Users who Dugg This
tycho alexander
112 Followers
egolfmotors
0 Followers
earthinfra
7 Followers
Mohsin Zakaria
2481 Followers
zachyarbDec 11, 2008
Hell, if we're dumb enough to give it to them, can you blame them for trying?
smellydogDec 12, 2008
@JueYan - I think you make a very good point. I'm certainly not a big fan of government bailouts, but at the same time I'm not quite sure it's reasonable to say to a company's shareholders that the shareholders should bail it out if they have the cash. Granted, its easy to paint Cerberus with the big evil brush, but let's boil down the author's argument to the principle he wants applied. Because, after all, if we're going to be fair, everyone should be treated the same way. So the principle is this: Before the government bails you out, look to your shareholders first, and if they have the cash, then have them put up some cash first, before the government intervenes. So, for example, if John Doe holds 100 shares of GM and happens to have $10K of uninvested cash, he should be required to put more money into GM? That doesn't quite seem right. So if its not right in that case, then why should it be right in the case of Cerberus? The author does go through a litany of bad things that Cerberus has done, but really that is trying to justify the principle by attacking the person. It would be like saying that John Doe should ante up if he's a bad guy.My suggestion: Scrap the bailout. If the shareholders of any of the companies, regardless of who they are, want to try and put up more cash to support them, and think that is worthwhile to save them, then great, they can do that. If they don't (or think they can survive without it), then they can take the risk that their company will go bankrupt and they will lose their investment.
harbzDec 12, 2008
It's because Toyota pays their employees half of what GM does, due to the unions. I'm not sure what percentages the unions get for dues.
chirp08Dec 12, 2008
@Idkronos: Trucks continue to sell, just no longer to people who don't need them. There are guys dumping 40-50k on new trucks even at the peak of the "gas-crisis." Chrysler closed its SUV plants a few months ago as mentioned. The only truck in their line will be the new Ram which is an amazing vehicle that is perfect for those who need what it offers. Compare that to GM:Chevrolet: 9 trucks and SUVs in their line, not counting the HHR which is just a modern stationwagon imo.GMC: 6 trucks/suvsCadillac: 5 suvs20 f**king trucks/suvs from their three main lines, we don't need 3 versions of the same vehicle with different badges.
tommydukesDec 12, 2008
It is what it is ya know
trucanadianDec 14, 2008
Title is inaccurate. It should be "Chrysler's Hidden Coffers".Your title also has extreme bias in it. It extremely exaggurates how well cerebberus is doing.
locke21Dec 25, 2008
@humanerrorYou got dugg down because you're obviously a fool.
sjzeroMar 26, 2009
The reason so much capital is needed is there's too much regulation in the market. I'm an engineer, and many of my friends are engineers. I know more tradesmen than you can shake a stick at. Despite this, I can't go into business building cars, not because we don't know how, but because of all the artificial barriers to entry which prevent people without an army of lawyers and foundries from building vehicles.Reduce regulations, and you'll see prices drop and fuel economy rise.