Fiat makes final payment to US gov't for Chrysler bailout

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?

IDK, maybe that should be looked into.

CaveJohnson1

They'd hire the more efficient, skilled workers and managers, and the crappy workers and managers would get weeded out. This reallocation is what helps economies grow. Bailing out inefficient companies hurts everybody in the long-run.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Not even when it works, saves the company, the loan is paid back and it saves 50,000 workers joba?

IDK, maybe that should be looked into.

CaveJohnson1

A product that didn't have enough market demand to keep the company afloat. Same goes for hole digging. There is no demand for it.

The insentive would be money, exects at chrysler and GM were paid next to nothing when this loan came out, one exect was literrally paid 1 dollar for the year. Just because they were helped doesn't mean that they haven't had extreme money pains as a result of bad decisions.

CaveJohnson1

As I already said, it doesn't set a good precedent. It tells big business that the American taxpayer will bail you out if you make bad decisions and are in trouble. That is not a policy we should have, at all.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I think I'm going to ask the Federal government for a $10 billion loan in order to keep my hole digging business alive. If they don't, thousands of jobs will be lost. We have to put people to work.

CaveJohnson1

I've lived in Michigan my entire life. I know people who are and have been affected by the failing U.S. auto industry. But I don't believe other people should have to pay to keep a failing business alive. Things change. You can't rely on one industry to keep your economy going, and that's exactly what Michigan did.

Things change. Our country used to be almost all agricultural based. Now we are mainly a service based. Propping up a failing business or industry is only helping a few in the short-run, while in the long run it will have negative effects on everyone.

They'd hire the more efficient, skilled workers and managers, and the crappy workers and managers would get weeded out.BMD004

[QUOTE="BMD004"] They'd hire the more efficient, skilled workers and managers, and the crappy workers and managers would get weeded out.topsemag55

Now if Chrysler can get rid of all the drunks and heads who like to party at lunch or before work, especially the ones doing so at the UAW parking lot.

So was it really worth losing 1.3 billion.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="BMD004"] They'd hire the more efficient, skilled workers and managers, and the crappy workers and managers would get weeded out.BMD004

Won't help much if they keep dominating the worst cars list.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]Like SpartanMSU said... why not just pay people to dig holes? It keeps them employed...

BMD004

They'd hire the more efficient, skilled workers and managers, and the crappy workers and managers would get weeded out. This reallocation is what helps economies grow. Bailing out inefficient companies hurts everybody in the long-run.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]Like SpartanMSU said... why not just pay people to dig holes? It keeps them employed...

SpartanMSU

A product that didn't have enough market demand to keep the company afloat. Same goes for hole digging. There is no demand for it.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I think I'm going to ask the Federal government for a $10 billion loan in order to keep my hole digging business alive. If they don't, thousands of jobs will be lost. We have to put people to work.

SpartanMSU

I've lived in Michigan my entire life. I know people who are and have been affected by the failing U.S. auto industry. But I don't believe other people should have to pay to keep a failing business alive. Things change. You can't rely on one industry to keep your economy going, and that's exactly what Michigan did.

Things change. Our country used to be almost all agricultural based. Now we are mainly a service based. Propping up a failing business or industry is only helping a few in the short-run, while in the long run it will have negative effects on everyone.

As for saying it's failing, what do you think the point of the artical was? It's turning a profit now, it's paid back it's loan. This is not a short term loss, or any loss for that matter, it's insured the continued success of a mulitbillion country in the U.S. increased gov't income, and it's secured jobs of hundreds of thousands.

After seeing the arguments for why we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry I think I may have to save this for future reference and laughs. Obviously Ideology (hat doesn't work very well) > preventing the loss of thousands of jobs and potentially making the recession into something hugely damaging rather than just a minor misstep. Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]After seeing the arguments for why we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry I think I may have to save this for future reference and laughs. Obviously Ideology (hat doesn't work very well) > preventing the loss of thousands of jobs and potentially making the recession into something hugely damaging rather than just a minor misstep. sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]After seeing the arguments for why we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry I think I may have to save this for future reference and laughs. Obviously Ideology (hat doesn't work very well) > preventing the loss of thousands of jobs and potentially making the recession into something hugely damaging rather than just a minor misstep. CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] I live in Michigan. I am very happy the auto industry was bailed out. :)sonicare

You guys suck. :x

Dude, Chicago "highways" are like... 40mph or some ****. It's so bogus.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] I live in Michigan. I am very happy the auto industry was bailed out. :)sonicare

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Car companies produce a product, and indirectly are helping to employ hundreds others of other people indirectly.

They'd hire the more efficient, skilled workers and managers, and the crappy workers and managers would get weeded out. This reallocation is what helps economies grow. Bailing out inefficient companies hurts everybody in the long-run.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] I live in Michigan. I am very happy the auto industry was bailed out. :)sonicare

They are 70 here in Georgia too. I know one place where the average speed is 70 even though the posted speed limit is 55. :shock: :|

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Michigan >> rest of universe

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Michigan >> rest of universe

You guys suck. :x

Dude, Chicago "highways" are like... 40mph or some ****. It's so bogus.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Just for the simple fact that our speed limit is 70mph. :Psonicare

You guys suck. :x

Dude, Chicago "highways" are like... 40mph or some ****. It's so bogus.

Chicago highways are the most confusing and irritating highways I've been on...

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Just for the simple fact that our speed limit is 70mph. :Psonicare

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Yes I'm wondering that as well. That said at the relatively small price tag of 1 billion, I'd say this was a worthwhile investment.sSubZerOo

Well you could argue that tax revenue genratedbecause of them still existing will make up that difference easily given enough time than them just not existing.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Which is only the case so passer-by's don't have to stay in Michigan for too long. -Sun_Tzu-

After seeing the arguments for why we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry I think I may have to save this for future reference and laughs. Obviously Ideology (hat doesn't work very well) > preventing the loss of thousands of jobs and potentially making the recession into something hugely damaging rather than just a minor misstep. Ace6301

Not bailing out the auto industry and bailing them out are BOTH based on ideologies.:lol:

Nice try though!

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Which is only the case so passer-by's don't have to stay in Michigan for too long. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] I live in Michigan. I am very happy the auto industry was bailed out. :)sonicare

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] It's usually so they can outrun the bullets.

sonicare

Anyone that lives in Michigan, especially southeast Michigan, can see the impact that auto industry has and the impact on Detroit when the auto industry started to decline. The auto industry is the heart and soul of this region, if it is gone, half of the population will have to move. Whoever says that letting the companies die would be better clearly doesn't understand the consequences of doing so and how many people would be affected. SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Michigan >> rest of universe

chessmaster1989

You guys suck. :x

Dude, Chicago "highways" are like... 40mph or some ****. It's so bogus.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]Anyone that lives in Michigan, especially southeast Michigan, can see the impact that auto industry has and the impact on Detroit when the auto industry started to decline. The auto industry is the heart and soul of this region, if it is gone, half of the population will have to move. Whoever says that letting the companies die would be better clearly doesn't understand the consequences of doing so and how many people would be affected. sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Michigan >> rest of universe

BMD004

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]I have a real hard time believing that you live in michigan or went to state. It's easier to understand somebodies perspective that doesn't live in this state, but unless you've been wearing blinders your whole life, it's hard to believe that you don't have at least a partial understanding of the problems that would be caused by one of the big three failing.

CaveJohnson1

I've lived in Michigan my entire life. I know people who are and have been affected by the failing U.S. auto industry. But I don't believe other people should have to pay to keep a failing business alive. Things change. You can't rely on one industry to keep your economy going, and that's exactly what Michigan did.

Things change. Our country used to be almost all agricultural based. Now we are mainly a service based. Propping up a failing business or industry is only helping a few in the short-run, while in the long run it will have negative effects on everyone.

As for saying it's failing, what do you think the point of the artical was? It's turning a profit now, it's paid back it's loan. This is not a short term loss, or any loss for that matter, it's insured the continued success of a mulitbillion country in the U.S. increased gov't income, and it's secured jobs of hundreds of thousands.

I have been paying attention. Have you? Do you have a basic understanding of supply-side economics?

Keeping a failing business artificially afloat is not helpful to the overall economy in the long-run. My hole-digging example still stands (which you have not addressed yet). A failing business shouldn't be saved based on jobs.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That too. And so they can get away from Ford Field as quickly as possible after a stellar performance from the local football team which shall remain nameless (and in most cases, winless).

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"] It's usually so they can outrun the bullets.

SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That too. And so they can get away from Ford Field as quickly as possible after a stellar performance from the local football team which shall remain nameless (and in most cases, winless).

SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]Michigan >> rest of universe

sonicare

Anyone that lives in Michigan, especially southeast Michigan, can see the impact that auto industry has and the impact on Detroit when the auto industry started to decline. The auto industry is the heart and soul of this region, if it is gone, half of the population will have to move. Whoever says that letting the companies die would be better clearly doesn't understand the consequences of doing so and how many people would be affected. SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Just for the simple fact that our speed limit is 70mph. :Psonicare

Anyone that lives in Michigan, especially southeast Michigan, can see the impact that auto industry has and the impact on Detroit when the auto industry started to decline. The auto industry is the heart and soul of this region, if it is gone, half of the population will have to move. Whoever says that letting the companies die would be better clearly doesn't understand the consequences of doing so and how many people would be affected. SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I've lived in Michigan my entire life. I know people who are and have been affected by the failing U.S. auto industry. But I don't believe other people should have to pay to keep a failing business alive. Things change. You can't rely on one industry to keep your economy going, and that's exactly what Michigan did.

Things change. Our country used to be almost all agricultural based. Now we are mainly a service based. Propping up a failing business or industry is only helping a few in the short-run, while in the long run it will have negative effects on everyone.

SpartanMSU

As for saying it's failing, what do you think the point of the artical was? It's turning a profit now, it's paid back it's loan. This is not a short term loss, or any loss for that matter, it's insured the continued success of a mulitbillion country in the U.S. increased gov't income, and it's secured jobs of hundreds of thousands.

I have been paying attention. Have you? Do you have a basic understanding of supply-side economics?

Keeping a failing business artificially afloat is not helpful to the overall economy in the long-run. My hole-digging example still stands (which you have not addressed yet). A failing business shouldn't be saved based on jobs.

Actually since the money was paid back, and now it's pure profit in terms of jobs and taxes created, it was purely helpful.

If you really don't see how this would devastate the economy then you've probably stuck ur head deeeeeep into one of those holes you keep talking about.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"] Just for the simple fact that our speed limit is 70mph. :PBMD004

Anyone that lives in Michigan, especially southeast Michigan, can see the impact that auto industry has and the impact on Detroit when the auto industry started to decline. The auto industry is the heart and soul of this region, if it is gone, half of the population will have to move. Whoever says that letting the companies die would be better clearly doesn't understand the consequences of doing so and how many people would be affected. SF_KiLLaMaN

It's also worth noting that a good amount of the slack would be picked up by forein companies, and that would mean money leaving the economy, rather than stimulating it.

I dont believe Ford ever took government money. GM and Chrysler did, but GM has been doing much better. However, part of the problem is that the US car companies are at a disadvantage. Automotive jobs were good jobs in the US - that paid high wages and good benefits. They helped build the middle class. But they are competing against countries whose workers are paid significantly less. Those cost differences have to come out of somewhere. Plus given the social systems of a lot of the other countries, their workers are in a sense subsidized as they get health and other benefits directly from the state whereas our workers get those benefits from the company.

Is this like the GM (or was it Ford?) "repayment" where they borrowed government money to repay the bailout? F1_2004

Is this like the GM (or was it Ford?) "repayment" where they borrowed government money to repay the bailout? F1_2004