Chrysler should be allowed to fail.

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Here's a hint: Toyota, BMW, Honda, etc. all have manufacturing plants in the United States to escape tariffs.

Did you read what he said?

[/quote]

Yeah, I did, unfortunately. It's the same rubbish he's been spewing all over the place, this mental-deficiency induced pandemonium.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Here's a hint: Toyota, BMW, Honda, etc. all have manufacturing plants in the United States to escape tariffs.

Did you read what he said?


Yeah, I did, unfortunately. It's the same rubbish he's been spewing all over the place, this mental-deficiency induced pandemonium.

I have only been parroting the assessments of others. This is not like an airline bankruptcy where your customers only rent your product for a couple hours. People want a warranty when they buy a vehicle. Even after the warranty they want to know they can go somewhere for parts. This is why the leaders of the big 3 don't want bankruptcy. Many other companies have used bankruptcy as a means to break the union's stranglehold. They jumped at the chance. In this case it could backfire badly. Name another industry that went the bankruptcy route where everyday consumers returned to a product that they had put so much money into to buy. The big three have already done a lot to ruin their reputations with admitting going broke.

Text

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Squisher
In this case it could backfire badly. Name another industry that went the bankruptcy route where everyday consumers returned to a product that they had put so much money into to buy. The big three have already done a lot to ruin their reputations with admitting going broke.

I know you're parroting the assessments of others, namely the CEOs who want to stay in their nice comfortable positions. They don't give a damn about their companies' reputations, except maybe for the Ford CEO, merely their own, and their pride, arrogance, and stupidity demands they refuse to declare bankruptcy and reassess their assets.

The warranty issue is the same issue as any other company warranty going bad: The consumer took a risk buying a car, if the company DOES go out, and that's a pretty drastic if, he's SOL. Why should the government go around fixing people's mistakes?

By the same logic you're presenting to me, the government should send an agent to everyone's house in the morning to make sure you're wiping your anus correctly to avoid infection.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Squisher
In this case it could backfire badly. Name another industry that went the bankruptcy route where everyday consumers returned to a product that they had put so much money into to buy. The big three have already done a lot to ruin their reputations with admitting going broke.

I know you're parroting the assessments of others, namely the CEOs who want to stay in their nice comfortable positions. They don't give a damn about their companies' reputations, except maybe for the Ford CEO, merely their own, and their pride, arrogance, and stupidity demands they refuse to declare bankruptcy and reassess their assets.

The warranty issue is the same issue as any other company warranty going bad: The consumer took a risk buying a car, if the company DOES go out, and that's a pretty drastic if, he's SOL. Why should the government go around fixing people's mistakes?

By the same logic you're presenting to me, the government should send an agent to everyone's house in the morning to make sure you're wiping your anus correctly to avoid infection.

Did you read the link? It isn't from a CEO.

So, you are coming at this from philosophical truisms, not based on how it impacts real world events. How, nice. Now I see why you have such a hard time seeing how scenarios can differ from your preconceived notions.

The CEOs don't desire a reputation for anything but to make money. In the car business this counts. Because a consumer is making one of their largest purchases, people put more emphasis on this than when they are let's say buying a TV.

The government isn't in the job of fixing people's mistakes, but when it is fiscally responsible to do so, does it make sense to not do so, just to stand on principle? If so, then this reminds me a lot of person clinging to the tenets of their faith.

So far, you haven't provided any evidence of a company that is as integral to a country's economy as the the domestic automakers are to this country being shut down and picked apart by more successful companies with all 300+ other companies relying on them or even re-emerging as stronger better companies, so I must assume you are relying on your faith.

In a different time and place where investment money was plentiful your plan might even work, but here and now it isn't going to happen. The well is dry.

The government should stay out of the way in most instances, but the government's job is to provide for the general welfare of its people. Allowing such a large portion of its economy to tank might just put a damper on this, especially when it will cost less to save the automakers than it will cost to repair the mess left by allowing them to go under.

If it was costing the federal government more to deal with the repercussions of poor anal hygiene then to provide daily anal douches I'd be the first to advocate an anal douche czar.
If I harbored some deep seated resentment of a company because of some issue in the past I wouldn't have that cloud my judgment if they now provided my best option of where to spend my money.

 

[theblackbox]

i wish amc would make a comeback, take over jeep and return it to what it was, and then gm, ford and chrysler can go under.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

Believe me, you won't want to purchase products from companies not allowed to fail. Pleasing consumers won't matter to a company getting cash infusions from federal government. Its livelihood doesn't depend on your purchase, just milking government.

Two words:

British Leyland.