And I always have been too. Sorry."Ford’s ViewFord Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally last month concurred with Rattner’s view, saying he testified before Congress in support of taxpayer support for his competitors because it also saved Ford.“We think about that a lot, should we have gone back and testified on behalf of our competitors who were bankrupt,” Mulally told reporters Sept. 18 in New York. “I would do the same thing again today.”Mulally said he agreed with the assessment of “the economic advisers of the Bush administration and the Obama administration that if GM and Chrysler had gone into free fall, they could have taken the United States from a recession into a depression.”The U.S. government was the only entity that could save the domestic automakers because no one, including banks that were dealing with their own financial crises, was willing to put private capital into GM and Chrysler at the beginning of 2009, Rattner said.“If you can’t pay your workers, if you can’t pay your suppliers, if you can’t pay your electric bills, then you have to liquidate,” he said. “This is what government is set up to do.”"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/ford-would-have-shu...
So, I can add you to the numerous list of PAers who support crony capitalism.
Ford Motor Co. (F), the only large U.S. automaker that didn’t receive a U.S. government bailout, would’ve failed along with General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC if President Barack Obama’s administration hadn’t rescued the industry, said Steven Rattner, who headed Obama’s auto task force.“Ford would have closed because it wouldn’t have been able to get parts, because the parts industry in this country was in arguably worse shape than the assemblers,” Rattner said today at the Center for American Progress in Washington.From linked article.....That really is worth repeating.
So, I can add you to the numerous list of PAers who support crony capitalism.And that makes you a supporter of the complete destruction of the U.S. auto industry.
"And that makes you a supporter of the complete destruction of the U.S. auto industry. "First, this is a fallacy. Second, there is absolutely NO truth to this. Third, crony capitalism never works. And finally, this is also trade protectionism which destroys jobs and wealth.So, I can count you too as a crony capitalist supporter?
And that makes you a supporter of the complete destruction of the U.S. auto industry. Private funds would have swept in (as usual) and out of the ashes of the big three, one good company would have become world classBears
So, I can add you to the numerous list of PAers who support crony capitalism. ___________________You can add me to whatever list you want. I don;t subscribe to the labels and buzzwords used by people today. You look at the issue, look at the solutions, and make a good decision.I commended Bush at the time for making a good decision. It went against his ideology, but he admitted he had to to it.Some people are real men and real women, some will always remain boys and girls.
Private funds would have swept in (as usual) and out of the ashes of the big three, one good company would have become world classBears____________________Seriously doubt it. Private funds were in the running, they chased after them with all kinds of deals. Even with government backing, there were no takers. The auto industry is a very capital-intensive business, with low returns. There are much, much better investments out there for huge capital.Being stuck in your own ideology is a recipe for disaster.
" I don;t subscribe to the labels and buzzwords used by people today."Cop out. You know exactly what crony capitalism is. Not a label." You look at the issue, look at the solutions, and make a good decision."Government picking winners and losers in the private market is NEVER a good decision.
"Being stuck in your own ideology is a recipe for disaster. "This has nothing to do with ideology. This has to do with sound economic principles, which I am finding that you don't follow.
I don't.There could have been other ways to handle helping out GM and Chrysler. Shafting bondholders and just handing the companies over to the UAW and Fiat didn't have to happen. One way could have been the Chapter 11 process. Another way could have been through guaranteed loans (which is what TARP more or less amounted to being in the end). Or some other way. But just having the government step in and destroy contract law? That's not cool.Mullaly, as much as I admire him as an exec (I thought he did a decent job as leader of Boeing Commercial Aircraft) has an incentive here: if Ford gets into trouble, then of course he'd like the option of a bailout.
But just having the government step in and destroy contract law? That's not cool.But it's ok to sign a 700 Billion Dollar Blank Check to Bankers&Brokers
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |