My Nissan Leaf Forum

http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?auth ... &archive=1

LOL great!

It's too bad they got it wrong (Ford didn't take any bailout money so it's just plain wrong to include their logo as well as a Freestar minivan featured ... it wasn't a great 'van anyway as they dropped it 4 years ago but just shows how some pundits generalize so much) -- I'm sure you'll see something similar targeting EV's, can't wait to see how they get twisted as some kind of green peace conspiracy, just wait and see!

Ofcourse I'm with Bill on this one ...

Hold carmaker executives' feet to the fire, but let's not hold them to a higher standard than Wall Street investment banks, insurance companies and mortgage lenders, who got 20 times the $34 billion Detroit is asking for. And remember, the jobs we're saving are on Main Street, not Wall Street.

Letting them go into bankruptcy would have been utter devastation. What I don't understand is - why was the board populated with Bush / Saudi cronies.

Interesting range.

While it's technically true that Ford didn't take any bailout money, it's also very clear that all three automakers were hampered by the same UAW contracts and consumer thoughts. While it's clear that Ford started to get their books in order while GM and Chrysler didn't, I think that Ford would have also gone thru bankruptcy if they had not been able to get the same union concessions that the other two got.

I get where Bill is coming from - but I don't think the standard of a successful company should be: "Hey - those guys got 10 billion, we're just as important and we should get 10 billion too!" The US auto industry was severely hurt. They weren't selling a lot of cars, and they needed to pay plenty of incentives to get those sold. The banking industry was selling and making a TON of money - hand over fist! What killed the financial industry was not the same thing that killed the US automakers.

Ultimately Ford and GM did go thru bankruptcy - and it made both companies (and Ford via the UAW concessions) stronger. Bush should have NOT diverted money from TARP to keep GM and Chrysler afloat - the companies should have been allowed to go directly to bankruptcy. That would have saved the US taxpayer at least the bailout money, and we wouldn't be stuck owning 61% of GM.

Anywho - I hope the three US automakers can learn how to compete on an open market this time around. If not, we'll be back to this point. This was GM's second bailout, BTW -they're getting better at going broke than they used to be.

There are tons of people who have written why the bailout was necessary - like this one : http://www.newsweek.com/2008/11/12/in-d ... troit.html . So I won't go into any of that. Bankruptcy without bailout wouldn't have worked.

Ofcourse, instead of just lending money to them (like Bush did) - they should have been put through a quick bailout+bankruptcy like Obama did. But Bush didn't want to do it for ideological reasons ...

Ford's strength was in the fact that they had more "cash on hand"
and that they didn't get into the "loan mess" that GMAC did but
stuck to their auto loans.

hodad66 wrote:Ford's strength was in the fact that they had more "cash on hand"
and that they didn't get into the "loan mess" that GMAC did but
stuck to their auto loans.

Ford just got lucky.

A prescient Mulally soon after his arrival bolstered Ford's treasury with a stunning $23.4 billion (U.S.) in fresh borrowings and lines of credit in late 2006. The move was questioned at the time because Ford was required to put in hock just about all of its assets, even its hallowed "Blue Oval" trademark.

I'm not sure I'd label a leader that can see the truth and take the proper action as 'lucky' - unless we use the "luck is when preparation meets opportunity" definition.

AndyH wrote:I'm not sure I'd label a leader that can see the truth and take the proper action as 'lucky' - unless we use the "luck is when preparation meets opportunity" definition.

Lucky with the timing. Mullally was actually quoted as saying that himself ...