparing the paperwork/process.

[Deadend]

Dodge was a great brand, the Viper was one of the coolest cars for a while.
I am not sure what they could do to fix things really.
But what is really needed, as everyone knows is for them to make more money. Fuck if anyone knows how they will do THAT one.

[BlackPete]

Frankly, it makes me sick seeing the Canadian government put a cent into Chrysler, who have been grade A douchebags in negotiations these past months. Besides that point, both GM and Chrysler have done some pretty underhanded shit in Canada after receiving massive government funding.

Not to say I told you so... but I told you so. :p

(Remembering this discussion over at PiRi)

[Serapth]

Not to say I told you so... but I told you so. :p

(Remembering this discussion over at PiRi)

... actually, go look at that conversation again. It was about me buying Ford stock for 1.90$ because I thought Ford was the only viable company of the big three and their stock was massively undervalued.

For the record, I sold a week ago for @ 4.80$ for a 3$ per share profit in just over 3 months. Plus, I kept a few hundred shares just 'cuz.

In other words, I told you so, and if you listened, you would have made a 200% profit in 1/4 a year! ;)

[BlackPete]

I seem to recall you getting pissed at people saying that it was better to not bail them out, and that we SHOULD bail them out.

[Serapth]

I seem to recall you getting pissed at people saying that it was better to not bail them out, and that we SHOULD bail them out.

Damn you for making me revisit that thread... :)



Don't get me wrong, I think GM is a dinosaur and of the big three I think only Ford is really viable right now.

Frankly, fuck Cerberus, I have been saying that all along.

Then again, Cerberus is also 50% owner of GMAC ( also looking for a bailout ) and are taking it up the ass right now. I hate these parasites, so frankly, I shed no tears. Author to your link is very onesided, uneducated and biased though. The article itself was pretty horrid.

---------------------------------------------------------

He is blaming Chrysler for not accessing Cerberus's wealth, and frankly, this is a big part of the reason I say fuck Chrysler if I say fuck anyone else, as I agree. Cerberus got into this game a year ago and deserves to fucking plummet. But shitting on the head of Chrysler corp because their parent corp wont pony up more $? Well, thats bullshit. There is absolutely nothing Chrysler can do about that. Its comprable to, say if Coca Cola was dying, writing an article talking about the hidden reserve of cash they are sitting on because of all the money Warren Buffet has.

Also, expecting an equity company like Cerberus to put a cent more then their original investment is laughably stupid. Cerberus will at most lose the 7 billion they put out ( plus the 2 billion since ), at that point they will cut their loses and liquidize what they can. Pretending otherwise or expecting altruism from parasites like Cerberus is woefully ignorant of the way of the world.

Now, had the article been about Cerberus, and how a private equity company is going to the bailout trough just a year after they purchased a company, THAT I agree with completely. But, that isnt as sensational as the pile on hatred of the big three. The gist of it though, I do agree with. In this case, Cerberus should burn for their investment, and any bailout should reduce/eliminate Cerberus' stake in Chrysler.





.... you gotta admit, I stay on message. :)

I am not anti auto bailout, I just think Cerber... er, I mean Chrysler, shouldnt get a fucking cent. And my biggest point at the time was, if they were willing to put 700B toward the banking system, not saving the auto industry is nuts.

[Voodoo]

I do wish that the money that was loaned to the auto companies had been applied to the public transportation portion of the stimulus instead.

[Serapth]

I do wish that the money that was loaned to the auto companies had been applied to the public transportation portion of the stimulus instead.

If the US wasn't so big, or so rural, that would make sense. But as it stands, public transport is only going to go so far.

[Wraith]

More details here (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/27/officially-official-gm-kills-pontiac/).Fewer U.S. brands, nameplates, and dealers

As part of the revised Viability Plan and the need to move faster and further, GM in the U.S. will focus its resources on four core brands, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. The Pontiac brand will be phased out by the end of 2010. GM will offer a total of 34 nameplates in 2010, a reduction of 29 percent from 48 nameplates in 2008, reflecting both the reduction in brands and continued emphasis on fewer and stronger entries. This four-brand strategy will enable GM to better focus its new product development programs and provide more competitive levels of market support.

The revised plan moves up the resolution of Saab, Saturn, and Hummer to the end of 2009, at the latest. Updates on these brands will be provided as these initiatives progress.

Working with its dealers, GM anticipates reducing its U.S. dealer count from 6,246 in 2008 to 3,605 by the end of 2010, a reduction of 42 percent. This is a further reduction of 500 dealers, and four years sooner, than in the February 17 Plan. The goal is to accomplish this reduction in an orderly, cost-effective, and customer-focused way. This reduction in U.S. dealers will allow for a more competitive dealer network and higher sales effectiveness in all markets. More details on these initiatives will be provided in May.

[Voodoo]

If the US wasn't so big, or so rural, that would make sense. But as it stands, public transport is only going to go so far.

Huh? It absolutely makes sense.

There are many large cities in dire need of funding to create a public transportation system. Right now many of them have to settle with a fleet of buses because the money just isn't there to do anything else.

I guess you thought I meant a city to city transportation system?

[Serapth]

Huh? It absolutely makes sense.

There are many large cities in dire need of funding to create a public transportation system. Right now many of them have to settle with a fleet of buses because the money just isn't there to do anything else.

I guess you thought I meant a city to city transportation system?

Well, thats how most of the transport money has been allocated so far. A mix between railworks and interstate highways.

[Ox]

There are many large cities in dire need of funding to create a public transportation system. Right now many of them have to settle with a fleet of buses because the money just isn't there to do anything else.
Don't get me wrong: I love subways and hate the thought of living in a place where I can't ride the subway every day to work or to go out drinking. But you're proposing something that makes the auto bailout look cheap. Something like $3 billion has been approved to start the first phase of construction of one line in the New York City subway system. And New York's geology is beautifully suited to subway construction. Giving a bunch of major cities really good subway systems is a mind-boggling project. And although other cities have good subway systems, more people use New York's subways than the passengers on all other American metro rail systems combined.

[Voodoo]

Well, thats how most of the transport money has been allocated so far. A mix between railworks and interstate highways.

You are thinking of a different line item. In the Stimulus Plan, the line item I am talking about is...

Public transportation discretionary grants = $100,000,000

...and that's pathetic.

Don't get me wrong: I love subways and hate the thought of living in a place where I can't ride the subway every day to work or to go out drinking. But you're proposing something that makes the auto bailout look cheap. Something like $3 billion has been approved to start the first phase of construction of one line in the New York City subway system. And New York's geology is beautifully suited to subway construction. Giving a bunch of major cities really good subway systems is a mind-boggling project. And although other cities have good subway systems, more people use New York's subways than the passengers on all other American metro rail systems combined.

Subways? We can't build subways in Florida.

[Ox]

So... trams? Surface light rail? I'm not sure what a "real public transportation system" would be if buses don't count and subways are impractical.

The problem with public transportation is that it only works really well if it completely supplants the need for an automobile. It's not enough to provide a direct line from my house to my office; if I want to pick up groceries or stop at a bar on the way home, my mass transit has to take me there, as well.

[National Kato]

Where's my fucking flying car?!

[Voodoo]

So... trams? Surface light rail? I'm not sure what a "real public transportation system" would be if buses don't count and subways are impractical.

The problem with public transportation is that it only works really well if it completely supplants the need for an automobile. It's not enough to provide a direct line from my house to my office; if I want to pick up groceries or stop at a bar on the way home, my mass transit has to take me there, as well.

The proposed system in the Florida cities is light rail.

The buses are the best that they can provide and subways are impossible to create here. There is a great desire in Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Jacksonville for public transportation systems. Currently all of those cities have buses, Miami has a metro-mover system downtown, Tampa has a mix of Bus and Trolly, Jacksonville I believe has a regional bus system and Orlando is completely bus with a downtown bus system.

There are many pros and much support for light rail in Florida but unfortunately the funds are unavailable. I do see in the Stimulus that there is more than $100M to be used towards public transport, much it it being used towards already existing systems. If you are building a new system, it is $100M that is available in a competitive basis.

In regards to it supplanting my need for the automobile; I would much rather take public transport for my 35 mile trip to work. Unfortunately, which doesn't make sense to me, the "Commuter Line" bus stops running at 5:30pm. I suppose, for some odd reason, they didn't figure that it was very useful after 5:30pm. If it weren't for this single bus's schedule, I'd be set to take the bus for the entire journey.

EDIT: Just found this - $750 million for the construction of new public rail transportation systems and other fixed guideway systems - which makes me feel a lot better. :)

[Ink Asylum]

A large part of the problem with public transportation is what Ox pointed out. A system that brings people from point A to point B in large numbers is great, but if you still need a car to do anything at A or B then you still need large numbers of cars.

Not enough neighborhoods are walkable, so public transportation that will just bring people between neighborhoods only addresses half the problem. If everyone lived within comfortable walking distance of a small commercial area with enough shopping and entertainment to cover everyday life the need for cars would drop dramatically. Add a dependable public transportation to a major urban center and the need drops even more.

Large sections of America were built around the car, without much thought about a future where a car in every garage might be more of a drag on society than a benefit. It's a lot harder to refit these places for public transportation than it is to build them like that from day one.

[Serapth]

A large part of the problem with public transportation is what Ox pointed out. A system that brings people from point A to point B in large numbers is great, but if you still need a car to do anything at A or B then you still need large numbers of cars.

Not enough neighborhoods are walkable, so public transportation that will just bring people between neighborhoods only addresses half the problem. If everyone lived within comfortable walking distance of a small commercial area with enough shopping and entertainment to cover everyday life the need for cars would drop dramatically. Add a dependable public transportation to a major urban center and the need drops even more.

Large sections of America were built around the car, without much thought about a future where a car in every garage might be more of a drag on society than a benefit. It's a lot harder to refit these places for public transportation than it is to build them like that from day one.

I wonder if any company is ever going to master the cheap, easy, automated rental/subscription city car. A number of companies have tried it, or said they were going to try it, but as of yet Ive never actually seen it available.

The idea of renting a car in 10 min - 1 hour alotments, does have a certain appeal to it, if they can make the economics of it work. Given the the average monthly car payment is probably @ 400/month, then another 10 - 20$ a day in parking, thats a 600-800$ / month budget they would have to meet to break even. I can see it working, but only in large cities.

[National Kato]

I wonder if any company is ever going to master the cheap, easy, automated rental/subscription city car.

Zipcar (http://www.zipcar.com/) (formerly Flexcar) does it in Atlanta. It looks like other cities (http://www.carsharing.net/where.html) have something similar available.

[Ink Asylum]

Car sharing is great for reducing the cost of transportation for individuals, reduces the need for parking in metropolitan areas, and cuts down on the number of cars built/disposed, but it doesn't do much more. Reducing the need to drive comes from improving public transportation and walkability.

Car sharing programs would work well alongside improved public transportation between major population centers, though. If you only need a car for the last few miles of a commute that's much better than driving all the way from home to your final destination.

[Voodoo]

A large part of the problem with public transportation is what Ox pointed out. A system that brings people from point A to point B in large numbers is great, but if you still need a car to do anything at A or B then you still need large numbers of cars.

Not enough neighborhoods are walkable, so public transportation that will just bring people between neighborhoods only addresses half the problem. If everyone lived within comfortable walking distance of a small commercial area with enough shopping and entertainment to cover everyday life the need for cars would drop dramatically. Add a dependable public transportation to a major urban center and the need drops even more.

Large sections of America were built around the car, without much thought about a future where a car in every garage might be more of a drag on society than a benefit. It's a lot harder to refit these places for public transportation than it is to build them like that from day one.

There's a hell of a lot of reading between the lines of my posts going on. All I am saying is that I'd rather have had the money go towards public transportation projects instead of towards the bailout of GM and Chrysler. Where is the fault in that?

I'm also not proposing that public transportation replace cars totally. What I am saying, specifically, is that there are cities that want to create more suitable public transportation systems but can not because of lack of start-up funds. If my wish came true, several of those projects would have the needed funds.

BTW, Pheonix launched the latest light rail system and it has had very high success. That system that was installed is nearly identical to the one proposed for Central Florida.

[National Kato]

Reducing the need to drive comes from improving public transportation and walkability.

So you're saying we need more Segways? ;)

[Ink Asylum]

I wasn't condemning anything you said. I fully support any kind of public transportation we can get. I was just elaborating on what Ox mentioned about how inter-city rail does little for people who live in cities where they need a car to run even the simplest errand.

There is a LOT that can be done to improve transportation in the US. I'm glad there is money going anywhere related to that. I was just mentioning something that often gets forgotten, walkability. The problems of cities that need more public transportation but can't easily or cheaply implement it can benefit greatly from improving walkability, allowing commercial structures to be built closer to and within residential areas.

[Ox]

I wonder if any company is ever going to master the cheap, easy, automated rental/subscription city car. A number of companies have tried it, or said they were going to try it, but as of yet Ive never actually seen it available.
We've got a few companies, like Philly Car Share and Zipcar, here in town. They're reasonably popular, and I see a lot of businesses have dedicated parking spaces for them (the probability of these spaces existing is directly related to the extent to which the business caters to hippies, natch).

It's shockingly affordable, especially the nonprofit CarShare: $3.60 an hour plus 22 cents per mile. Zipcar is for-profit, but their fees aren't bad either: $50 annual membership, around $8 per hour, but you get 180 miles/day included in the package, so a longer trip can be cheaper with Zipcar (Zipcar also has cheaper rates if you are a frequent user). And they've selected their fleets well -- lots of convertibles and compact Audis and BMWs, so it's even enticing for people who own a cheaper car but might like to take a drive on a nice day. Honestly, more than once I've been tempted to get rid of my car and use CarShare. I don't like the idea of having to schedule an appointment to drive, though.

I didn't realize this until I did the research for this post, but Zipcar has an awesome feature where you can plug in your current location, refine the search by the kind of car you want, and a Google Maps inset pops up showing the location of all the Zipcars matching your criteria in your area. I see there's a nice Mini convertible about four blocks away, waiting for me to walk up with $9 and goof off for an hour on a gorgeous day. Goddamn, that's tempting.

[Ox]

I should also point out that I am practically banging my fist on my desk to emphasize the importance of what Ink is saying. Walkability is the sine qua non of urban mass transport. Mixed-use developments of residential and light commercial are crucial. The urban planning movement of the early 20th century was a tragic time, but now, 40 years after Jane Jacobs, we're finally beginning to figure out it's not a good idea to tell people they have to live far away from their offices and grocery stores.

[Wraith]

I believe the term this kind of city/neighborhood design is New Urbanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_urbanism)?

[Goronmon]

Best decision I made when moving to Portland, ME was to get an apartment a couple of blocks from the office. So awesome. I was even car-less for almost 2 years. I eventually had to get a car, mainly because grocery shopping was a pain and visiting my family was annoying. Not to mention there aren't really any decent electronic stores in walking distance.

Being able to walk to work everyday though is amazing and it's going to something I'll have a hard time giving up if I ever move for some reason.

[TheFlyingOrc]

sine qua non
Use real people words.

[Ox]

Yeah, although New Urbanism often gets branched into a whole hippie dogma about "green building" and "sustainable architecture" and stuff I'm not likely to sign on to. Also, New Urbanists too often exhibit exactly the same central-planning mentality the modernists did, brutalizing residents and businesses to conform to their ideal. For example, it's not uncommon to try to reduce the use of automobiles through the simple expedient of not providing sufficient parking. I live in a neighborhood like that, and it doesn't stop us from having cars; it just makes everything a pain in the ass.

A more modest goal is simply to stop subverting walkability through active government intervention. Don't prohibit residential developments close to the skyscrapers. Don't artificially restrict licenses for restaurants, bars, laundromats, and bodegas. Don't build highways so they cut off residents' access to districts or locales.

A really classic example of what I'm talking about: Philadelphia was founded on the shores of the Delaware River, and there are a lot of residential neighborhoods quite close to the water. But I-95 runs right along the river, creating a concrete no-man's-land and leaving a narrow strip of commercial development right along the river's edge. So what sort of high-end firms conduct operations with a gorgeous view across the river (admittedly, a view somewhat marred by the presence of Camden, but still a nice view)? The Wal-Mart parking lot. Also some strip clubs. And soon, a casino, which will be built there primarily because the state owns the riverbed and so the city can't stop it.

[Nightfall]

It's not their fault they couldn't keep up with the likes of Honda or Toyota. American car companies have primarily been focused on large cars and V-6's or 8's, which is what the American masses wanted. Until Bush messed with the gas prices.

I've always been pro Japanese cars though. I've had several Honda's with near or above a quarter million miles on them that still ran and still got 35-40mpg. Not including the CRX HF I had which got 55-60mpg on the highway, that is.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Until Bush messed with the gas prices.


.... what?

[Nightfall]

.... what?

I'm sorry you don't believe Bush had his hands in that. He's rolling around in a pile of money laughing at you right now.

[Wraith]

I'm sorry you don't believe Bush had his hands in that. He's rolling around in a pile of money laughing at you right now..... what?

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'm sorry you don't believe Bush had his hands in that. He's rolling around in a pile of money laughing at you right now.

.... what?

[Nightfall]

Lo siento que no creo que Bush en el que sus manos. Es en torno a la rodadura en un montón de dinero riendo de ti ahora mismo.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Lo siento que no creo que Bush en el que sus manos. Es en torno a la rodadura en un montón de dinero riendo de ti ahora mismo.

¿.... que?

[Ancalagon]

.... what?

Say what one more time, I dare you, I double dare you!

[Ox]

I'm sorry you don't believe Bush had his hands in that. He's rolling around in a pile of money laughing at you right now.
I'm sorry you believe Bush got to keep all that money. The gay Jews and I are rolling around in a pile of money laughing at you right now.

I'm a little uncomfortable.

[Wraith]

Looks like the Vibe and Solstice are definitely dead.GM CEO Fritz Henderson just told journalists the Pontiac Vibe and Solstice will not live on at other brands. Also, he's gonna have to talk with Toyota about what they're gonna do with NUMMI.

What, exactly, GM will do with NUMMI, their cooperative manufacturing effort with Toyota, remains unclear, but Fritz definitely claims they'll have to talk to Toyota and come up with something to do with the plant. Our guess is Toyota will just ask GM to continue making the Toyota Matrix (made on the same line as the Pontiac Vibe, by the same UAW workers) and just increase production numbers on it or, since Matrix production was moved to Canada last fall, maybe they'll just shut the whole place down.Jalopnik (http://jalopnik.com/5229396/pontiac-vibe-solstice-are-dead-wont-live-on-as-chevys)

[Serapth]

.... what?

... what?

[Serapth]

I'm sorry you believe Bush got to keep all that money. The gay Jews and I are rolling around in a pile of money laughing at you right now.

I'm a little uncomfortable.

Well, take the dradle out of your ass and I am sure you will feel better!

[Narradisall]

Well, take the dradle out of your ass and I am sure you will feel better!

.... what?

[Nightfall]

WTF is up with all the "...what?" going on? CoG inside joke?

[National Kato]

WTF is up with all the "...what?" going on? CoG inside joke?

.... what?

[Nightfall]

.... what?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/originalMJG/towelie.jpg?t=1240944396

[Shrinn]

¿.... que?

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/hatchetj87/Love.jpg

[Voodoo]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/originalMJG/towelie.jpg?t=1240944396

http://i40.tinypic.com/2mpd98j.jpg

[Johan]

That guy is going to need a good periodontist soon. I can recommend one.

[TheFlyingOrc]

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/hatchetj87/Love.jpg

I...I'm touched.

edit: what?

[Narradisall]

It official,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8027109.stm

Chrysler filed for bankruptcy

[headhunter228]

It's entertaining to watch CNBC these days, with everyone freaking out over the economy. Chrysler is going bankrupt? GM is going under? I say, serves them right. Why, do you ask? Any novice economist could tell you that the economy goes through cycles. It rises, it falls. As a result, it's possible to guesstimate when the economy is going to go into recession. The heads of these companies failed to prepare for something they knew, knew was coming. They were more concerned with making money in the short term. Then, the recession hit, and their money disappeared overnight. They knew it was coming. Serves them right. If they were too stupid to prepare for the storm, they don't deserve to survive. Sure, they may recover from this, but that would be more than they deserve.

[ShivaX]

Then, the recession hit, and their money disappeared overnight.

Well I doubt any of them will be in the poor house. Their money is still in their bank accounts. That whole "making money in the short term" made enough of them rich as fuck that the company being destroyed probably doesn't really matter that much to them personally.

[headhunter228]

Well I doubt any of them will be in the poor house. Their money is still in their bank accounts. That whole "making money in the short term" made enough of them rich as fuck that the company being destroyed probably doesn't really matter that much to them personally.

Yeah, good point. After all, Donald Trump was filthy rich even when he was bankrupt. Let me rephrase my previous statement, and add that I wasn't aiming this at the company and the people who work for said company, but the greedy assholes in charge. NO MORE MONEY FOR YOU, SUCKAS!

Then, the recession hit, and their company's money disappeared overnight because of their greedy mismanagement.

[Narradisall]

Well, to be fair, its only chapter 11. So they could (in theory) come out of this.

Do they deserve to? Thats another matter.

I still feel bad for most workers who had little say (besides union pay deals) in how things were run, now they face an uncertain future.

As for Headhunters remark. Yes, recessions are predictable, to an extent. Although this boom was prolonged by dodgy credit to sustain shortermism it was a bit more difficult to guess exactly 'when'. Idiots just kept chugging on thinking it wouldn't happen till tomorrow, maybe the day after, or the day after that.

But then as you said, they don't lose shit personally.

[Ox]

But then as you said, they don't lose shit personally.
Actually, many of them do. A big part of executive compensation is stock options. Those options don't usually vest right away, and many executives fail to diversity immediately. Many of the executives have probably lost a significant fraction of their net worth.

EDIT: Not to mention, very few of these guys are so independently wealthy that they can afford to maintain their lifestyles without a constant influx of money. Losing your job hurts even if you're well-off.

[Serapth]

Actually, many of them do. A big part of executive compensation is stock options. Those options don't usually vest right away, and many executives fail to diversity immediately. Many of the executives have probably lost a significant fraction of their net worth.

EDIT: Not to mention, very few of these guys are so independently wealthy that they can afford to maintain their lifestyles without a constant influx of money. Losing your job hurts even if you're well-off.

Of course, this ignoring the fact that Chrysler isn't a publicly traded company.

This anti executive backlash in America is pretty brutal right now. Its like most Americans think the vast majority of executives are just in it for number 1 and take any and every opportunity to fuck over their fellow man for no other reason than evil spite. That somehow the people on Wall Street absolutely tanked the economy on purpose.

Really, Obama has to ease of the rhetoric as this anti-success mindset in America is pretty fucking unhealthy.

[Narradisall]

Actually, many of them do. A big part of executive compensation is stock options. Those options don't usually vest right away, and many executives fail to diversity immediately. Many of the executives have probably lost a significant fraction of their net worth.

EDIT: Not to mention, very few of these guys are so independently wealthy that they can afford to maintain their lifestyles without a constant influx of money. Losing your job hurts even if you're well-off.

Good point. Personally was never big on pensions as stock myself.

Interesting question, how quickly do these execs take between getting their next job?

[Ox]

You're right, we don't know how Chrysler's executives were compensated. This argument applies more to companies like GM, which (I believe) do use options as compensation. And, of course, the banks.

EDIT: As for how long executives wait before getting a new job, it obviously depends. After running the Big Three into the ground, they may have to sit on the beach for a while. I know my college roommate got laid off a few months ago and has been completely unemployed since.

[Johan]

A lawyer involved in the negotiations says the White House threatened an investment bank to try to force them to 'play ball' on the White House's terms. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bankruptcy-atto.html)

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. The response:

The White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in questions said the story was false.

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

There's obviously no evidence. :rolling eyes: Maybe the people with the pitchforks are in the White House, not outside of it.

[Ink Asylum]

Oh no! Not the press corps!

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//c0/a/c0ae40ecba3732ae1e383c5ce6702a25.jpg

Look out, hedge funds! Gibbs is gonna getcha with sarcastic jabs and evasive answers!

Seriously, even if this were true, it's more pathetic than offensive. The press corps is going to destroy the reputation of huge hedge funds? I expect more from government abuses of power. Weak sauce, Obama.

[National Kato]

We're talking about a bankruptcy attorney, Thomas Lauria, representing the hedge fund and money managers here. And the boutique investment bank that was allegedly 'threatened?'

A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.” The spokesperson would not elaborate.Obama's comment:

President Obama also said of Lauria's clients, "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."The bankruptcy attorney is upset because "[Obama] stands my clients up as basically the reason Chrysler is going into bankruptcy."

Yeah, this is definitely a concern of the highest order. :D

[CES]

Fiat aims to take over GM Europe. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8032213.stm)

If Fiat do end up buying GM Europe, it'll turn Fiat into one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world. Incidentally, am I the only one that finds it amusing that Fiat, a company renowned for making affordable, economic small cars is looking to buy the European wing of a company famed for building huge engined, low MPG monsters?

Edit: I should note that Fiat own both Maserati and Ferrari.

[Serapth]

Fiat aims to take over GM Europe. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8032213.stm)

If Fiat do end up buying GM Europe, it'll turn Fiat into one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world. Incidentally, am I the only one that finds it amusing that Fiat, a company renowned for making affordable, economic small cars is looking to buy the European wing of a company famed for building huge engined, low MPG monsters?

Edit: I should note that Fiat own both Maserati and Ferrari.

That headline is misleading. Fiat is looking to acquire Opel. GM Europe consists of Opel, Vauxhall and Saab.

Not being European, I have to ask... do Vauxhalls even get sold outside of the UK anymore? Arent they just rebadged Opels?

[CES]

That headline is misleading. Fiat is looking to acquire Opel. GM Europe consists of Opel, Vauxhall and Saab.

Not being European, I have to ask... do Vauxhalls even get sold outside of the UK anymore? Arent they just rebadged Opels?

Vauxhall are indeed rebadged Opel's for the UK market but Fiat want to buy them as well. The only reason they aren't buying Saab is because the Swedish government has stepped in to fix Saab. It's reported on both Reuters and BBC news Fiat want all of GM Europe so they can merge it into one huge european manufacturer.

[Narradisall]

That headline is misleading. Fiat is looking to acquire Opel. GM Europe consists of Opel, Vauxhall and Saab.

Not being European, I have to ask... do Vauxhalls even get sold outside of the UK anymore? Arent they just rebadged Opels?

Opel is Vauxhall and vice versa really.

By the looks of things (as above comment also said) they're looking to buy both, possibly all three.

What are the money making parts of GM again? Surely they're all going to start picking the profitable parts of the company up, who at GM would let them do that?

[Johan]

What are the money making parts of GM again?

SUVs and trucks...which, if they come in demand again, won't be in the mix, since Obama's team doesn't want them in the mix any more.

[Wraith]

SUVs and trucks...which, if they come in demand again, won't be in the mix, since Obama's team doesn't want them in the mix any more.GM will always have trucks and SUVs. Even when gas prices were sky high, there were still individuals and businesses that actually needed trucks, or truck-based SUVs. We may see them come down to a smaller percentage of overall sales, but they'll still be there. With the fuel economy regulations, hopefully we see some efficiency improvements in the truck/SUV space, and in compact SUVs and SUV alternatives (for those who like SUV features, but not SUV fuel economy).

The new Equinox is now estimated to get 22/32mpg (http://wot.motortrend.com/6509317/auto-news/2010-chevrolet-equinox-gets-32-mpg-highway-in-early-tests-awaits-epa-validation/index.html) city/hwy. While that figure is for the FWD 4-cylinder version, it's still a compact SUV that gets better fuel economy than any non-hybrid SUV on the market.

[Johan]

GM will always have trucks and SUVs.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd be more comfortable with private industry determining their product mix, and going bankrupt if they fail, than with the government doing it.

[Serapth]

SUVs and trucks...which, if they come in demand again, won't be in the mix, since Obama's team doesn't want them in the mix any more.

This part is quite scary, as frankly, when it comes to cars, Americans are red blooded, not blue.

What I mean by that is, they want V8 muscle cars and pickup trucks, not prissy little hybrids. The Obama government is going to direct Chrysler and GM into creating cars that Americans don't actually want. On the bright side, the only company I own stock in is Ford, who the government cant fuck up... well, ignoring the fact they are creating an uneven playing field.

[Wraith]

I don't think we're going to see any vast differences between GM and Ford's lineups, with regards to fuel efficiency. There are already increased CAFE standards that automakers will have to meet. We're likely to see fewer big V8s from Ford and GM. But again, those vehicles will still be there, we just probably won't see as many of them. (But it's not like average car buyers are buying that many Corvettes or Mustang GTs in the first place. They're niche products, and even with average fuel economy standards, that niche will still probably be served by the big 2.5.)

And not all fuel efficient cars are "prissy little hybrids." Ford's new Focus and Chevy's new Cruze are supposed to get very good MPG.

[Narradisall]

This part is quite scary, as frankly, when it comes to cars, Americans are red blooded, not blue.

What I mean by that is, they want V8 muscle cars and pickup trucks, not prissy little hybrids. The Obama government is going to direct Chrysler and GM into creating cars that Americans don't actually want. On the bright side, the only company I own stock in is Ford, who the government cant fuck up... well, ignoring the fact they are creating an uneven playing field.

You lost me, I thought the reason they were going bankrupt is because the consumers were buying 'prissy' high mileage Japanese cars rather than gas guzzling American muscle cars?

If what your saying is true then why are they having such a hard time selling the things?

[CES]

This part is quite scary, as frankly, when it comes to cars, Americans are red blooded, not blue.

What I mean by that is, they want V8 muscle cars and pickup trucks, not prissy little hybrids. The Obama government is going to direct Chrysler and GM into creating cars that Americans don't actually want. On the bright side, the only company I own stock in is Ford, who the government cant fuck up... well, ignoring the fact they are creating an uneven playing field.

Remind me again who is filing for bankruptcy: The "prissy little hybrid" builders or the V8-driven SUV's?

Really though, I'd rather not see big V8 muscle cars die out since I actually like them. I like the looks, the sound and the fact that, to the UK anyway they are effectively a two finger salute to everyone.

[Serapth]

There is a certain irony that both people that replied to me are from the UK.

Frankly, North American car companies tanked for two reasons.

1- a spike in gas prices ( which is now over )
2- a credit crunch that started and was felt first in North America.

Don't get me wrong, American car companies have their fair share of reasons for failing ( over paying workers, especially legacy workers ). Making fuel ineffecient cars is a copout reason. If that was the reason these companies were failing, wouldn't Porsche and Mercedes be out of business?

No, Lefties are pushing the environment as being the reason why consumers aren't buying North American, but thats a crock.

[ShivaX]

I think another big reason you forgot is that overall American car quality compared to imports was shit for a long time.

[Serapth]

I think another big reason you forgot is that overall American car quality compared to imports was shit for a long time.

*was*

Says it all.

[ShivaX]

*was*

Says it all.

But that impression is still there with a ton of people, so its still relevant. Kind of like older people who still think of Japanese products as cheap crap, despite it not having been true for decades.

[CES]

Don't get me wrong, American car companies have their fair share of reasons for failing ( over paying workers, especially legacy workers ). Making fuel ineffecient cars is a copout reason. If that was the reason these companies were failing, wouldn't Porsche and Mercedes be out of business?

No, Lefties are pushing the environment as being the reason why consumers aren't buying North American, but thats a crock.

Mercedes haven't been "inefficent" in the last half decade. You can easily get 35-40MPG even on the bigger cars.

Porsche are a supercar marque, normal rules don't really apply.

[Narradisall]

There is a certain irony that both people that replied to me are from the UK.

Well I honestly don't know the details of the US car market, hence the question.

You make a point of petrol prices being a factor, but imo good business practice is to look at external factors, how they affect your business plan and adapt to them. The US car makers seemed to slow to that, they have started to in recent years, but a tad too late.

Presiteige cars make a poor comparison too, as the people that buy them tend to pay a great deal more for the car and are the types of people that don't worry about a 10 cent spike in fuel prices.

Personally I'd like to think that people wised up that it saves THEM money to drive fuel efficient cars rather than it being some Machiavellian scheme by the leftists.

[Johan]

More accusations of bullying by the Obama administration. (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/241837/Hedge-Fund-Leader-Blasts-Obama-for-%22Bullying%22-and-%22Abuse-of-Power%22?tickers=^dji,^gspc,GM,ARM,DAN,GT,XLF?sec= topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=)

Interesting read with good points sure to be ignored by many.

[Narradisall]

More accusations of bullying by the Obama administration. (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/241837/Hedge-Fund-Leader-Blasts-Obama-for-%22Bullying%22-and-%22Abuse-of-Power%22?tickers=^dji,^gspc,GM,ARM,DAN,GT,XLF?sec= topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=)

Interesting read with good points sure to be ignored by many.

I don't disagree that Obama is being harsh on them. What are their other options though? You can lose everything on investments and plenty of people have.

[Narradisall]

Hate to be a thread necro...

but considering Fiat are buying Chrystler and GM are going bankrupt and being carved up into little money making bits I was wondering what people were still thinking about this?

[Voodoo]

Hate to be a thread necro...

but considering Fiat are buying Chrystler and GM are going bankrupt and being carved up into little money making bits I was wondering what people were still thinking about this?

I'm a little bit weary actually.

[Serapth]

FIAT is a festering pile of shit, so is Chrysler... therefore, I expect we are going to have a bigger festering pile of shit.

GM needed to be trimed down in size... that said, I think the government know as much about the car industry as I know about Sweden, not friggin much. In a few years, GM is going to be making tons of overpriced, unpowered, ecofriendly hatchbacks that Americans wont buy in droves, unless the government forces them to do. That said, I wouldn't be suprised by this government forcing that very thing.

[Telefrog]

FIAT is a festering pile of shit, so is Chrysler... therefore, I expect we are going to have a bigger festering pile of shit.

Are you talking about the quality of their products or their overall business health? Fiat is doing quite well.

[Serapth]

Are you talking about the quality of their products or their overall business health? Fiat is doing quite well.

FIAT has been bailed out more than any other non British-Leyland automaker in the universe, and that includes Uranus! The fact they are currently viable says little, when just a few years ago GM opted to take a 3 billion fine than have to purchase FIAT automotive group for 10 billion.

I have some professional experience with FIAT that has soured me as well. They had by far the lowest quality standards of any of the companies we supplied. This proved useful to us as we were bringing a new plant online it was going through some serious growing pains and our successfull yield of parts was like 20%. In other words, 1 in 5 parts made it past quality standards. Except with FIAT, were it was 80%. We could have shipped them parts made out of playdo and they would have probably accepted and installed them.

[Telefrog]

FIAT has been bailed out more than any other non British-Leyland automaker in the universe, and that includes Uranus! The fact they are currently viable says little, when just a few years ago GM opted to take a 3 billion fine than have to purchase FIAT automotive group for 10 billion.

I have some professional experience with FIAT that has soured me as well. They had by far the lowest quality standards of any of the companies we supplied. This proved useful to us as we were bringing a new plant online it was going through some serious growing pains and our successfull yield of parts was like 20%. In other words, 1 in 5 parts made it past quality standards. Except with FIAT, were it was 80%. We could have shipped them parts made out of playdo and they would have probably accepted and installed them.

Well, I'm definitely not going to argue in favor of the quality of their products. Frankly, the chance of me owning a Fiat is about equal to the chance of me owning a Pontiac! :p

As with most of the automakers, they've had their ups and downs. Ever since they started concentrating on the South American market, they've been doing really well. Cheap small cars do well there, even if the quality is poor.

[CES]

GM Files for Chapter 11, Magna International to buy Opel/Vauxhall. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8077255.stm)

Thoughts?

[civil]

GM Files for Chapter 11, Magna International to buy Opel/Vauxhall. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8077255.stm)

Thoughts?
Shock. That, and this:

While the US government is set to take a 60% stake in GM, the Canadian government is due to own 12.5%, with GM's unions having 17.5%, and bondholders 10%.

freaked the shit out of me. Dunno why.

[Ox]

[Obama] said that the US government, which will own 60% of the carmaker, would be a "reluctant shareholder" and that he had no interest in running it.
This is actually not as good as it sounds. It's a bad thing when over half of the voting shares of a corporation don't bother to exercise control. Just like in a democracy where most people don't vote, it allows small groups to hijack the whole for their own ends.

Of course, I doubt the government would really use its controlling interest to maximize shareholder value, either. I'm not suggesting the President should appoint himself CEO of GM. What I figure will happen is that he'll be hands off for a while, then the rump parliament of shareholders will vote in some board of directors that fail to turn GM into Apple, then he'll talk about how he needs to control every aspect of GM to protect the taxpayers' investment. I even think he'll be entirely honest and sincere at every stage of this story: he really doesn't want to run GM, his decision next year to take over will be reluctant, and it will be a big headache for him he just wants to get rid of. I feel like we're watching the seduction of Brutus by Cassius.

[CES]

Now you're giving me a headache. So basically, Obama (and by extension, the US Government) holds a controlling majority in the company, but will never use it? Isn't that basically what capitalism doesn't want? Admittedly, I'm not thinking clearly right now but that just seems weird.

[Ox]

Yeah, pretty much. One of the best criticisms of exorbitant executive pay, the housing and banking crises, etc. -- apart, of course, from the fact that we needed MORE REGULATION -- is that shareholders have been too lax in enforcing their duties in overseeing the board of directors.

[Serapth]

Don't forget, the government of Canada ( actually Ontario I think ) is going to have a seat on the board too!


Nothing says agile company like having two governments owning you!

That said, I prefer this to what they did with the banks. If the government liquidates their stake in the near future, atleast the taxpayers can actually re-coop some of their investment, instead of just giving it all away.

[CES]

Since i'm not up on business at that high a level, what happens if, say, GM manages to start turning out a profit again to the point where the taxpayers input is matched. What do the government do then, auction the shares off to anyone who wants a piece?

[Serapth]

Since i'm not up on business at that high a level, what happens if, say, GM manages to start turning out a profit again to the point where the taxpayers input is matched. What do the government do then, auction the shares off to anyone who wants a piece?

That is the plan all along. They are supposed to liquidate their stake once the stock rebounds. Actually, there is basically going to be an IPO when GM gets out of bankruptcy, so if there is a huge valuation on day one and enough buyers you could see both governments divesting a good chunk of their shares, which would actually see tax payers getting some money back!

That said, the Union also needs to sell shares to meet pension requirements, so to start there will probably be more sellers than buyers.

[Ox]

That said, I prefer this to what they did with the banks. If the government liquidates their stake in the near future, atleast the taxpayers can actually re-coop some of their investment, instead of just giving it all away.
The government took ownership interests in a lot of the banks, as well. But actually selling 60% of a huge corporation like GM would be difficult. As in, if the government were a private actor, "certainly prohibited by SEC regulations" difficult. For one thing, it would flood the market with GM shares, increasing the effective market capitalization by 150%.

Since i'm not up on business at that high a level, what happens if, say, GM manages to start turning out a profit again to the point where the taxpayers input is matched. What do the government do then, auction the shares off to anyone who wants a piece?
I think it's more likely that the Obama Administration would just sell the whole chunk to a private equity firm run by unicorns.

EDIT: Bear in mind as well, GM's gross assets are only worth about $110 billion, as I recall (assume that number doesn't include the taxpayer infusions). Even if all of its debt is wiped away (won't happen) and it immediately starts getting a great ROI on its remaining assets, it will take a while to make that money back.

[Wraith]

Chinese firm buys Hummer. DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/Hummers+Buyer+Revealed+to+be+Chinese+Firm/article15319.htm)

(The civilian Hummer brand from GM, at least. Military version still controlled by defense contractor.)

[CES]

I can't be the only one to find that highly amusing. One of the symbols of excess, needless size, poor MPG and high pollution being bought by a company from the country which has probably got the most polluted air of any country in the world.

[Narradisall]

I can't be the only one to find that highly amusing. One of the symbols of excess, needless size, poor MPG and high pollution being bought by a company from the country which has probably got the most polluted air of any country in the world.

I personally thought they would probably end up converting them into Military versions.

You know, something to run over those protesters in style

[CES]

I personally thought they would probably end up converting them into Military versions.

You know, something to run over those protesters in style

Nah, they'd just spend the cash on some cheap Russian APC's for that. Still, can you imagine H3's as the official state car of China? I'd almost respect them for it.

[Serapth]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424451815990495.html

Apparently the Fiat deal is much worse than it looks ( big shock, FIAT sucks ). Worse, the government is pushing an agenda.

Your government really are starting to look like a bunch of socialist bastards. Or, is the word Facist? I am not sure which is more apt in this case.

[Narradisall]

Fiat can't make decent cars, you expect them to manage huge business transactions well?

[CES]

Wouldn't say that. The Panda and Grande Punto are pretty solid cars (probably due to the fact that there's very little on them to break)

[Wraith]

Maybe I only know it from Top Gear, but I thought the Fiat 500 (http://www.dailytech.com/Fiat+500+Will+Arrive+Stateside+Within+18+Months/article15297.htm) was doing well.

[jpublic]

Saturn was apparently bought by Penske.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1I98KorF4v4

I'm pleased to see they won't die, espeically considering I happen to own a Saturn.

[BlackPete]

The Fiat deal just got a temporary stay. Something to remember: Fiat can pull out of the deal on June 15th, so if the temporary stay lasts till then, then the deal might be as good as dead. If that's the case, then Chrysler is also as good as dead.

As an aside, this gave me a chuckle:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1787/obamaring.jpg

[Narradisall]

lol, that was good.

I wouldn't be shocked if Fiat took a good look at the deal and decided to drop em. Personally I don't think Fiat have that much scratch to afford it.

[Serapth]

The funny thing is, the group of investors that are blocking the sale of Chrysler bought the debt in 2008 at 43 cents on the dollar. Don't kid yourself into thinking these are mom and pop investors that are losing their shirts, its parasite investors that smelled a good deal then got burned when Obama stepped in instead of letting the company get liquidated.

Don't get me wrong, the Obama admin are making seriously stupid decisions, FIAT is a terrible suitor and IMHO Chrysler should have been allowed to die, along with the dozens of car companies that have failed before it. That said, feel no pity for these "poor investors".

[Ox]

The funny thing is, the group of investors that are blocking the sale of Chrysler bought the debt in 2008 at 43 cents on the dollar. Don't kid yourself into thinking these are mom and pop investors that are losing their shirts, its parasite investors that smelled a good deal then got burned when Obama stepped in instead of letting the company get liquidated.

Don't get me wrong, the Obama admin are making seriously stupid decisions, FIAT is a terrible suitor and IMHO Chrysler should have been allowed to die, along with the dozens of car companies that have failed before it. That said, feel no pity for these "poor investors".
A guy I know has concluded that Obama is Robespierre, tyrant of the French Revolution. His reasoning is this: Robespierre once proposed that legal disputes be resolved, not on the law or the merits of the case, but on each party's individual merits. "Good people" would win regardless of the matter in dispute, and "bad people" would lose.

He thinks Obama falls solidly into this mold. It always surprises me when someone thinks this way.

[BlackPete]

Well it appears that the deal passed anyway, and the stay was rejected. Chrysler is now an italian bitch.

As an aside, this gave me a chuckle: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/whitacre-new-gm-chairman-_n_213611.html

No car experience is necessary to take a top spot at the bankrupt icon of Detroit's automobile industry.

Believe it or not, the newly appointed chairman of GM, Edward Whitacre, Jr., has zero experience with cars -- and he's okay with that. According to Bloomberg:

"I don't know anything about cars," Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. "A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I'm not that old, and I think the business principles are the same."

This will end well, I think.

[michael jackson eating popcorn.jpg]

[Serapth]

I don't know, its not like the CEO builds them, designs them, or in most cases, even approves them. CEOs don't really have to know their products, so long as they know their product markets.

[Ox]

I don't know, its not like the CEO builds them, designs them, or in most cases, even approves them. CEOs don't really have to know their products, so long as they know their product markets.
Indeed, an automotive background would likely be a hindrance. The CEO of GM needs to understand bond markets, lobbying, union negotiations, international regulations and antitrust law, and sundry other matters. Every year he spent learning something about cars was a year he spent not learning about something he'll find useful.

[ShivaX]

Indeed, an automotive background would likely be a hindrance. The CEO of GM needs to understand bond markets, lobbying, union negotiations, international regulations and antitrust law, and sundry other matters. Every year he spent learning something about cars was a year he spent not learning about something he'll find useful.

Michael Moore disagrees (not that anyone should care).

[Serapth]

Michael Moore disagrees (not that anyone should care).

Michael Moore is an idiot.

[Wraith]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2009/06/fiat_crash_panda.jpg

Looks like the U.S. will be getting the Fiat 500 (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/29/report-u-s-to-get-four-versions-of-fiat-500-by-2011-no-word-o/), in a few different versions, by 2011.Fiat is confirming that the U.S. will be getting four versions of the Fiat 500 by 2011. The tiny 500 is the only Fiat model that has been officially greenlighted for American consumption under the Fiat banner. Other models will likely show up as Chryslers or Alfa Romeos. The 500 will make up for that by coming in four different flavors when it reaches these shores: hatchback, convertible, station wagon and sporty hatchback. There's also an outside chance that a micro-CUV, Outback-like version of the wagon will be coming along as well, according to an Automotive News piece.

[CES]

The 500 will be an interesting experiment in the US market. Is there a demographic for small, excellent, fairly cheap, economical yet neat looking cars?

I can see it being adopted in cities but not anywhere else.

[Narradisall]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2009/06/fiat_crash_panda.jpg

I dunno.

America doesn't have as big a Panda Chauffeur market as Europe.

[Wraith]

Other than the Smart (which looks smaller than the 500 to me), the closest thing in the U.S. market now is the 3-door Yaris. There may be a market for it, but I think most people looking for small, affordable cars still opt for the traditional compact (Civic, Corolla, etc.) rather than subcompacts.

[Serapth]

Other than the Smart (which looks smaller than the 500 to me), the closest thing in the U.S. market now is the 3-door Yaris. There may be a market for it, but I think most people looking for small, affordable cars still opt for the traditional compact (Civic, Corolla, etc.) rather than subcompacts.

Mini?

(tosmall)

[Wraith]

There are other small smallish 2- and 3-door cars, like the Mini, and the Hyundai Accent. But I figured them both as a bit larger than the 500.

[CES]

There are other small smallish 2- and 3-door cars, like the Mini, and the Hyundai Accent. But I figured them both as a bit larger than the 500.

The 500 has a bit more headroom than the stupid little Mini though. I'm not a tall guy (just under 6 feet tall) but I dislike having my eyes very nearly above the windscreen.