Car Guy
Food Stamps for Chrysler
Continuing to build cars nobody will buy.
(Page 2 of 2)
Which brings us back, full circle, to the bailout and the massive, taxpayer-funded make-work project.
Little media coverage has been devoted to any of this. We hear happy talk about “plants reopening” (which is true) and “jobs saved” (also true) but no further elaboration. It stands to reason, given the media is generally clueless about the car industry and wouldn’t know a Sebring from a Sapporo. President Obama’s “Car Czar,” investment banker Steven Rattner, likely wouldn’t know, either.
But hey, it’s not his money, is it?
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/13/food-stamps-for-chrysler
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Paul Curley| 7.13.09 @ 6:37AM
Sir,
I always enjoy Mr. Peters' insightful and iconoclastic Car Guy articles. This one is no exception.
Appleby| 7.13.09 @ 7:35AM
Get busy building Viper Comp Coupes and let the guys race on!
Geoff| 7.13.09 @ 7:45AM
In the meantime, the aforementioned "car czar" drives an SUV, right?
Robert Rosencrans| 7.13.09 @ 7:46AM
This theme of failure and stupidity can be found in just about every scheme hatched by Obama and his administration. They appear to believe in the power of big government and mass producing fiat currency. Eventually it will fail.
As far as the food stamp analogy it is right on the mark. This leads to the logical question. What happens to people on food stamps? Answer. They live in a state of perpetual failure or get some type of bottom line employment where they receive other forms of government subsidies.
The real problem with GM and Chrysler is that the mass market will reject buying government subsidized vehicles. There will be a perception of lack of quality and there will be a lack of faith in having the vehicles services.
By creating a Frankenstein business model in the auto industry, the Obama administration has just about ensured failure.
Mattled| 7.13.09 @ 8:29AM
In my driving life, I have owned 5 Jeeps and a Dodge Durango.
Brother--a jeep and a Pacifica.
Sister--Jeep Liberty
Niece--Jeep Liberty
Sister-in-Law--Sebring Convertible.
Brother in-law--two Dodge trucks
Other sister--two Durangos, two Jeeps and now a Commander.
No more. Buh-Bye Chrysler. Get in bed with Obama, get up with fleas----and no car sales.
Larry C. Roberts, MD| 7.13.09 @ 9:20AM
I'd love to have a Jeep Unlimted 4x4 Rubicon to take to the mountains and use around the ranch, but I will not willingly subsidize any government-run company. This is the same reason that after 1 October, I will no longer participate in Medicare. Chrysler and GM have made a Faustian deal, and both will learn to regret it.
erp| 7.13.09 @ 9:36AM
Correction: Chrysler isn't building cars, the unions are building cars to keep their coffers full. They couldn't care less what kind of cars they build or if they're sold, since they know the pro quid quo will continue as long they continue the kick backs to Democratic politicians.
Nyfarmer| 7.13.09 @ 9:44AM
Agricultural equipment companies have undergone massive reorganization over the past 30+ years. Ironically, one trigger was when International Harvestor had built up expecting to deal with the soviets during the Carter years; they lost. Favorite brand names have been changed some lines were dropped-- new lines have come online. Guess what!!!--farmers have equipment to buy--much of which is of far better tech and quality than 30+ years ago. As far as I know this came about without bailouts. I need to be able to buy the best car at the best price--the name plate is irrelevant!
Geoff| 7.13.09 @ 10:36AM
Erp is correct. Excellent observation. Remember, unions are for people that want more than what their worth. And those afraid to seek jobs where their real worth (or the lack thereof) is the determining factor as to what they’re paid. Businesses are going to have a hard enough time staying in business without an expensive union (or a Marxist president) telling them how to run their business.
Simply put, union workers are incapable of producing quality because they work for the union, not the company.
Remember also? Union officials unnecessarily prolonged a 1997 strike at the General Motors truck plant in Pontiac, Michigan, seeking payments from GM and jobs in the plant for relatives who were unqualified for their jobs. ..
But, what else is new?
If I were the Ford boss, I'd strongly consider moving the company headquarters out of the
US, away from Obama's and congress' jurisdiction; and maybe even import GM's Opal from Germany (the ones that GM, itself, cannot import because of the you-know-who) -- build my cars where the EPA and congress can't screw-up matters as they've done with Chrysler and GM both, to a fairtheewell even.
Personally, my best car ever probably was a '63 Chrysler Newport bought new -- worst, a new BMW coupe purchased before they became trendy status symbols. Others like the '73 Imperial were exceptional cars - - and the '04 Sebring convertible I'm driving now ain't chopped liver either. 87+K on the odometer and running great.
What a shame!
erp| 7.13.09 @ 11:02AM
BTW - that's quid pro quo, not what I said above.
Geoff, thanks for the kind words. The best car bar none over 50 years of buying them, was a 1985 Dodge Caravan. Had over 200 miles on it when our mechanic refused to do an expensive motor job on a 20 years old car. No rust at all on the exterior. Interior suffered a bit mostly from our shepherd/husky mix.
We're driving a 1997 Chrysler Concorde with 125,000 miles on it. Still the best looking car in the parking lot wherever we go. Exterior and interior look great, rides better than our kids Mercedes and Jags.
We've decided that we'll never buy another car. We'll rent a new one when we want to take a trip and otherwise make do with our Concorde and a Chevy Cavalier inherited from my mother.
erp| 7.13.09 @ 11:02AM
BTW - that's quid pro quo, not what I said above.
Geoff, thanks for the kind words. The best car bar none over 50 years of buying them, was a 1985 Dodge Caravan. Had over 200 miles on it when our mechanic refused to do an expensive motor job on a 20 years old car. No rust at all on the exterior. Interior suffered a bit mostly from our shepherd/husky mix.
We're driving a 1997 Chrysler Concorde with 125,000 miles on it. Still the best looking car in the parking lot wherever we go. Exterior and interior look great, rides better than our kids Mercedes and Jags.
We've decided that we'll never buy another car. We'll rent a new one when we want to take a trip and otherwise make do with our Concorde and a Chevy Cavalier inherited from my mother.
Joe B| 7.13.09 @ 11:06AM
Hire Homer Simpson to design new cars at Chrysler.
Mattled| 7.13.09 @ 11:13AM
My father worked for Chrysler back in the seventies/eighties. He was laid off a couple of times and reluctantly went and walked a picket line a few times. He thought he was being fairly paid with a lot of benefits and couldn't quite grasp the "victim" mentality.
He retired happily, but not before the UAW decided he wasn't one of them. Through him we (as listed above) bought many, many Chrysler products.
I loved my JGrand Cherokees!
Dr. Roberts, you cold always buy a pre-owned Rubicon? That wouldn't count towards a "New" Chrysler purchase.
Or, something I like is the old International Scout II's. There are a bunch for sale that look great and you can remove the entire hard top or get a convertible/bikini top as well.
A real head turner and lot's of space with a great engine and 4-wheel drive system.
Paul from SA| 7.13.09 @ 11:36AM
Eric, another good article. Keep em coming.
But, "....decrepit roadway infrastructure?" Kind of like all those [non-existentent] crumbling bridges. My entire life I have never seen this and always assumed it's a Democrat slogan for bigger gov't... unless this is NY or California problem (or east/west coast). If so, it's a LOCAL problem.
Pat| 7.13.09 @ 12:39PM
The entire and only point of this bailout swindle was never to help GM and Chrysler, it was to help the UAW. If you put aside the little boy fascination with colorful machinery and loud noises, automobiles, in all their endless varieties, are nothing more than boxes on wheels which take you places. The car company that manages its business properly will have a say in what the future boxes will look like, the company that doesn't manage its business competently has a name like Packard, Hudson, Studebaker or American Motors.
Obama never cared about American car companies, the Democrats ordered him to save the UAW - and, in effect, he has. The amusing part, if any part of this crude swindle can be considered amusing, is the David Copperfield - Master Illusionist act put on for the public's benefit.
We were supposed to believe the Feds were loaning GM money under very strict conditions, if GM didn't pay it back, we were assured the 100 year old car company would allowed to die. Like that was ever going to actually happen - Obama played the media perfectly and the gullible public bought into the lie. Another lie described all the sacrifices the UAW was supposedly contributing to the rescue effort - but compared to the bondholders, stockholders and dealers forced out of business by the government, the UAW basically gave up very little, if anything.
So, before you wax nostalgic over great Chryslers or Chevys or even Nash Ramblers you have known and loved, consider the fact Obama set out the perfect bait to trap the wild American taxpayer and to help his friends in the UAW - America's decades long love affair wth boxes on wheels.
PeterH| 7.13.09 @ 12:39PM
While an interseting and valid article, the reasoning behind the Diamler/Chrysler merger, and it's subsequent falure, is simplistic and one-sided (Diamler sucking Chrysler dry).
There is plenty of blame deserved on both sides. For an unbiased assessment of the "merger", the following article provides excellent insight:
http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pdf/2002-1-0071.pdf
Pingback| 7.13.09 @ 2:55PM
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Article: Food Stamps for Chrysler links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Art C| 7.13.09 @ 6:43PM
Not too long ago, I went to a Chrysler Dealer to look around. I was on the fence about a new car,
I want the Challenger, wife wants a Liberty. The dealer started off with sticker plus for the Challenger. I've seen 4 or 5 Challengers on the street, more new Camaro's and copious newer Mustangs. Just the other day, a friend went in to trade his jeep for a newer one. The salesman basically blew him off. My question is ....how much trouble are they really in if they can do this?
El Rey| 7.13.09 @ 7:02PM
"In brief, it's food stamps for Chrysler. "
Rather, it's welfare for the UAW, and generous welfare at that. .
Richard Baker| 7.13.09 @ 7:21PM
Walter Chrysler weeps.
Paul Milenkovic| 7.13.09 @ 10:11PM
A point of information Mr. Peters:
What is this reference to the PT Cruiser being an "old" or "tired" design? Consumer Reports along with many other car reviewers and critics seem to fall into this way of thinking.
Isn't this a matter of falling for the marketing hype of people who want to sell you "new and improved" more often instead of having you drive your Ol' Reliable?
As a Designated Driver one New Year's Eve, I drove a friend's PT Cruiser, and I thought it was a pleasant car to drive with as stable, firm steering feel. It had a quality feel unlike many economy or compact cars I have driven that I found surprising.
So what is dated about the PT Cruiser? That they haven't put new sheet metal around it and called it by another name?
So what is so fresh and new about a Camry, a nameplate that has been around for well over 25 years now? I have a 97 Camry and someone was showing off their 2008 Camry Hybrid. Doesn't look anything like the same car. Until you pop the hood and see essentially the same parts and mechanical layout apart from the Hybrid Synergy Drive transmission substitution and a couple changes on the accessory drive belt. Then you look inside the cabin and it has the same instrument cluster and driver's seating position and same everything inside. New and improved!
That's the thing about Toyota and Honda. It is the same car year in and year out, only I suppose they make incremental improvements. The new Camry or the new Accord in my view is only skin deep, which in a way is a good thing, because they have refined the design.
I can understand that if Chrysler has some weak or so-so models and continues to sell them. Maybe they should do what the Japanese did -- start with what are admittedly tinny cars and over time keep plugging away at correcting defects and improving them. I don't see how a "crash" program to come up with all new models to sweep out the old helps.
Glen Hoffing| 7.13.09 @ 10:26PM
OK, Robert Rosencrans, I'll bite. Is "fiat currency " currency used to buy Fiats?
emo| 7.13.09 @ 11:32PM
""Not too long ago, I went to a Chrysler Dealer to look around. I was on the fence about a new car,
I want the Challenger, wife wants a Liberty. The dealer started off with sticker plus for the Challenger. I've seen 4 or 5 Challengers on the street, more new Camaro's and copious newer Mustangs. Just the other day, a friend went in to trade his jeep for a newer one. The salesman basically blew him off. My question is ....how much trouble are they really in if they can do this? ""
Better get use to indifferent service and poor quality because this is what nationalisation brings. Ask anyone who drove British Leyland
Emo| 7.13.09 @ 11:33PM
Not too long ago, I went to a Chrysler Dealer to look around. I was on the fence about a new car,
I want the Challenger, wife wants a Liberty. The dealer started off with sticker plus for the Challenger. I've seen 4 or 5 Challengers on the street, more new Camaro's and copious newer Mustangs. Just the other day, a friend went in to trade his jeep for a newer one. The salesman basically blew him off. My question is ....how much trouble are they really in if they can do this?
get ready of indifferent service and poor quality. Watch Obama bully Consumer Reports to give GM and Chrysler good ratings
sabrose| 7.14.09 @ 12:23AM
Unless Gm and Chrysler become an econobox form of welfare for the poor these companies are done and the quicker the better. 35 percent of Americans already say the wont buy these cars.
Screw the UAW and the corrupt rock they crawled out from.
Patriot| 7.14.09 @ 12:34AM
Those against the government assistance fail to see the alternative- welfare for those who loose their jobs, eventual state takeovers of cities that loose plants, and the related social costs.
The alternatives anti- bailout advocates push are not viable. Retrain people for jobs that do not or may not exist?
This is between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Pay now or pay later.
BTW, those who are singing Toyota's praises best think again. They are being bludgeoned in the marketplace just like GM and Chrysler, their quality is falling, and they are considering layoffs as well. I wonder if people will complain just as loudly if the Japanese government bails them out?
R U Kidding| 7.14.09 @ 9:04AM
Chrysler was literally sucked dry by its one-time "partner," Daimler AG, ??? Really.
Chrysler got billions in technology know how, IE Crossfire and 300 transmission from old E300, but didnlt play the game very well. Chrysler got sucked dry by their executive management that left with golden parachutes long ago, deal with it.
Richard Baker| 7.14.09 @ 9:14AM
R U Kidding:
I suggest you read Fortune magazine regarding the disastrous rule of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz.
Might surprise you. Chrysler was totally run by the Daimler team and was a huge money maker prior to their arrival. It would be nice to say that the Chrysler executives didn't know how to run the company but that's not the case. You could look it up.
R U Kidding| 7.14.09 @ 9:27AM
Richard Baker:
Daimler lost $36 billion from start to finish on this fiasco, while their is plenty of blame to go around, that's just the math. How is that "sucked dry" ? Daimler could fund the mess anymore, now we are, priceless.
Richard Baker| 7.14.09 @ 11:16AM
R U Kidding:
Read Fortune magazine. Daimler took a huge moneymaker and turned it into a money loser. For once, don't blame the execs in Detroit. Try Stuttgart unter Turkheim.
PeterH| 7.14.09 @ 12:58PM
Richard Baker:
Why not tell us which Fortune article you're talking about?
BTW, Daimler HQ is in Stuttgart, Unterturkheim is where the largest factory is located.
As I said in my previous comment, you can't just blame Daimler for the failure. The notion that Daimler needed to buy Chrysler to gain working capital is false. In 1998 the Daimler balance sheet showed available working capital of $94Billion, nearly three times the Chrysler purchase price of $36Billion. The merger was supported on both sides because it seemed advantageous to the shareholders. Daimler wanted a broad-product entry vehicle into the US market and Chrysler wanted access to a world market. Unfortunately management on either side never really made the effort to make the blended corporation work.
Richard Baker| 7.14.09 @ 8:06PM
Try the latest edition.
wankel| 7.14.09 @ 10:25PM
Perhaps Chrysler could buy up some old Citroen 2CV dies, stamps, etc. and turnm them out under a snazzy name like, oh, maybe "Futura". Has a nice ring to it and they would look so European...
PeterH| 7.15.09 @ 12:56PM
Richard Baker:
You mean this Fortune article:
Who killed Chrysler?
A decade ago, the company was sitting on top of the automotive world. Then the Germans took over - but you can't blame them for everything.
Alex Taylor III, Senior editor
Last Updated: April 23, 2009: 3:43 PM ET
I rest my case...
Richard baker| 7.15.09 @ 6:52PM
Read the whole article.
PeterH| 7.15.09 @ 8:01PM
Sure did:
But the Germans hamstrung their new American unit more than they helped it. Their formal business structure clashed with Chrysler's more freewheeling ways and promised resources took a long time to make their way from Stuttgart to Auburn Hills.
And Chrysler made plenty of mistakes on its own. The dream team disbanded, engineering costs skyrocketed and an ill-conceived efficiency program hurt vehicle quality and customer appeal.
In retrospect, the fatal blow was struck when then-CEO Dieter Zetsche tried to stretch the product development budget by churning out more new models with less money. It sounded like black magic -- and as it turned out -- it was.
As I've said both sides are to blame, you just seem to ignore the Chrysler half. Keep in mind Chrysler shareholdes voted yes to the merger. It was not a hostile toakover.
jimwhenry | 7.21.09 @ 4:55AM
Starting July 24 2009 consumers who would like to purchase a new car trading off their old gas guzzlers can use
the Cash For Clunkers program voucher.
henry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
jimwhenry | 7.21.09 @ 4:56AM
You donot need actual vouchers or coupons to partipate in this program. All dealers are required and government will
reimburse the fees for the clunkers
henry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info