Cry-sler
-
What is not mentioned is that Chryslers parent company and majority owner, Cerebus Capital Management, does have significant access to funds that they have chosen not to provide to Chrysler. If the owners don't think they are worth saving, why should taxpayers do it? It is also noteworthy that Cerebus owns 51% of GMAC, general motors finance unit. Both Chrysler and GM are complaining that they are suffering because their would-be customers can't get credit. Why isn't Cerebus helping the lending companies it owns lend so the auto manufacturing companies they own can sell cars? Something really stinks here, and all the garbage about union wages is just a smoke screen for a rip-off by Cerebus, who, having mismanaged Chrysler into the present state, are unwilling to pay their fair share of the consequences. Cerebus is also using GMAC to squeeze GM (self -mismanaged) to further mask their complicity in this mess. Note that Ford, the only one of the three with no involvement by Cerebus, is comparatively healthy and will survive without help if it's suppliers are not brought down by Chrysler or GM failures.
modified on Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:58 PM
Excellent analysis. If we have to save some or (temporarily) all of GM, I can understand that. The impact on the economy would be too great. Cerebus may not bear all the blame for bad management - Daimler proved to be utterly inept at dealing with the American market - but they should sell Jeep to Ford, and take their losses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oh, everything is screwed, but the right decisions are too tough to take, no-one will take them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
I know a lot of manufacturing sites around the country are shutting down for a week or two this christmas so I am not too shocked by these yahoos. But, I am soo tired of them begging to just take our money. If the government is going to give them loans why not stipulate recourse against board members, CEOs and, CFOs. Hell, even force them to contractually give up any homestead exemption they may have. (For those not in the US, a homestead exemption is a law that in some states exempts a personal home and it's contents from default judgement in lawsuits.)
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
If the government is going to give them loans why not stipulate recourse against board members
Goldman Sachs partners, the poor dears, cannot collect more than $400,000 in cash bonuses this year - that is, of course, $400,000 from you and me. The rest they will have to take in stock from the firm that Secretary Paulson headed up until a couple of years ago. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
What is not mentioned is that Chryslers parent company and majority owner, Cerebus Capital Management, does have significant access to funds that they have chosen not to provide to Chrysler. If the owners don't think they are worth saving, why should taxpayers do it? It is also noteworthy that Cerebus owns 51% of GMAC, general motors finance unit. Both Chrysler and GM are complaining that they are suffering because their would-be customers can't get credit. Why isn't Cerebus helping the lending companies it owns lend so the auto manufacturing companies they own can sell cars? Something really stinks here, and all the garbage about union wages is just a smoke screen for a rip-off by Cerebus, who, having mismanaged Chrysler into the present state, are unwilling to pay their fair share of the consequences. Cerebus is also using GMAC to squeeze GM (self -mismanaged) to further mask their complicity in this mess. Note that Ford, the only one of the three with no involvement by Cerebus, is comparatively healthy and will survive without help if it's suppliers are not brought down by Chrysler or GM failures.
modified on Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:58 PM
-
Excellent analysis. If we have to save some or (temporarily) all of GM, I can understand that. The impact on the economy would be too great. Cerebus may not bear all the blame for bad management - Daimler proved to be utterly inept at dealing with the American market - but they should sell Jeep to Ford, and take their losses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Frankly, I hope Bush forces Chrysler (at least) into "Managed Chapter 11". That is the only way Cerebus will be forced to suffer the consequences due it. In a structured bankruptcy, the pieces could be reconstituted, either as a "reborn" Chrysler, or as part of GM and Ford. Gm would also benefit from chapter11, since that would force the current incompetent management out, and would force renegotiation of the union contracts, particularly the retiree health care burden. Ford should get the loan gaurantee, just to insure they can hold the pieces together while the others are rebuilt. There would be pain for everyone, but less than what will eventually come if we just hand Cerebus and the GMidiots the cash they want.
-
The just recently applied for that, but waited too late. It's tough to get banking status on one hand while holding out the other for a bailout.
-
I understand why a bailout is needed ( b/c of how many jobs are at stake and the ripple effect on the economy ), but I think it should only come with strong conditions. This is a great way to force them to build fuel efficient cars and explore other energy sources, for example. But, certainly in times of profit, they should be made to pay back the bailout amounts.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
I understand why a bailout is needed ( b/c of how many jobs are at stake and the ripple effect on the economy ), but I think it should only come with strong conditions. This is a great way to force them to build fuel efficient cars and explore other energy sources, for example.
Is it ok yet for me to go back to calling people marxists again?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Do you really think it will be, tho ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
I understand why a bailout is needed ( b/c of how many jobs are at stake and the ripple effect on the economy ), but I think it should only come with strong conditions. This is a great way to force them to build fuel efficient cars and explore other energy sources, for example. But, certainly in times of profit, they should be made to pay back the bailout amounts.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
. This is a great way to force them to build fuel efficient cars and explore other energy sources, for example.
With gasoline at $1.50 a gallon, do you really think forcing them to do that will make them economically viable, or will it just insure the are pummelled by the Toyoto, Mercedes, Kia, and Mitsubishi SUVs that will roll out? I thought the idea here was to preserve jobs, not engage in social engineering.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
. This is a great way to force them to build fuel efficient cars and explore other energy sources, for example.
With gasoline at $1.50 a gallon, do you really think forcing them to do that will make them economically viable, or will it just insure the are pummelled by the Toyoto, Mercedes, Kia, and Mitsubishi SUVs that will roll out? I thought the idea here was to preserve jobs, not engage in social engineering.
Rob Graham wrote:
gasoline at $1.50 a gallon
I believe it has been predicted by some economists that this is only temporary and the price of gasoline will rise again.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
-
Rob Graham wrote:
gasoline at $1.50 a gallon
I believe it has been predicted by some economists that this is only temporary and the price of gasoline will rise again.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
Quite, it's predicated on a global decline in demand for oil caused by the biggest global slowdown since, well, at least '82 if not '74 if not '30. Once the global economy recovers, which it inevitably will, demand will go back up. But at these prices there's no incentive for oil producers to invest in already creaking infrastructure, so in all likelyhood we'll see a structural decline in supply over the next year or two.
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
-
Do you really think it will be, tho ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
It looks exactly the same as a bunch of uneducated, semiskilled grunts banding together to close a plant because the company won't pay them 10 times their worth. Only when a union does it, the papers call it solidarity; when the company does it, it's unfair labor practice.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
Roger Wright wrote:
It looks exactly the same as a bunch of uneducated, semiskilled grunts banding together to close a plant because the company won't pay them 10 times their worth.
I assume you're referring to unions there.....what dealings have you ever had with them?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Quite, it's predicated on a global decline in demand for oil caused by the biggest global slowdown since, well, at least '82 if not '74 if not '30. Once the global economy recovers, which it inevitably will, demand will go back up. But at these prices there's no incentive for oil producers to invest in already creaking infrastructure, so in all likelyhood we'll see a structural decline in supply over the next year or two.
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
-
What is not mentioned is that Chryslers parent company and majority owner, Cerebus Capital Management, does have significant access to funds that they have chosen not to provide to Chrysler. If the owners don't think they are worth saving, why should taxpayers do it? It is also noteworthy that Cerebus owns 51% of GMAC, general motors finance unit. Both Chrysler and GM are complaining that they are suffering because their would-be customers can't get credit. Why isn't Cerebus helping the lending companies it owns lend so the auto manufacturing companies they own can sell cars? Something really stinks here, and all the garbage about union wages is just a smoke screen for a rip-off by Cerebus, who, having mismanaged Chrysler into the present state, are unwilling to pay their fair share of the consequences. Cerebus is also using GMAC to squeeze GM (self -mismanaged) to further mask their complicity in this mess. Note that Ford, the only one of the three with no involvement by Cerebus, is comparatively healthy and will survive without help if it's suppliers are not brought down by Chrysler or GM failures.
modified on Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:58 PM
-
Roger Wright wrote:
It looks exactly the same as a bunch of uneducated, semiskilled grunts banding together to close a plant because the company won't pay them 10 times their worth.
I assume you're referring to unions there.....what dealings have you ever had with them?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
what dealings have you ever had with them?
I've been a Teamster, worked in union shops, and had to deal with union subcontractors. I see very little justification for the continued existence of any of them.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
RichardGrimmer wrote:
what dealings have you ever had with them?
I've been a Teamster, worked in union shops, and had to deal with union subcontractors. I see very little justification for the continued existence of any of them.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
You'll have to forgive my ignorance of the colonies, but what's a Teamster?
Roger Wright wrote:
I see very little justification for the continued existence of any of them.
Hmmm....that's an interesting opinion - particularly in these "volatile economic times"....do you work or manage? (if you forgive the crass division there lol!)....I tend to find in my experience that the "unskilled grunts" attitute is generally prevalent amongst the more, how can I say it...."white collar" amongst us....
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.