Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Sergio Marchionne took a $6 billion, high-interest U.S. Treasury loan and paid it back six years early by making Chrysler profitable. Suck it Lee Iacocca   (cbsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Sergio Marchionne, Treasury Department, Chrysler, U.S., Steve Kroft, downside risk, Automotive industry in the United States  
•       •       •

2266 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Sep 2012 at 12:00 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-03 10:29:24 AM  
americanbuilt.us
 
2012-09-03 10:35:15 AM  

DanZero: americanbuilt.us


Ford didn't take the bailout.
 
2012-09-03 10:35:49 AM  
When you can't deal with the complexity of the situation, post a stupid picture...
 
2012-09-03 10:40:33 AM  
Like most of Detroit's automakers, Chrysler was saddled with a stifling bureaucracy, which Marchionne quickly culled. To change the management structure, he combed through the company and found 26 young leaders who would report directly to him.

So he got rid of the non-union, top heavy do nothings...

Everyone knew what was wrong with the cars. You asked any employee in the company, they could list 10 things that they would do better. And when you're given the chance to do those 10 things better, you end up with a product that exceeds the sum of its parts.

And listened to those horrible, company ruining union people to fix the quality of the automobiles.


No wonder so many people don't want you to hear the Chrysler success story...
 
2012-09-03 10:56:19 AM  

DanZero: [americanbuilt.us image 477x644]


Oh right, you're that jackass.
 
2012-09-03 10:58:25 AM  

2wolves: DanZero: [americanbuilt.us image 477x644]

Oh right, you're that jackass.


Redesigned products. Higher quality. Better gas mileage.

And he posts that stupidity. No wonder Republicans come right out and say "we are going to continue lying". He's right on board...
 
2012-09-03 11:01:05 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DanZero: americanbuilt.us

Ford didn't take the bailout.


They just lobbied for it AND asked to have 9 billion set aside in case they needed it. And they took 5.9 billion in government loans:

Link 

Because they (like every other rational, thinking person) knew a collapse would destroy them as well.
 
2012-09-03 11:17:21 AM  
Got nuthin.
 
2012-09-03 11:18:28 AM  
OK try this again

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-03 11:18:44 AM  
Didn't they get bought by Fiat, too?
 
2012-09-03 11:32:55 AM  

Two Dogs Farking: Didn't they get bought by Fiat, too?


So what you are saying is you couldn't be bothered to read the first 3 paragraphs of the article...
 
2012-09-03 12:05:10 PM  
Still no cure for Fiats.
 
2012-09-03 12:34:06 PM  

Omnivorous: Still no cure for Fiats.


at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.
 
2012-09-03 01:00:15 PM  

KrispyKritter: at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.


I saw those all around Berlin and Prague when I was there recently. Not sure they'll sell here well, but they seem to be doing okay over there.

And they're re-introducing the Alfa Romeo brand in 2014. That might be interesting.
 
2012-09-03 01:29:33 PM  
It may have been justified, but be aware that we've lost $1.3b on our bailout of Chrysler, and we'll never get it back.
 
2012-09-03 01:30:25 PM  

mediablitz: Because they (like every other rational, thinking person) knew a collapse would destroy them as well.


The fact that their competitors were offered better deals than Ford could get on the free market was going to hurt them as well. So it only made sense to insist on the same deal.
 
2012-09-03 01:42:30 PM  

mediablitz: Two Dogs Farking: Didn't they get bought by Fiat, too?

So what you are saying is you couldn't be bothered to read the first 3 paragraphs of the article...


You're supposed to read the articles? You're shiattin' me.
 
2012-09-03 01:48:12 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DanZero: americanbuilt.us

Ford didn't take the bailout.


Dude, you really going to let the objective nature of reality get in the way of talking smack about politicians and not supporting some troll's factually unsupported worldview? Are you part of the Obama campaign or something?
 
2012-09-03 01:50:11 PM  
Get rid of the do-nothing assholes in suits (non-union) and ask the people who put the cars together (union) what's wrong with them and how to fix them... what an amazing concept!


Debeo Summa Credo: It may have been justified, but be aware that we've lost $1.3b on our bailout of Chrysler, and we'll never get it back.


Consider how much we would have spent in taxes (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc) for the hundreds of thousands of people who would have lost their jobs had Chrysler and many of its suppliers gone under. Sometimes you have to spend money patching the roof so you don't lose the house.
 
2012-09-03 01:52:47 PM  

KrispyKritter: at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.


KrispyKritter: at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable


When was the last time you saw an X1/9 (or ANY old Fiat) on the road in the US? Fiats may have been the most poorly built cars of the 70s. Which was the worst decade evar! for auto quality.
 
2012-09-03 02:10:29 PM  

gingerjet: mediablitz: Because they (like every other rational, thinking person) knew a collapse would destroy them as well.

The fact that their competitors were offered better deals than Ford could get on the free market was going to hurt them as well. So it only made sense to insist on the same deal.


The fact that Ford LOBBIED for their competitors to get the better deal is the truth. Not sure why you are trying to spin it. Ford WANTED them to get the deal, or Ford was dead. They shared 80% of suppliers. They shared 25% of dealerships. It wasn't about a "better deal so they went for it". It was about survival.
 
2012-09-03 02:11:40 PM  

Two Dogs Farking: mediablitz: Two Dogs Farking: Didn't they get bought by Fiat, too?

So what you are saying is you couldn't be bothered to read the first 3 paragraphs of the article...

You're supposed to read the articles? You're shiattin' me.


I'm pretty sure Fark will give you a timeout if you read more than half of the articles on which you comment. It does seem to be a tradition around here not to RTFA.
 
2012-09-03 02:11:43 PM  

jaytkay: When was the last time you saw an X1/9 (or ANY old Fiat) on the road in the US? Fiats may have been the most poorly built cars of the 70s. Which was the worst decade evar! for auto quality.


Fairly often around here.
 
2012-09-03 02:20:21 PM  

KrispyKritter: Omnivorous: Still no cure for Fiats.

at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.


I come from the rare position (in the US) of actually having owned an original Cinquecento. I must say they captured the craptacularness of the original almost flawlessly.

The burning question is 'Why?'
 
2012-09-03 03:34:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: It may have been justified, but be aware that we've lost $1.3b on our bailout of Chrysler, and we'll never get it back.


There's much we will never get back. More than most people know.

It's easy to pay back a government loan when you get a government grant to pay for it.
 
2012-09-03 03:36:51 PM  

rewind2846: Get rid of the do-nothing assholes in suits (non-union) and ask the people who put the cars together (union) what's wrong with them and how to fix them... what an amazing concept!


Debeo Summa Credo: It may have been justified, but be aware that we've lost $1.3b on our bailout of Chrysler, and we'll never get it back.

Consider how much we would have spent in taxes (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc) for the hundreds of thousands of people who would have lost their jobs had Chrysler and many of its suppliers gone under. Sometimes you have to spend money patching the roof so you don't lose the house.


Ignore the impact on those who have to pay to patch the roof and it sounds like a good deal. In reality, it's not. Propping up failing businesses is NEVER good for the economy.
 
2012-09-03 03:50:13 PM  
But, Socialism! 9/11! Remember the Alamo!
 
2012-09-03 04:23:56 PM  

DrPainMD: Ignore the impact on those who have to pay to patch the roof and it sounds like a good deal. In reality, it's not. Propping up failing businesses is NEVER good for the economy.


Bullshiat. Saving Chrysler and GM WAS good for the economy and CONTINUES to be good for the economy.
 
2012-09-03 05:24:49 PM  

KrispyKritter: Omnivorous: Still no cure for Fiats.

at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.


You sound like you can't afford one.
 
2012-09-03 06:09:22 PM  

DrPainMD: rewind2846: Get rid of the do-nothing assholes in suits (non-union) and ask the people who put the cars together (union) what's wrong with them and how to fix them... what an amazing concept!


Debeo Summa Credo: It may have been justified, but be aware that we've lost $1.3b on our bailout of Chrysler, and we'll never get it back.

Consider how much we would have spent in taxes (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc) for the hundreds of thousands of people who would have lost their jobs had Chrysler and many of its suppliers gone under. Sometimes you have to spend money patching the roof so you don't lose the house.

Ignore the impact on those who have to pay to patch the roof and it sounds like a good deal. In reality, it's not. Propping up failing businesses is NEVER good for the economy.


Ideology is never good for an economy. Economics should be all about practicality. But instead we get idiots spewing ideology about how losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs is always preferable to not losing those jobs. That would translate into a million or two of lost service industry jobs as well.

Good governance is about making sure that people aren't hurt too bad by systemic shocks. No country out there will permit that sort of job loss. Every foreign competitor in the automotive industry would be propped up under similar circumstances. The conservative ideal of how economies should be run simply does not reflect how things work in the real world. Nobody else is willing to play by those rules, and so there is not and never will be a place for that sort of system.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-03 06:26:11 PM  
It's funny that the unionized company from the country with socialized medicine is the one taking over Chrysler and making it profitable. I wish they hadn't paid back the bailout money early, because we were making a good profit off of the interest.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-03 06:31:32 PM  

ghare: KrispyKritter: Omnivorous: Still no cure for Fiats.

at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.

You sound like you can't afford one.


Fiats are good cars. They may have been crappy 30 years ago, but Chryslers were crappy a few years ago, and they turned around.
 
2012-09-03 07:01:47 PM  

KrispyKritter: Omnivorous: Still no cure for Fiats.

at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.


I had an X1/9. Lovely car. When it ran. But damn it was unreliable. You name it, it went wrong. I was driving along one day and one of the headlights popped up. Just the one on the left. WTF was that all about? And on my journey to work it would get to the exact same point every day and then suddenly the engine would run flat out or not at all. I'd have to floor it and head off like a rocket and then gradually lose speed before flooring it again. And sometimes you could be at a junction and red line the engine but the instant you let the clutch out it would die without you moving a foot.

Bastard thing.
 
2012-09-03 08:02:49 PM  
If you can't take a 6 billion dollar farking loan and make your company profitable then you should never work in business again.
 
2012-09-03 08:09:09 PM  

DrPainMD:
Ignore the impact on those who have to pay to patch the roof and it sounds like a good deal. In reality, it's not. Propping up failing businesses is NEVER good for the economy.


And THIS is why not only do conservatives fail, but we can't have nice things either.
Ideology is great for theoretical situations and lecture hall arguments in economics classes, but reality is a whole different thing. Not only would Chrysler have gone down, along with many of it's suppliers, but the other automakers would have gone down as well. Most of them get their parts from the same places, and if those places close then the automakers close.

"Bu-bu-but someone will come along and buy them and fix them and everything will be right againWHHARRGARRBL!!"

With what capital? After how long? And what does this country do in the meanwhile when not only does a huge part of its industry disappear overnight, but sizable chunks of other industries as well (oil for plastics and synthetics, mineral companies for metals and glass, tech companies for software and electronics and so on)? How much will investments in pension funds and other things drop when the guts fall out of the economy? What happens in the time it might take in your theoretical model of the world for all these corporations and financial sectors to become whole again, not just in this country but on the whole planet?

It's people like you would rather lose the house just to prop up your ideology about how things should be rather than realizing how things actually are. And if you don't think it will affect you, you're very much mistaken. Ford supported the bailouts, and for good reason... their own survival. When your neighbor next door puts fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in his house, it's as good for you as it is for him.
 
2012-09-03 08:27:07 PM  

BolloxReader: DrPainMD: rewind2846: Get rid of the do-nothing assholes in suits (non-union) and ask the people who put the cars together (union) what's wrong with them and how to fix them... what an amazing concept!


Debeo Summa Credo: It may have been justified, but be aware that we've lost $1.3b on our bailout of Chrysler, and we'll never get it back.

Consider how much we would have spent in taxes (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc) for the hundreds of thousands of people who would have lost their jobs had Chrysler and many of its suppliers gone under. Sometimes you have to spend money patching the roof so you don't lose the house.

Ignore the impact on those who have to pay to patch the roof and it sounds like a good deal. In reality, it's not. Propping up failing businesses is NEVER good for the economy.

Ideology is never good for an economy. Economics should be all about practicality. But instead we get idiots spewing ideology about how losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs is always preferable to not losing those jobs. That would translate into a million or two of lost service industry jobs as well.

Good governance is about making sure that people aren't hurt too bad by systemic shocks. No country out there will permit that sort of job loss. Every foreign competitor in the automotive industry would be propped up under similar circumstances. The conservative ideal of how economies should be run simply does not reflect how things work in the real world. Nobody else is willing to play by those rules, and so there is not and never will be a place for that sort of system.


They saved jobs in one area at the cost of even more jobs in other areas. Subsidies only look good if you don't question where the money for the subsidy comes from and what effect taking the money from the person who originally had it has on the economy. If a business is losing money, the best thing, economically, is to let it go out of business. It's not rocket science.
 
2012-09-03 08:49:35 PM  

KrispyKritter: Omnivorous: Still no cure for Fiats.

at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.


What cars aren't over priced by your standard?
Only 13 are considered lower cost than the well reviewed 500 (http://20somethingfinance.com/cheapest-new-cars-of-2012/)
 
2012-09-03 08:50:16 PM  

DrPainMD:
They saved jobs in one area at the cost of even more jobs in other areas. Subsidies only look good if you don't question where the money for the subsidy comes from and what effect taking the money from the person who originally had it has on the economy. If a business is losing money, the best thing, economically, is to let it go out of business. It's not rocket ...



Lets get real here. 1.3 billion....that's what you're biatching about? We've been spending more than that every week in Afghanistan for over a decade! I would argue our return on investment for US auto manufacturers was far better than what we've spent on war for the past decade.

And even if it doesn't necessarily save a lot of direct jobs in a state like, say, Nevada. I guarantee you Nevada benefits from the legions of employed auto workers who vacation here each year (not to mention the trade shows that come here several times a year).

So, I guess what I'm saying is. You're an obtuse ideologue who represents a poisonous national mindset that is slowly destroying our economic stability and quality of life.
 
2012-09-03 08:51:16 PM  

DrPainMD: BolloxReader: DrPainMD: rewind2846: Get rid of the do-nothing assholes in suits (non-union) and ask the people who put the cars together (union) what's wrong with them and how to fix them... what an amazing concept!


Debeo Summa Credo: It may have been justified, but be aware that we've lost $1.3b on our bailout of Chrysler, and we'll never get it back.

Consider how much we would have spent in taxes (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc) for the hundreds of thousands of people who would have lost their jobs had Chrysler and many of its suppliers gone under. Sometimes you have to spend money patching the roof so you don't lose the house.

Ignore the impact on those who have to pay to patch the roof and it sounds like a good deal. In reality, it's not. Propping up failing businesses is NEVER good for the economy.

Ideology is never good for an economy. Economics should be all about practicality. But instead we get idiots spewing ideology about how losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs is always preferable to not losing those jobs. That would translate into a million or two of lost service industry jobs as well.

Good governance is about making sure that people aren't hurt too bad by systemic shocks. No country out there will permit that sort of job loss. Every foreign competitor in the automotive industry would be propped up under similar circumstances. The conservative ideal of how economies should be run simply does not reflect how things work in the real world. Nobody else is willing to play by those rules, and so there is not and never will be a place for that sort of system.

They saved jobs in one area at the cost of even more jobs in other areas. Subsidies only look good if you don't question where the money for the subsidy comes from and what effect taking the money from the person who originally had it has on the economy. If a business is losing money, the best thing, economically, is to let it go out of business. It's not rocket ...


so the banks shouldn't have been bailed out either? and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? AIG? or GE Capital? or BMW Financial Services North America? Toyota Motor Credit? Nissan Motor Credit? Ford Motor Credit? Harley Davidson? Prudential? Allstate? Hartford Financial? Ameriprise? Blackrock?

/yes, all of them received Federal support in 2008-2009
//TARP was the tip of the iceberg
 
2012-09-03 09:04:07 PM  
www.philippineconcerts.com
 
2012-09-03 09:39:05 PM  

DrPainMD: If a business is losing money, the best thing, economically, is to let it go out of business.



Sounds like a great plan. I bet the economy would be in much better shape now if the American automobile industry was allowed to collapse and sold for scrap to the banks. Honda, Toyota, BMW, and others would sure be happy. New jobs would all just magically appear and everyone would have lived happily ever after. THANKS N0BAMA
 
2012-09-03 09:50:20 PM  

mediablitz: Like most of Detroit's automakers, Chrysler was saddled with a stifling bureaucracy, which Marchionne quickly culled. To change the management structure, he combed through the company and found 26 young leaders who would report directly to him.

So he got rid of the non-union, top heavy do nothings...

Everyone knew what was wrong with the cars. You asked any employee in the company, they could list 10 things that they would do better. And when you're given the chance to do those 10 things better, you end up with a product that exceeds the sum of its parts.

And listened to those horrible, company ruining union people to fix the quality of the automobiles.


No wonder so many people don't want you to hear the Chrysler success story...


well he also cut the wages and benefits of those union people,,,"much of the credit goes to U.S. taxpayers, and to Chrysler workers who accepted wage and benefit cuts.
 
2012-09-03 10:12:24 PM  
Too bad Bob Nardelli is incompetent or he could have done the same thing. But the only thing he cares about is his wallet.

He only has 2 companies that he left in tatters.
 
2012-09-03 10:28:08 PM  

DrPainMD: They saved jobs in one area at the cost of even more jobs in other areas.


You're a f*cking idiot. That's the only reply you really deserve.
 
zez
2012-09-03 10:48:05 PM  

jaytkay: When was the last time you saw an X1/9 (or ANY old Fiat) on the road in the US?


I saw one yesterday! What do I win?
 
2012-09-03 11:02:26 PM  

mediablitz: 2wolves: DanZero: [americanbuilt.us image 477x644]

Oh right, you're that jackass.

Redesigned products. Higher quality. Better gas mileage.

And he posts that stupidity. No wonder Republicans come right out and say "we are going to continue lying". He's right on board...


I waited specifically for the first 2011 Grand Caravan on the lot. The 2009/2010's were a disaster of poor interior. It's the same exact design but they put a different interior in it and a new engine/transmission. Sergio Marchionne was quoted as saying he refused to sell anything with crappy interiors. The difference is night and day. On the engine it is the new V6. There were 12 different V6's across Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler and Sergio Marchionne said there will be only one. So now there is only 1 V6 for all brands. It's the same engine that powers the base Ram. My old van got 20 mpg on a good day. I just made a 300 mile round trip drive with 6 people in my 2011 and it averaged 27 mpg. I had the cruise set at 83 mph. For 5000 pounds of machine and people that is nothing short of amazing.

They basically did that across the entire line of vehicles in about 18 months. No major redesigns. Just better interiors, engines, and transmissions then we'll worry about redesigns.
 
2012-09-03 11:12:22 PM  

NewportBarGuy: DrPainMD: They saved jobs in one area at the cost of even more jobs in other areas.

You're a f*cking idiot. That's the only reply you really deserve.


Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
 
2012-09-03 11:22:58 PM  

DrPainMD: Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.


Coming from you, I'd expect nothing less, Doc.
 
2012-09-04 01:56:34 AM  

brandent: mediablitz: 2wolves: DanZero: [americanbuilt.us image 477x644]

Oh right, you're that jackass.

Redesigned products. Higher quality. Better gas mileage.

And he posts that stupidity. No wonder Republicans come right out and say "we are going to continue lying". He's right on board...

I waited specifically for the first 2011 Grand Caravan on the lot. The 2009/2010's were a disaster of poor interior. It's the same exact design but they put a different interior in it and a new engine/transmission. Sergio Marchionne was quoted as saying he refused to sell anything with crappy interiors. The difference is night and day. On the engine it is the new V6. There were 12 different V6's across Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler and Sergio Marchionne said there will be only one. So now there is only 1 V6 for all brands. It's the same engine that powers the base Ram. My old van got 20 mpg on a good day. I just made a 300 mile round trip drive with 6 people in my 2011 and it averaged 27 mpg. I had the cruise set at 83 mph. For 5000 pounds of machine and people that is nothing short of amazing.

They basically did that across the entire line of vehicles in about 18 months. No major redesigns. Just better interiors, engines, and transmissions then we'll worry about redesigns.


The Pentastar V6 had been in development since the DaimlerChrysler days. They showed a preview of it way back in 2009. It was also always the plan to replace the 3 different V6 families (the 3.3L/3.8L minivan ones, the 2.7L/3.5L OHC ones, and the 3.7L in trucks) with a single V6 engine line. Mercedes was also planning on using them as well, but that fell apart (obviously).

All of the recent interior refreshes were started in the Marchionne days, though. Sans cars that were mid-development when he took over, the only one that didn't have a garbage interior was the new Ram.
 
2012-09-04 02:55:01 AM  

vpb: ghare: KrispyKritter: Omnivorous: Still no cure for Fiats.

at least back in the day the X1/9 was fun and affordable and the sedans were decent cheap transportation. now Fiats usa offering is a horribly overpriced tiny ride. that sweet thing in the commercial wouldn't be caught dead in real life in one of those cars.

You sound like you can't afford one.

Fiats are good cars. They may have been crappy 30 years ago, but Chryslers were crappy a few years ago, and they turned around.


I'm seeing a ton of the Fiat 500 on the streets now in Vancouver.

i.imgur.com

Apparently they are a pretty nice ride.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report