[cash68]

I wouldn't count Chrysler out just yet. Despite being a cheap company that has a knack for mistakes, they also have a GREAT design team (crossfire, ram, 300C, SRT4, etc) and they're a lot smaller than GM. This allows them to move faster. I think they have a better shot than the severely bloated GM.

 

[Jaw007]

The Government could buy Head-Fier's some amps,headphones,ipods and a all expense paid vacation to Vegas.LOL

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Disagree. I feel they were just greedy and instead of looking after the health of the country, they wanted to be the business major ********* who was responsible for making the most profit, short term. So, the push the most profitable vehicle while ignoring the writing on the wall, and hope that gas stays cheap forever.

The SUV was immensely profitable for two or three vehicle generations and managed to stave off the Japanese onslaught for the time. I'd call that a rousing success and a great business decision. The lack of a diversification strategy during that time period was a major failing and is the major issue leading to their current troubles today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 Like what? Ford does, sure, but I'm not sure what GM/Chrysler vehicles you are referring to back in the mid to late 90s.

The Big 2.5 didn't need compelling cars during the 90's time frame. They needed compelling cars within the last few years and they've had them in Europe. Ford with the Fiesta, MKII Focus, and Mondeo. GM with the Astra and Vectra. Lack of foresight and poor business strategy ensured that they'd be trapped in Europe when they were needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 Overpowered? Most SUVs are slow as hell and handle like ass. The reason they became so popular is that the industry themselves pushed it on people.

Compared to minivans? Because that's what the ended up replacing initially. By the time SUVs had a major impact on the market, the station wagon and large car had already been strangled by CAFE and killed off by the minivan. As for replacing the average American's vehicle with a compact car, heh, good luck. There's a reason why even Japanese cars have been steadily migrating up the size chain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cash68 I wouldn't count Chrysler out just yet. Despite being a cheap company that has a knack for mistakes, they also have a GREAT design team (crossfire, ram, 300C, SRT4, etc) and they're a lot smaller than GM. This allows them to move faster. I think they have a better shot than the severely bloated GM.

Highly doubtful. They have a parent company that would divest them ASAP if it were possible, they're out of money, and have no near term overseas product to salvage their product mix. That's about as bad as it gets.

As far as their current product goes, they're also screwed on that front. The Crossfire was a massive sales flop. The changeover from the Neon to the Caliber was a dumb move. The LX platform cars aren't selling well and neither is the redesigned Ram. Their GS platform cars are pretty much worst in class with little competition. Their minivans are decent, but sales haven't been great since the gas crunch. The only bright spot is Jeep which should bring some value in the inevitable sell off.

 

[hew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTheMiataMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Crisis of Credit Visualized the credit issues explained with animation.

Best explanation of the crisis I've seen. Thanks!

 

[davidhunternyc]

Boy, that Chevy Volt is turning out to be more expensive than I realized.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Boy, that Chevy Volt is turning out to be more expensive than I realized.

It go up again? Last I heard, cost to consumer was $35k which isn't too far out of line with a top of the line Prius or an HS250.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fact of the matter is that the big 3 have a labor cost per hour that is much higher than their competition.

Kinda sorta. Most economists, when pushed, will admit that it isn't wages in and of itself that causes the problem, it's wages plus the insane cost of the healthcare packages the workers get. If we had single payer healthcare, the American auto manufacturers (and any company that isn't an off-shoring traitor to their country) would be able to be much more competitive.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kinda sorta. Most economists, when pushed, will admit that it isn't wages in and of itself that causes the problem, it's wages plus the insane cost of the healthcare packages the workers get. If we had single payer healthcare, the American auto manufacturers (and any company that isn't an off-shoring traitor to their country) would be able to be much more competitive.

That proposal just shifts the costs of healthcare. Instead of the employee/company paying money to private health insurance companies to provide insurance, the employee/company would be paying money through taxes to the government to provide insurance. Even worse from a business cost perspective, a (universal) single payer healthcare system would cover many more people than are covered now. This will have the likely result of increasing healthcare costs for employees/companies that do pay for healthcare to cover benefits for those that don’t.

The healthcare issue that the Big 2.5 have is in regards to the payouts for retiree healthcare, not healthcare for existing employees.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hew /img/forum/go_quote.gif Best explanation of the crisis I've seen. Thanks!

the explanation left out an important piece of the puzzle - the CMO buyers are immune from bankruptcies that has happened in the lower tiers such as the seller of CMO and the account debtor/obligator/debtor (IB and homeowners) simply because the way the squadrons of lawyers had structured the deal. Generally speaking the CMOs are bought through the use of a SPE, which has acquired all the rights via promissory note and a corresponding mortgage 'bought' from the lower tier creditor, e.g. IB. Accordingly when CMO buyers are issued a piece of the SPE's cash flow, they are in affect holder in due course and can't be dragged into the bankruptcy by the trustee in bankruptcy when the seller/obligator get into trouble.... those lawyers were really clever....so they thought . . .

Congress must recognize the CMO buyers are in FACT just secured creditors and the sale of promissory note and mortgage were not really true sales; and as such the CMO buyers must get with the program (drag their @$$ into the bankruptcy proceedings like every other secured creditor).... now the only problem is to figure out who owns what; although that can be readily solved by having the gov buy up all the CMOs from the existing buyers

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif That proposal just shifts the costs of healthcare. Instead of the employee/company paying money to private health insurance companies to provide insurance, the employee/company would be paying money through taxes to the government to provide insurance. Even worse from a business cost perspective, a (universal) single payer healthcare system would cover many more people than are covered now. This will have the likely result of increasing healthcare costs for employees/companies that do pay for healthcare to cover benefits for those that don’t. The healthcare issue that the Big 2.5 have is in regards to the payouts for retiree healthcare, not healthcare for existing employees.

But it won't only be the businesses paying for them; that's a common misperception. Universal healthcare means everyone pays for everyone. There's no proposals to stick it all on corporations. And with the profit element removed, overall healthcare costs will plummet.

I've never understood why Americans think America is the only country in the developed world that just isn't smart enough to do universal healthcare. It really isn't that complicated; there is just a huge amount of money to be lost by the insurance companies, so they're throwing out propaganda that has people thinking it's rocket science that we just can't do.