Was just out walking this evening and a new blue Dodge Challenger drove by. I sure looks nice....If things were not the way it is with Dodge right now I sure would give it a hard look...It is a head turner....
What if Chrysler/Fiat fail?
- Thread starter Dually
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: rszappa1
The once great was a long time ago though....
1999 wasn't all that long ago.
When Chrysler unveiled its new line of LH models in 1998 they were on the cutting edge of automotive design and technology as far as US makers. Sales were strong and the company was financially sound. That's when Daimler set their sights on them.
The once great was a long time ago though....
1999 wasn't all that long ago.
When Chrysler unveiled its new line of LH models in 1998 they were on the cutting edge of automotive design and technology as far as US makers. Sales were strong and the company was financially sound. That's when Daimler set their sights on them.
Quote:
Don't believe that "stuff" about Fiat not building great cars. Not true. This is the same "stuff" you hear about French Renault. Although I don't drive Fiat's when in Europe, I do lease Renault Lagunas, every trip, and they are great cars. Never had any problems with them in twenty years of leasing Renaults.
So true, people read some magazine, probably C&D or similar one, that says Fiats, Renaults etc. are junk and that becomes gospel.
My brother, that lives in Europe, has a 95 chrappy little Fiat UNO with a 1.4 throttle body injected engine. That thing has over 150k miles of all short trips, engine oil changed when it turned black, usually at around 15k KM (I'm not making this stuff up), no coolant flush, brake fluid flush, original clutch.
So yeah, Fiat sure makes some sh!tty cars.
Don't believe that "stuff" about Fiat not building great cars. Not true. This is the same "stuff" you hear about French Renault. Although I don't drive Fiat's when in Europe, I do lease Renault Lagunas, every trip, and they are great cars. Never had any problems with them in twenty years of leasing Renaults.
So true, people read some magazine, probably C&D or similar one, that says Fiats, Renaults etc. are junk and that becomes gospel.
My brother, that lives in Europe, has a 95 chrappy little Fiat UNO with a 1.4 throttle body injected engine. That thing has over 150k miles of all short trips, engine oil changed when it turned black, usually at around 15k KM (I'm not making this stuff up), no coolant flush, brake fluid flush, original clutch.
So yeah, Fiat sure makes some sh!tty cars.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
http://www.tatamotors.com/products/
It wouldn't be that hard to make a few of these pass our safety and emissions rules.
It wouldn't be that hard to make a few of these pass our safety and emissions rules.
If the CEO of Chrysler/Fiat pays back the government money quickly and gets the government out of the business then Chrysler could rebound nicely. If you look across the product lines of both companies they compliment each other and there is not much duplication of effort.
The Germans paid too much for Chrysler and once the Chrysler stock was de-listed from the S&P 500 they never had a chance as a huge chunk of value was lost in one week. Add to that the unwillingness of Chrysler US management & employees to adopt the Daimler technology and you have a recipe for disaster. Dr. Z didn't cut deep enough into the DCX management ranks to make his point and basically never got real technical control of the company here. So, they were doomed to failure.
Today, the sentiment towards Fiat is different and they are seen as a "white knight" saving the company and everyones future. So the rank and file will be much more cooperative than before.
Watch & see this Fiat CEO will take NO prisoners as he reshapes this company. Lots of the "Old Guard" at Chrysler will get pushed out....
The Germans paid too much for Chrysler and once the Chrysler stock was de-listed from the S&P 500 they never had a chance as a huge chunk of value was lost in one week. Add to that the unwillingness of Chrysler US management & employees to adopt the Daimler technology and you have a recipe for disaster. Dr. Z didn't cut deep enough into the DCX management ranks to make his point and basically never got real technical control of the company here. So, they were doomed to failure.
Today, the sentiment towards Fiat is different and they are seen as a "white knight" saving the company and everyones future. So the rank and file will be much more cooperative than before.
Watch & see this Fiat CEO will take NO prisoners as he reshapes this company. Lots of the "Old Guard" at Chrysler will get pushed out....
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Oh, please. Daimler never intended to make a go of it with Chrysler. A handful of Chrysler share holders and management knew that then and sued to have the "merger" stopped--to no avail. Chrysler was in the best financial condition in the late 90s it had been in in 50 years. Daimler took them over and then bled them dry, and then unloaded the eviscerated carcass of a once great American car maker.
This is totally untrue. Daimler lost their shirt on Chrysler...they had the best of intentions. The shareholders of Chrysler made a fortune on the sale as the Germans paid way too much for the company. You should really research this as the facts are undisputable. Daimler lost billions on Chrysler. What they did do wrong was not replace all of the Chrsler top 3 levels of management. Had thay done that and forced their technical changes in the DCX products...today they would make the best high production US made autos. I know this as I have been closely involved in this whole story from the beginning.
There was a time when DCX was going to make a Chrysler 300 with a Mercedes turbo diesel, 7 speed transmission, mercedes high performance suspension, and high luxury interior. The total cost to the consumer would have been about $3k more than the traditional 300. But the "gotta have a Hemi" guys roadblocked it. There was also several turbo diesel Jeep products in the plan. Only one actually got off the drawing board. Had to protect all those UAW jobs you know.
Oh, please. Daimler never intended to make a go of it with Chrysler. A handful of Chrysler share holders and management knew that then and sued to have the "merger" stopped--to no avail. Chrysler was in the best financial condition in the late 90s it had been in in 50 years. Daimler took them over and then bled them dry, and then unloaded the eviscerated carcass of a once great American car maker.
This is totally untrue. Daimler lost their shirt on Chrysler...they had the best of intentions. The shareholders of Chrysler made a fortune on the sale as the Germans paid way too much for the company. You should really research this as the facts are undisputable. Daimler lost billions on Chrysler. What they did do wrong was not replace all of the Chrsler top 3 levels of management. Had thay done that and forced their technical changes in the DCX products...today they would make the best high production US made autos. I know this as I have been closely involved in this whole story from the beginning.
There was a time when DCX was going to make a Chrysler 300 with a Mercedes turbo diesel, 7 speed transmission, mercedes high performance suspension, and high luxury interior. The total cost to the consumer would have been about $3k more than the traditional 300. But the "gotta have a Hemi" guys roadblocked it. There was also several turbo diesel Jeep products in the plan. Only one actually got off the drawing board. Had to protect all those UAW jobs you know.
Originally Posted By: cousincletus
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
That's the same worn out cry that has been coming from Detroit for years. I have yet to see where it is true. It's just an excuse for an inefficient business model. And even if it is true, does that in your mind justify government intervention and breaking of laws? Does that same logic (unfair competition) hold true for the banks that were bailed out? And before you come back with the jobs saved(organized labor), why are they more important than the other 4.5 million lost in the past year?
Have you considered that the government and federal reserve meddling in business created the problems in the first place? The free market will work if we just allow it. It is the solution, not the problem. Protectionism is never the answer.
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
That's the same worn out cry that has been coming from Detroit for years. I have yet to see where it is true. It's just an excuse for an inefficient business model. And even if it is true, does that in your mind justify government intervention and breaking of laws? Does that same logic (unfair competition) hold true for the banks that were bailed out? And before you come back with the jobs saved(organized labor), why are they more important than the other 4.5 million lost in the past year?
Have you considered that the government and federal reserve meddling in business created the problems in the first place? The free market will work if we just allow it. It is the solution, not the problem. Protectionism is never the answer.
Originally Posted By: PT1
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Oh, please. Daimler never intended to make a go of it with Chrysler. A handful of Chrysler share holders and management knew that then and sued to have the "merger" stopped--to no avail. Chrysler was in the best financial condition in the late 90s it had been in in 50 years. Daimler took them over and then bled them dry, and then unloaded the eviscerated carcass of a once great American car maker.
This is totally untrue. Daimler lost their shirt on Chrysler...they had the best of intentions. The shareholders of Chrysler made a fortune on the sale as the Germans paid way too much for the company. You should really research this as the facts are undisputable. Daimler lost billions on Chrysler. What they did do wrong was not replace all of the Chrsler top 3 levels of management. Had thay done that and forced their technical changes in the DCX products...today they would make the best high production US made autos. I know this as I have been closely involved in this whole story from the beginning.
There was a time when DCX was going to make a Chrysler 300 with a Mercedes turbo diesel, 7 speed transmission, mercedes high performance suspension, and high luxury interior. The total cost to the consumer would have been about $3k more than the traditional 300. But the "gotta have a Hemi" guys roadblocked it. There was also several turbo diesel Jeep products in the plan. Only one actually got off the drawing board. Had to protect all those UAW jobs you know.
Uh-huh...
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Oh, please. Daimler never intended to make a go of it with Chrysler. A handful of Chrysler share holders and management knew that then and sued to have the "merger" stopped--to no avail. Chrysler was in the best financial condition in the late 90s it had been in in 50 years. Daimler took them over and then bled them dry, and then unloaded the eviscerated carcass of a once great American car maker.
This is totally untrue. Daimler lost their shirt on Chrysler...they had the best of intentions. The shareholders of Chrysler made a fortune on the sale as the Germans paid way too much for the company. You should really research this as the facts are undisputable. Daimler lost billions on Chrysler. What they did do wrong was not replace all of the Chrsler top 3 levels of management. Had thay done that and forced their technical changes in the DCX products...today they would make the best high production US made autos. I know this as I have been closely involved in this whole story from the beginning.
There was a time when DCX was going to make a Chrysler 300 with a Mercedes turbo diesel, 7 speed transmission, mercedes high performance suspension, and high luxury interior. The total cost to the consumer would have been about $3k more than the traditional 300. But the "gotta have a Hemi" guys roadblocked it. There was also several turbo diesel Jeep products in the plan. Only one actually got off the drawing board. Had to protect all those UAW jobs you know.
Uh-huh...
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: cousincletus
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
That's the same worn out cry that has been coming from Detroit for years. I have yet to see where it is true. It's just an excuse for an inefficient business model. And even if it is true, does that in your mind justify government intervention and breaking of laws? Does that same logic (unfair competition) hold true for the banks that were bailed out? And before you come back with the jobs saved(organized labor), why are they more important than the other 4.5 million lost in the past year?
Have you considered that the government and federal reserve meddling in business created the problems in the first place? The free market will work if we just allow it. It is the solution, not the problem. Protectionism is never the answer.
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
Originally Posted By: cousincletus
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
That's the same worn out cry that has been coming from Detroit for years. I have yet to see where it is true. It's just an excuse for an inefficient business model. And even if it is true, does that in your mind justify government intervention and breaking of laws? Does that same logic (unfair competition) hold true for the banks that were bailed out? And before you come back with the jobs saved(organized labor), why are they more important than the other 4.5 million lost in the past year?
Have you considered that the government and federal reserve meddling in business created the problems in the first place? The free market will work if we just allow it. It is the solution, not the problem. Protectionism is never the answer.
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
Originally Posted By: Dually
If Daimler/Benz could not make it with Chrysler how can Fiat which does not build a quality product last together?If they broke up Chrysler would another company take pieces of another?Joe
That's an easy one. Fiat *wants* to make cars, make better cars than they currently maike, and to get into the North American market successfully. Daimler didn't want anything like that. When the "merger" happened, Daimler was desperately behind the curve in modern vehicle design with one of the longest design-to-production times in the worldwide auto industry, had their own poor quality control issues, and were cash-poor. In Chrysler they got a highly capable rapid-turn computer-aided design and analysis capability that they were lacking, and a cash-strong "partner". They sold Chrysler as an empty husk after cash- and brain-draining the company.
I still think that its highly probably that the Fiat merger will ultimately fail, but its not *premeditated* as a rape from the start the way the Daimler "merger" was.
As I said before, GM is the one that's really in bigger trouble. It will make a much louder "thud" when it fails, and the government is much more inserted into it than into Chrysler.
If Daimler/Benz could not make it with Chrysler how can Fiat which does not build a quality product last together?If they broke up Chrysler would another company take pieces of another?Joe
That's an easy one. Fiat *wants* to make cars, make better cars than they currently maike, and to get into the North American market successfully. Daimler didn't want anything like that. When the "merger" happened, Daimler was desperately behind the curve in modern vehicle design with one of the longest design-to-production times in the worldwide auto industry, had their own poor quality control issues, and were cash-poor. In Chrysler they got a highly capable rapid-turn computer-aided design and analysis capability that they were lacking, and a cash-strong "partner". They sold Chrysler as an empty husk after cash- and brain-draining the company.
I still think that its highly probably that the Fiat merger will ultimately fail, but its not *premeditated* as a rape from the start the way the Daimler "merger" was.
As I said before, GM is the one that's really in bigger trouble. It will make a much louder "thud" when it fails, and the government is much more inserted into it than into Chrysler.
Originally Posted By: swalve
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: cousincletus
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
That's the same worn out cry that has been coming from Detroit for years. I have yet to see where it is true. It's just an excuse for an inefficient business model. And even if it is true, does that in your mind justify government intervention and breaking of laws? Does that same logic (unfair competition) hold true for the banks that were bailed out? And before you come back with the jobs saved(organized labor), why are they more important than the other 4.5 million lost in the past year?
Have you considered that the government and federal reserve meddling in business created the problems in the first place? The free market will work if we just allow it. It is the solution, not the problem. Protectionism is never the answer.
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
Externalities can be both negative and positive. The problem in trying to manage them is that it is very difficult to determine the true cost of the externality. On top of that, often times they are based on views and morals that may or may not represent the entire society. Today, I believe the government has gotten too powerful and tends toward it's own agenda or those who happen to have the check book out all the while telling the people it is supposed to serve (as it takes away their personal freedoms and liberty) that this is in your best interest.
In your particular example, GM failing does not necessarily mean the whole company will be gone. The bad parts will disappear that is true, however, the good parts will be purchased and continue operations. And while I do have compassion for those investors/employees, no where is it written that everyone is entitled to have positive returns on their investments or are they entitled to have a job. Again I ask, why are 50,000 UAW jobs more important than the millions of others lost in the past 12 months?
And speaking of bondholders, how is it legal for the executive branch to intervene in corporate bankruptcy proceedings and short change the secured bond holders, and give organized labor a huge stake in the new company? This does not seem to be in the best interest of society as a whole to me.
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: cousincletus
Originally Posted By: Junior
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Junior
The failure can't come fast enough.
And why is that?
Because I want the government out of the private sector so the free market can work. Businesses that are uncompetitive should be allowed to fail not artificially propped up by the government. I am opposed to all the government bailout and entitlement programs. Not to mention I view the executive branch's interference the the corporate bankruptcy proceedings illegal.
The reason they aren't competitive it unfair foreign competition.
That's the same worn out cry that has been coming from Detroit for years. I have yet to see where it is true. It's just an excuse for an inefficient business model. And even if it is true, does that in your mind justify government intervention and breaking of laws? Does that same logic (unfair competition) hold true for the banks that were bailed out? And before you come back with the jobs saved(organized labor), why are they more important than the other 4.5 million lost in the past year?
Have you considered that the government and federal reserve meddling in business created the problems in the first place? The free market will work if we just allow it. It is the solution, not the problem. Protectionism is never the answer.
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
Externalities can be both negative and positive. The problem in trying to manage them is that it is very difficult to determine the true cost of the externality. On top of that, often times they are based on views and morals that may or may not represent the entire society. Today, I believe the government has gotten too powerful and tends toward it's own agenda or those who happen to have the check book out all the while telling the people it is supposed to serve (as it takes away their personal freedoms and liberty) that this is in your best interest.
In your particular example, GM failing does not necessarily mean the whole company will be gone. The bad parts will disappear that is true, however, the good parts will be purchased and continue operations. And while I do have compassion for those investors/employees, no where is it written that everyone is entitled to have positive returns on their investments or are they entitled to have a job. Again I ask, why are 50,000 UAW jobs more important than the millions of others lost in the past 12 months?
And speaking of bondholders, how is it legal for the executive branch to intervene in corporate bankruptcy proceedings and short change the secured bond holders, and give organized labor a huge stake in the new company? This does not seem to be in the best interest of society as a whole to me.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Oh, please. Daimler never intended to make a go of it with Chrysler. A handful of Chrysler share holders and management knew that then and sued to have the "merger" stopped--to no avail. Chrysler was in the best financial condition in the late 90s it had been in in 50 years. Daimler took them over and then bled them dry, and then unloaded the eviscerated carcass of a once great American car maker.
DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ABOUT THIS. I'll wind up getting banned.
Daimler sucked Chrysler dry to revive itself, then jumped off the depleted victim, like gorged parasites often do.
Chrysler should have been the one buying Daimler in '99. They certainly were flush with enough cash then, and Daimler was in trouble. Eaton was either possessed or in a stupor.
Oh, please. Daimler never intended to make a go of it with Chrysler. A handful of Chrysler share holders and management knew that then and sued to have the "merger" stopped--to no avail. Chrysler was in the best financial condition in the late 90s it had been in in 50 years. Daimler took them over and then bled them dry, and then unloaded the eviscerated carcass of a once great American car maker.
DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ABOUT THIS. I'll wind up getting banned.
Daimler sucked Chrysler dry to revive itself, then jumped off the depleted victim, like gorged parasites often do.
Chrysler should have been the one buying Daimler in '99. They certainly were flush with enough cash then, and Daimler was in trouble. Eaton was either possessed or in a stupor.
Well, one thing is for sure. No one should own a car manufacturing company that knows nothing about making cars, whether it be an investment firm or a government, and the people running a car manufacturing company should know something about the process, other than just how to turn the key and press on the gas pedal.
Originally Posted By: swalve
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
Quote:
The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
How about the externalities and people that have to pay the taxes for the $80 Billion sent to Detroit?
How do a bunch of individuals deal with the externalities imposed upon them by a few in Washington? THOSE externalities are largly to blame for the condition of GM and Chrysler.
The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
How about the externalities and people that have to pay the taxes for the $80 Billion sent to Detroit?
How do a bunch of individuals deal with the externalities imposed upon them by a few in Washington? THOSE externalities are largly to blame for the condition of GM and Chrysler.
Originally Posted By: swalve
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
I suppose that can be wedged in somewhere. Maybe we can remove that pesky liberty clause to make room...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
I suppose that can be wedged in somewhere. Maybe we can remove that pesky liberty clause to make room...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: swalve
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
I suppose that can be wedged in somewhere. Maybe we can remove that pesky liberty clause to make room...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I agree. I believe what we have to day was not the intent of the Constitution
Originally Posted By: swalve
You are right that competition is never unfair, unless you are relying on some kind of monopoly or oligopoly. Foreign cars cost more, generally, so how can it be unfair?
But you are not entirely right about the free market. Yes, a free market will tend toward perfect prices and perfect demand, but it can be a really bouncy ride along the way. Suppose we let GM fail on its own. Eventually, other competitors would have grown and innovated to fill the hole in the marketplace. But along the way, a LOT of damage would have been caused. The free market doesn't care about externalities. Like shareholder and bondholder value going to zero. Like everyone losing their jobs. Like the retirees losing their pensions. Suppliers going out of business. All the parts in the supply chain going to waste because the cars they were made for will never be built. The free market doesn't have to live with that- people do. That's why we have a government in the first place: to manage the externalities caused by the free choices of a bunch of individuals.
I suppose that can be wedged in somewhere. Maybe we can remove that pesky liberty clause to make room...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I agree. I believe what we have to day was not the intent of the Constitution
Originally Posted By: Dually
If Daimler/Benz could not make it with Chrysler how can Fiat which does not build a quality product last together?If they broke up Chrysler would another company take pieces of another?Joe
What is your basis for saying Fiat does not or cannot build a quality product?
Look at the list of companies in the Fiat Group:
Autos
Fiat
Lancia
Alfa Romeo
Ferrari
Maserati
Trucks and commercial vehicles
Iveco
Irisbus
Magirus
Agriculture and construction equipment
Case-New Holland
Case-International Harvester
Steyr
Kobelco
Do all these companies make inferior products?
If Daimler/Benz could not make it with Chrysler how can Fiat which does not build a quality product last together?If they broke up Chrysler would another company take pieces of another?Joe
What is your basis for saying Fiat does not or cannot build a quality product?
Look at the list of companies in the Fiat Group:
Autos
Fiat
Lancia
Alfa Romeo
Ferrari
Maserati
Trucks and commercial vehicles
Iveco
Irisbus
Magirus
Agriculture and construction equipment
Case-New Holland
Case-International Harvester
Steyr
Kobelco
Do all these companies make inferior products?
- Status
