Jump to content

please underestimate

member
  • Posts

    1079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by please underestimate

  1. I agree with you that it in some ways the argument is mostly speculatory. We don't know for sure that allowing Chrysler to fail would have motivated Ford and GM to become more innovative. However, we do know that we bailed them out then, and we don't have much to show for it NOW. We basically delayed the inevitable....after a merger with German Daimler in 98, last year Daimler paid $650 million to a private equity firm that restructures "troubled" companies to get something like 80% of Chrysler off of its hands.

    And we do know from historical example that investors probably could have taken productive parts of the company and potentially made something better out of them. (Look at Lehman, they were allowed to "fail" but other companies who could afford to bought pieces and some will probably make good money out of it.) This is how the system is supposed to work, companies that are too big or stop being productive stumble, break and then vultures come in and take what is worth anything and rebuild. Its unfortunate for the Lehman employees and the stock market takes a temporary hit, but its better for the overall health of the long term economy.

    This is the problem with bailouts, they are quick fix solutions. Yes, saving Chrysler at the time worked out in the sense that the government could "pay back the taxpayer"...but the long term drain isn't worth the short term gain.

    And I don't agree with your arguments that the bailout was a sucess for allowing Chrysler to continue to "exist and innovate."

    First of all, it hasn't innovated or adapted to the the current market. Why didn't they create more fuel efficient cars when everyone knows crude oil is a limited natural resource that was getting more and more expensive? Why didn't they focus on producing a handful of well built cars to meet changing demand in the market instead of continuing to churn out a bloated product line until being essentially forced to reduce from 30 to 15 models February this year?

    And, although its unfortunate that a large number of employees would lose their jobs if the company ceased to exist, if you follow that line of thinking the government should bail out every company that is going under just to prevent job loss. It doesn't make sense, survival of the fittest can't include throwing a life vest to big companies just because they're big, or just because they used to be winning the race. Let them drown, I guarantee someone will step in and take their place and you can bet they won't make the same mistakes.

    my dad told me something similar if not the same thing this morning on the 20 minute drive to court.

    longest 20 minutes of my life.

  2. close to 1 year of wear. 1980s. i feel like ive stretched out the seat a bit too much from riding my bike. perhaps a slightly warmer soak?

    kmw1bu2.th.jpg

    kmw2lv9.th.jpg

    i need another pair of jeans so help me pick out a pair that would suit me.

    i had my rockers 1+ year and mine still doesnt look as good as that.

    would +rep but i have given out too much damn it.

  3. and also i was wondering why someone with 11 posts has so much more green bars than me. then after seeing a few of her waywts that i have come to realize that it was her beauty that seduced numerous men to Superrep her.

×
×
  • Create New...