By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
SNAFU and they WONDER WHY !!!! What is beyond comprehension is they do not comprehend why things are @ the screeching halt !!!
There is always more to the story, but the governmental response is normally the same. The funny thing it follows a cycle usually about 5 years. They make things so tight that literally you can't build a toilet.(stop with the anal retentive jokes already) Then @ some point, they wonder why nobody builds, as they normally by this time they have drastically lost new/rehab permit revenues. Then they commission a "blue ribbon" commission to find out (aka study) what they can do to "make it better".
In case you didn't notice, there are the unwashed masses, who must use BK court, and then there's those people who can afford to buy their very collection of politicians and lobbyists, and who feel that neither the law nor the Constitution should apply to them. Nor in some cases *cough* Waggoner *cough* even the basic laws of economics and business.
What I got from the pastor is they had their plans all approved and someone said the toilet stall will be in view when the door is opened. So they wanted to put it in a different location. This remodel project start over 8 years ago. They have had nothing but a battle. Churches get a lot more scrutiny than a bar in CA.
I've known 3 P&Z people and a few planners, and it's never staff that delays stuff without cause - P&Z is political and they'll gum up the works if people complain (like my neighborhood did one time over a proposed shooting range).
In the news -
"Now, after more than three years of clashes with unions and bondholders, Delphi is teetering on the brink of collapse.
Its prolonged and tortuous route through the courts provides a stark counterpoint to the widespread hope that if General Motors itself is forced to file, its bankruptcy will be quick."
Delphi Faces a Deadline on G.M. Aid (NY Times)
They shouldn't for they forgive your sins while bars begin your sins. :shades:
Ok. That's pretty much my stance. The Government bailing out GM or my Bank, either one, is not good. The market should prevail - this is just delaying the inevitable, and making strong companies sick by combining them with sick ones. You can't grow a healthy herd out of sick animals. I'm afraid these government bailouts are throwing good (taxpayer) money out the window and in the end, we'll have too much government back in private business (if any is left over at all) and non-performing companies relying on bailout money to survive.
Hey, I agree with you 100%. Yes, bailing out GM or the banks/insurance companies was not a good idea. Yes, the market should prevail. Yes, the government is continuing to throw good money after bad.
I was only taking issue with your contention that those bailouts are somehow against something in the Constitution. Heck, someone could argue that the Commerce Clause gives the government the perfect right to do what they did.
It worked ok for Chrysler the last time and they remained viable for almost 30 years.
If Chrysler had not been bailed out in '79, Ford and GM may have filled the void and managed to keep the foreign automakers at bay.
Or without the competition from the Hemi and the minivan, Ford and GM may have succumbed to ToyHonda 15 years ago.
Chrysler won't even get 30 DAYS out of the latest bailout....tick...tock....tick....tock
Its prolonged and tortuous route through the courts provides a stark counterpoint to the widespread hope that if General Motors itself is forced to file, its bankruptcy will be quick."
The house of cards (C, GM, Delphi, suppliers) is starting to sway and in the next 60 days we will see a lot of them come down!
Then we can start building a better house.
I don't like the bailouts either but a collapse of GM back in December would have been catastrophic to the domestic auto industry. Now GM has a chance to come out as a smaller, leaner, profitable company. Chrysler can get sell their brands and plants to the highest bidder. And we will able to save some of the suppliers.
I'm not so sure that big taxpayers like Toyota and Honda and Nissan and BMW and Hyundai would agree that the use of their taxes to help a competitor survive is a good idea but for this tiny taxpayer I'm OK with it.
That's not to say it wasn't the right decision, it might have been. But let's not ascribe motives of kindness and generosity to bottom feeding politicians when we all know they have their morality surgically removed from birth.
You think honestly, the public wants the same people who run the post office and the DMV, to honor their warranty? Don't know about you, but that gives me less comfort than ever. If I thought I'd have to have my car serviced by a government owned agency, I would get rid of every American brand I have this instant.
I don't know if this is entirely true. Had MB kept their grubby paws off Chrysler, they would undoubtedly be in better financial shape than they are now. Had MB managed DC like a true partnership, the entire company may be in better shape than they are now (much like VW???). In that scenario, you could say that the gov't did right by Lee's Chrysler, got paid back, and left a saleable company for the merger, a merger that should have ( but didn't ) been viable.
Lots of "ifs" regarding Chrysler. what about what if Daimler and Chrysler never merged at all? Would Chrysler had made it this long? Or would they have been out of business years ago?
I agree that Daimler raided Chrysler's cupboards and left it with nothing.
Losers are not entitled nor deserve to survive. Winners have the option of ignoring the losers or taking from them only what they want.
The government should be satisfied with only taxing the successful, not being in control and directive of the losers.
Loser fall out should be met with Winner investment opportunities as the Winner sees fit. Winner gets all the glory, laud, and honor, while Loser gets picked to pieces.
That is Natural Economics of the real business world. Former community organizers are not business knowledged so don't understand this, but if given the opportunity, spend other peoples money to resuscitate the Losers. :sick:
The future will see the "winners" spending much more of their means, whether earned via honest work or amassed via inheritance and unethical practices, to mercenary security forces to protect them from the growing legions of "losers"...
Question Professor Euphonium: Why is it that the free-market oil-man is the one who spent other people's money to resuscitate the Losers while the former community organizer is telling them to get ready to go into Bankruptcy? :shades:
Borrowing his most famous movie line, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stepped into the heart of the domestic car industry today, declaring that the Detroit automakers will recover from the economic crisis.
"Yes, they're wiped out. Yes, they're down. There are a lot of uncertainties, but there is one thing that is certain," he said. "They're going to be back. The car industry is saying, 'I'll be back.' "
Schwarzenegger said Detroit is moving too slowly when it comes to building zero-emissions vehicles. He told the standing-room-only crowd, "It's easy to stay with the status quo and not venture out too far and to be innovative."
Schwarzenegger said that if the Detroit automakers commit to green technology, they will become more competitive globally.
But the governor said the lack of a federal energy policy also has slowed innovation.
"I think if the federal government starts setting standards and starts having tax incentives and saying here's the direction that we go, I think that the car manufacturers will move much faster."
Schwarzenegger said he favors giving aid to the Detroit automakers because the government helped create the problem by not establishing and sticking with a policy.
.....Said Schwarzenegger: "I want to help this industry to get back on its feet as soon as possible, and I want to do my share."
But he acknowledged that he hasn't always been well-received in the Motor City.
Said Schwarzenegger: "I think there were billboards in Michigan saying, 'Arnold to Michigan: Drop Dead.' Of course, it's not something I said. What I basically said: 'Michigan, get off your butt and go and start producing cars that really are cars of the future.' "
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090421/CARNEWS/904219997
LOL! Well Arnie is behind them 100%. Why not us? Well I think 2 out of 3 don't have the executive wherewithal to take a course towards financial success. Ford, however, can have a few taxpayer bucks on my dime, strictly as a loan, if it winds up needing them....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Chrysler received about $500 million to get it through the end of April. The Obama administration has set an April 30 deadline for Chrysler to negotiate a final deal with Italy's Fiat in order to be granted $6 billion more in government funds or face bankruptcy. And the government will end its support of Chrysler if it goes into bankruptcy.
GM is receiving $5 billion through May to help it meet its June 1 deadline to return to the Obama administration with a viable restructuring plan or it faces bankruptcy, during which the government will provide funding."
Obama Administration Loans Chrysler, GM More Money (AutoObserver)
Dibs on the Viper. :shades:
I would say they would've been in much better shape (financially) than they are now, thus making a merger with a better suited partner like Fiat or Renault/Nissan more feasible.
Yeah, I think Chrysler would be in a much better position now. Back when they were taken over, they were riding high and profitable. They still had the stigma of bad quality, but for the most part, their late 1990's offerings weren't too bad.
What the Benz takeover did was give us a new Neon for 2000 that was rushed into production, so it could claim "first new car of the new millenium". Needless to say, it was a bit underwhelming. The Intrepid/300M/Condorde/LHS cars were originally slated to be redesigned for 2002. Dodge and Chrysler were to get two models each. One would be more upright and family-car oriented, while the other would be more low-slung and sporty, along the lines of the hot Charger concept from around 1997 or so. That ended up getting pushed back until March 2004, when the RWD 300C was first introduced as a 2005 model. Dodge had nothing equivalent to sell until the 2006 Charger came online in early 2005. There was the Magnum, but being wagon-only left it a niche model.
Another thing the Benz takeover ended up doing was combining Mercedes maintenance/repair costs with Chrysler resale value. Not exactly a winning combination! Also interestingly, when the 300 and Magnum first came out, they had transmission troubles. But, get this...it was the 5-speed Benz unit that was giving them fits, NOT the 4-speed Mopar unit that has the bad reputation dating back to the old "UltraDrive" from the late 80's!
It was also a dumb move to drop the Neon, no matter how unspectacular it was, and replace it with the Caliber. That would be the equivalent of Toyota dropping the Corolla completely and trying to rely on just the Matrix for small car sales.
I'm sure in the end, Chrysler would have run into problems just like everyone else, as the recession took hold. But they would have still been better off, most likely, than they are now!
"according to the Wall Street Journal. The paper speculates signs are increasing that Chrysler is headed for liquidation. The paper, quoting unnamed sources, reported that some in the Obama administration have concluded that Chrysler isn't worth saving because of its weak product line and lack of international reach."
Those "unamed sources" and "some" in the Obama administration say Chrysler is not worth saving. So, does somebody pick up the good parts (Jeep, Ram, minivan) in C7?
Figure Nissan will want the Ram line, they're selling them already. Same story with VW and the minivans. Not sure who will pick up Jeep...Honda could use some BOF but I doubt they'd take it. Ford doesn't have the cash...Toyota sounds like it might be having cash flow problems, but maybe they'd want it. Unless Tata might want it...
Tata, like Fiat are looking for a dealership network in the USA. I doubt anyone would buy the line for the manufacturing located in the USA. I like the Jeep Wrangler. Not enough to buy one with their gas engines. As big of a flop as VW has experienced with their rebadged mini-vans from C, I would not expect them to even go to the auction. The factories in the USA are all toxic with their UAW labor pool. If C still owns the land it may be worth pennies on the dollar. Commercial is just now crashing and will probably go lower than residential. It is so over built in many locations.
This is an excerpt from the article, paragraph two:
A changing global automobile market during the final decade of the 20th century signaled the end of small, independent automakers. Although fairly large in size, the Chrysler Corporation, which nearly vanished in the early 1980s, was once again nearing a crisis point: a rapidly changing market meant that large amounts of cash would be needed to keep their product line up to date as well as to take their product to emerging and lucrative new markets. Unlike in the early 1980s when the US federal government stepped in with much needed cash, no government suitor was expected this time around. For Chrysler, the long term strategy strongly suggested that the automaker would have to be acquired in order to survive. In stepped Daimler-Benz.
It seems that Chrysler is in the same predicament today as they were in 1998, only with more debt and a serious economic crisis. With 7 days left and all parties (Chrysler, UAW, task force, bondholders) not even on the same page, the ending may have already been written.
There are auto makers smaller and larger than Chrysler that have been doing better than Chrysler. For instance, Subaru being smaller and VW being larger are doing fairly well.
The problem for Chrysler is that it was spending too much money on too many models, for too many divisions - that competed against in each other in cases, for the number of cars they sold, and they have high labor and legacy costs. The same problems that GM has.
Take a look at how many models Subaru and VW offer, and in 1 division.
No one will miss that you can't go buy a Dodge Nitro, or a Chrysler Sebring.
Although fairly large in size, the Chrysler Corporation, which nearly vanished in the early 1980s, was once again nearing a crisis point: a rapidly changing market meant that large amounts of cash would be needed to keep their product line up to date as well as to take their product to emerging and lucrative new markets.
Again, isn't this the same situation they are facing now? They don't have the cash to keep their product line up to date?
You are focusing on the size of Chrysler as their biggest issue coupled with repetitive, uncompetitive products. I don't deny this but they also don't have the money to update their products. And they have no competitive small car for the global market . This is why the auto task force is pushing for the agreement/merger with Fiat (which I don't see being a very good option even if a deal is done before April 30th). It's the only way Chrysler can survive. I've also had a lengthy discussion with friends who own(ed) dealerships (one chrysler/one Ford) about the Chrysler situation. Daimler really did a number on Chrysler's product development before they sold them. Still not sure why Cerberus did not see this before they purchased Chrysler back in 2007 esp. since so many of us pointed it out. I guess this is what happens when you become consumed with greed.
I find it ironic that 11 years later Chrysler is still in the same situation it faced in 1998.
I don't think it's ironic, considering they have been treated lika a [non-permissible content removed] child for the last 11 years. What is truely ironic, is that a company with such a solid reputation as MB, punted away an opportunity to have a real partnership w/ Chrysler. Even they seemed to take a bath in the sale.
Yes I agree. The reason they don't is because they have too large a product-line.
You are focusing on the size of Chrysler as their biggest issue coupled with repetitive, uncompetitive products.
No just the opposite. I stated that the article you quoted mentioned size, and I basically said that size doesn't matter - bigger and smaller car manufacturers were doing okay. The problem is related to size though. The problem is # of models : size of sales. Chrysler doesn't sell enough of each model, to support the high cost of refreshing those models. For example they would be better off putting out 1 model in 1 division and doing it right selling 100,000 units, then trying to put 2 models out in 2 divisions, each selling 50,000 units. But I'm not saying that is Chrysler's main or only issue.
I find it ironic that 11 years later Chrysler is still in the same situation it faced in 1998.
I think it's much more dire. I hope the U.S. government has written the loans to Chrysler such that they get the $ back. If Chrysler is broke, then morally Cerberus should pay-up. Let Cerberus sell their other businesses or use their cash to payback their mistake with Chrysler. The taxpayer should not lose money until Cerberus's assets have been tapped to pay the lloan.
Cerberus has really distanced themselves from Chrysler. My belief is if Cerberus is not willing to invest any more money into Chrysler, why should the taxpayers? Let them file chap. 7 and Cerberus can get out of the automotive industry like they want.
Totally agree. My hope is that the law does not allow Cerberus to walk away from what Chrysler owes, if the liquidation of Chrysler is not enough to pay all those that Chrysler owes. Cerberus is the owner until they sell, and IMO that means they cover losses above and beyond for Chrysler. I think that's fair since Cerberus would have made the profit if Chrysler had done well. Cerberus should not be able to walk away from the negative-side of their bet on Chrysler.
That's just it. Chrysler is NOT in the same situation now that it was in 1998. In 1998, it had the most up-to-date model lineup of the domestics, and one of the strongest market shares that it had in years. Cars like the 1993-95 Intrepid (they improved them for 96-97, and the new 1998+ models were a big improvement), and early Neons were, for the most part, still new enough that their bad reputations hadn't tarnished the company yet.
Now maybe the higher-ups at Chrysler saw trouble looming on the horizon, or thought the Benz merger would be a marriage made in heaven, who knows? But in retrospect, it probably brought them to their knees quicker than had they weathered it alone.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
of misery. - Winston Churchill
Of the 800,000 who wanted to buy, how many deserve to buy under standard loan practices? Obtaining credit is a privilege granted to those who by their conservative living values have qualified for such credit.
Now maybe the higher-ups at Chrysler saw trouble looming on the horizon, or thought the Benz merger would be a marriage made in heaven, who knows? But in retrospect, it probably brought them to their knees quicker than had they weathered it alone.
If you can find a copy, I would suggest you read the book "Taken for a Ride", which covers the Chrysler / Daimler
mergertakeover in great detail.You are correct - in the mid 90's, Chrysler could do no wrong. The minivans, the redesigned Ram, the LX series, the Durango - Chrysler had one hit after another and was generating upwards of $1 billion per quarter in earnings. The platform design teams that brought together all aspects of vehicle development under one owner was the talk of the industry.
Why, then, did Chrysler - specifically, Bob Eaton, then CEO - think they needed to merge? He saw a major consolidation of companies within the automobile industry. Plus, Eaton and Chrysler had just fought off the takeover attempt by Kirk Kerkorian, and felt that to prevent the company from having to go through that again, he needed a strong company to partner with. He directed a study of which companies would be best for Chrysler to merge with, and Daimler was at the top of the list.
Once the
mergertakeover was complete and after the honeymoon wore off, it all went sideways. Chrysler was, at the time, fast moving, with a flat management structure and lots of decision making authority pushed down to the first and second level managers. Daimler was an old-line type of organization where everything was studied to death and the boss' decision ruled the day.Fundamentally, the two companies couldn't have been farther apart, and this made for a mess when it came time to integrate. Also, it was becoming apparent to the senior Chrysler leadership that Daimler was looking to take an upper hand in how the new company was to be run. No more "merger of equals".
Anyway, the book does a great job getting into the heads of the major players - Eaton, Bob Lutz, Jurgen Schrempp and a host of others.