By on March 28, 2014

King + Gettlefinger - Ford + Mullaly

Ford’s executive chairman Bill Ford, Jr. told CNBC this week that former United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger “doesn’t get enough credit for helping save Ford.

Automotive News reports the UAW worked closely with the Blue Oval to avoid the fates that befell Chrysler and General Motors in the run-up to the Great Recession, as Ford Jr. explained in a live interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box”:

When our times were darkest in the ’07, ’08, ’09 time frame, the UAW helped our industry get back on its feet, helped Ford get back on its feet. Ron Gettelfinger, the former president of the United Auto Workers, doesn’t get enough credit for helping save Ford.

The chairman went on to say that in the automaker’s darkest hour, he turned to Gettelfinger to “save the Ford Motor Co.” For Ford, this meant concessions by the union, including two-tier wages, overtime pay after 40 hours of work, and giving up vacation time. In turn, the Blue Oval lowered labor cost to $58/hour per employee.

When asked why the UAW was turned away from the South — specifically the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. — Ford, Jr. noted the region’s attitude toward organized labor in general, as well as how the automaker views its workers in comparison:

Surprised? No, because there’s a long history of organizing that didn’t go well in the South. I would say this. We’ve had a great relationship with our workforce. I don’t look at them as union and nonunion but as Ford workers. … We have a lot of second-, third-, fourth-, fifth- and even sixth-generation workers at Ford in our company.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

86 Comments on “Ford: Gettelfinger Should Be Credited For Saving Company...”


  • avatar
    gmichaelj

    Quite an intellectual turn about on labor relations from Henry Ford and his thugs.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Ford is stroking Gettelfinger & the UAW as it typically does during periods of relatively smooth sailing (doubly so now, given the stormy seas of 2008 to 2011).

    Given that the success or failure of a single product line (the F Series) can literally swing Ford from a cash flow positive to cash flow negative, I continue to be amazed at the overwhelming positive spin put on Ford’s business model and product portfolio by analysts the financial world over.

    The present period reminds me of the 1992 to 2000 era in many ways, when Ford was only profitable due to sales of their trucks & SUVs (especially the Explorer).

    • 0 avatar
      VCplayer

      A lot of company’s fortunes can swing on a single major product. If Toyota starts selling a Camry that drives like mid-80s sedan, the company might not go bankrupt, but you better believe the stock would take a blow. I think Ford would survive even a bad F-Seires launch if Europe hadn’t been such a mess for so long, and we aren’t given to believe that such a thing will happen.

      Anyways, nothing wrong with making your business partners feel important. Even if you’re lying through your teeth, it doesn’t cost you anything and might make the negotiating table easier.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        When did Toyota stop selling Camrys that drive like mid-80’s sedans??

        • 0 avatar
          geeber

          Judging by the annual sales figures, that is exactly what a fair number of new-car buyers want.

          • 0 avatar
            tuffjuff

            @geeber

            Is an over-hyped and under-delivering mid-sized sedan.

            Gotcha.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Don’t ask me, ask the 300,000+ retail buyers who visit their local Toyota dealer every year to plop down the money to buy one.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Geeper. As of 1/1/2014 there 3,030,000 high school drop outs in the United States. Not a lot of bright people making good decisions. Toyoda good car, yes Toyoda good car. I buy good car. Commercial told me good car. You buy Toyota. It good car. Translate that into Spanish and that account for over half of Toyoda sales.

          • 0 avatar

            > Commercial told me good car. You buy Toyota. It good car. Translate that into Spanish and that account for over half of Toyoda sales.

            For a moment there I thought this was posted to the previous Toyota thread and it was some kind of bigot-off with HDC.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Commercial told me good car”

            But commercial tell me Ford good car. Which car good-er? Commercial lie?

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            The difference is that there are plenty of real-world statistics that show the negative effects of failing to graduate from high school.

            Meanwhile, there are plenty of statistics backing up the perception that Toyotas are reliable and less likely to give the owners trouble than other makes of vehicles.

            Or did the editors of Consumer Reports just make up those latest annual survey results?

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Geep. So consumer reports is your source if knowledge. Bahahhahaha. What a way to think for yourself. Koolaid drinkin all around these parts.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            As opposed to your opinion. You need to learn the difference between anecdote and data. When you learn the difference between the two, show us your data, and then we’ll talk.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            For the second straight year Toyoda is the #1 recalled auto maker. So far over the past 89 days Toyoda has recalled over 5 million cars.

            Below is from 1985 to present:
            Toyota Motor Corp: 38.6 million recalled/48.1 million sold; 0.80 recall rate.

            Toyoda is just middle of the pact. No better then any other auto maker. Well except for the past two or three years they have really been building some crap cars. They are the GM of asian imports.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Please re-read the link to the Popular Mechanics article about recalls I posted in a prior discussion. The main theme of the article was that you cannot use recalls to judge the quality of a manufacturer’s vehicles.

            Today, many recalls are actually the result of an automaker being PROACTIVE to avoid customers experiencing problems (if GM had taken this approach with ignition switches, it wouldn’t be in the middle of a PR nightmare right now).

            Toyota and Lexus were ranked at the top in the latest Consumer Reports annual reliability survey. If you have something beyond your opinion that Toyota’s quality only earns it a mid-pack ranking, please share it with us. We will examine it. The number or recalls, or what your neighbor’s son’s girlfriend had happen to her Corolla, do not constitute “data.”

            Until then, your contention is not supported by the facts.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        Why do you assume he’s lying through his teeth. The unions have been remarkably flexible and helpful in helping the industry recover from disastrous management decisions regarding both vehicle development and consumer financing.

        • 0 avatar
          VCplayer

          I used the qualifier “if,” I have no idea if he’s telling the truth or not. Obviously this is something that happened, but we have no idea if the UAW was helpful or went kicking and screaming into the current arrangement—presumably a little of both.

          My point was more that Bill Ford’s reason for saying anything in the first place isn’t simply idle or trivial fact-dropping.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            One of the books published in the wake of the GM and Chrysler bailouts detailed what happened (the title escapes me). Ford and Gettelfinger had been meeting regularly to develop a better rapport between the company and the union. Ford told Gettelfinger that the Ford Motor Company was in dire straits and everyone needed to be on board with whatever steps were necessary to save the company.

            Gettelfinger was somewhat skeptical, but after Ford agreed to open its books to the union, he realized that this wasn’t a case of management crying “wolf” to extract concessions from the UAW. He was also convinced when Alan Mulally told him in a meeting that Ford was going to sell all of its foreign brands to concentrate on Ford and Lincoln.

            Of course there was grumbling and resistance from the union members, but it was Gettelfinger’s job to sell them on the need for these changes.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I know this isn’t one you’re referring to but I’m partial to a GM centric book on the bailout titled “Sixty to Zero”.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            I’ll have to look that one up.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I think you’ll like it, it gives alot of back-story on the Smith years and the GM crisis of 1992 where they flirted with bankruptcy even then.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Gettelfinger and his team helped to sell Ford’s management decisions to the rank and file.

            Why wouldn’t Ford be pleased about that? In this case, the union made management’s job less difficult.

          • 0 avatar

            > Gettelfinger and his team helped to sell Ford’s management decisions to the rank and file. Why wouldn’t Ford be pleased about that?

            oh snap, shots fired

        • 0 avatar
          alsorl

          Because it’s easier for people to see the bad. Most of the time they cannot see the good in themselves, so they will never except success of there peers. You know, thr glass half empty crowd for America and American works.

    • 0 avatar
      chainyanker

      “…when Ford was only profitable due to sales of their trucks & SUVs”.

      Yeah, and Apple was only profitable because of iPods and iPhones – so what? You build what people want to buy and you sell more than anybody else. Then you keep selling them year after year with no end in sight. How’s that a bad business model?

      • 0 avatar
        dtremit

        I can’t believe I’m about to agree with something DW said about Ford — but the problem was that they were still selling plenty of cars, making little to no money on them, and not investing in the platforms. Instead, Jacques Nasser was pissing away cash buying junkyard chains and other nonsense.

        When fuel skyrocketed and sales of BOF SUVs dropped, they were left with uncompetitive product in the categories people suddenly wanted, and no room to discount them to get them out the door.

      • 0 avatar

        Please tell me what products Apple sold at a loss since Steve Jobs returned to the company? I feel my chain being yanked, and my BS meter ringing.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      Agree. I’m not sure whether to hold or sell F stock, which seems endlessly mired in the $15-17 range and they need another $12B in development.

      If they blow the F-150 launch — a possibility — things will get ugly fast.

      • 0 avatar
        VCplayer

        The argument against F stock is basically 1) any sort of spike in value seems a long ways off, and 2) quality problems will ultimately cause a major crisis and subsequent stock drop at Ford.

        The argument for F is that 1) Ford has been making consistently good product and marketing decisions ever since the Mulally regime took over, and 2) Ford is better positioned on the long run than other automakers to still be around when the next big upheaval comes due to a diversification of quality products, technologies, and supply-chain efficiency.

        My personal opinion is that it’s a good long-term investment but not a very attractive short-term one. In any case, Ford family ownership is always going to depress the price a little.

        Disclaimer to those that read this: Don’t make finical decisions based on what some anon dude on the internet said. No really.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I would say the chance of the F150 launch being jacked up is significantly less than any launch Ford has had in a long time. There will be one new engine (its not the volume engine either), but everything else powertrain wise is a known quantity. Transmission or engine issues are what made the Fiesta, Focus, Escape, and Fusion launches not go as smoothly as hoped. Tresmonos can tell you how fun the Fiesta launch was. If Ford can avoid the stupid QC problems they had in the Explorer launch, they’ll be fine.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          So far, the new F-150 has been doing wonders for my Alcoa stock, but nothing for the Ford stock. We’ll wait and see. I think the launch and vehicle will be fine, but will the margins suffer?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            That’s the multi-billion dollar question, isn’t it. I don’t have a good idea of how much more expensive it is to build, assuming it is more expensive to build, the 2015 F150 build over the 2014 F150.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Like VC said, if you’re concerned about the near term, sell and put your money in something else that has better short term growth prospects. I’m keeping it in my portfolio for the long term as 1. I’ve had it for a while and don’t need the cash at the moment and 2. As long as the company can keep things stable, it will steadily grow over the long term. Management seems to have a good grasp of where the company needs to go.

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        im still glad i bought after the crash for $2 and held it until it was $12. no regrets. if only id gone “all in” at the time…

        mighta become a hundred thousandaire!

      • 0 avatar
        CapVandal

        If I were pretending to be Cramer, I would recommend getting the 10k off the sec website and reading the risk factors in the beginning pages.

        Especially the one about global overcapacity.

        The risk factor list looks mostly like boilerplate, and includes a lot of boilerplate, but tends to also include real things to worry about.

        And the $12 billion in development — where does that come from? Retained earnings? A firm that has to spend $12 billion to stay competitive raises the issue whether that ‘development’ is an investment or an expense. I suppose this is putting too fine a point on it — yes, it is just timing differences. But at exactly what point do the owners (shareholders) get paid when the firm has to spend billions just to stay in business.

        As a rule of thumb, auto companies and airlines tend to disappoint. Personally I would never own stock in these industries.

        I have no idea about Ford at its current price.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      I wish I could find the article from…last year? Maybe two now? It pointed out that Ford actually was turning a profit off of their world cars for the first time since the late 1980s. Admitting that the F-Series is a big part of Ford’s wealth ignores that the F-Series and its crossovers eat up an equal amount of R&D. If we separated out the F-Series as another company both would be profitable but the F-Series would be more so.

      But don’t let cynical views from your aging and foggy mind get in the way of current states. :)

    • 0 avatar

      Fords dramatic increases in sales and profits in China provide a nice hedge going forward. They also have a favorable position in Europe as the continent’s economy rebounds. Their Escort and Focus provide volume and profit, although not to the extent of the trucks. What would failure of the F150 look like?

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    Ever since I read Robert Lacey’s “Ford, the Men and the Machine”, I’ve been fascinated by the company’s history.

    The book is almost three decades old, and surely a second edition would be welcome, which would include the periods described above.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      A thorough book on the Ford Motor Company by Douglas Brinkley appeared in 2003 – Wheels for the World: Henry Ford, His Company and a Century of Progress. It’s well worth a read.

      But a lot of water has flowed under the Ford bridge even since 2003, so that book needs an update, too.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    Please…..Dont know what is possessing Bill Ford to pander to the UAW at this time but boy the UAW sure is generous when their back is to the wall and they risk losing everything….wages, healthcare, pensions, etc. What did they so generously give Ford to weather the storm and avoid bankruptcy? They sold out future employees by creating the 2 tier wage system, thus retaining their wages, healthcare and pensions. Soooooo…..how exactly did the UAW save Ford.

    The givebacks by the then current UAW employees amounted to a small gesture, the future second tier employees are the ones who would save Ford’s bacon by providing the wage cuts necessary to turn the company around.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      So you don’t like “two tier” ? Well, your not alone. Not one active, or retired, CAW/UAW member likes it either.

      So, lets go back to the 2007 -2010 era. Imagine Ron G. stepping up to the mike at a ratification meeting.

      “Brothers, and sisters,today ,we are asking you to support a whole new concept. Brothers and sisters I propose a 30-35 percent cutback in wages and benefits. This will enable {insert one of big three here} to compete against the transplants.”

      The alternative was a “two tier wage and benefit package” “We, as your negotiating team soundly rejected such a proposal”

      We will now commence voting.

      Now I ask any of the pro, or con union, people here. To imagine how that would go down, with the rank, and file? Keep in mind that “two tier” barely made it through ratification.

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        I can imagine it going something like this….”So you are saying we dont have to give up anything and all we have do is sell out new hires? Where do I sign up?”

        That being said, I totally understand the concept of not wanting a 30% pay cut. I get it.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          I’m going to ask what your alternative plan is? Negating all unions and going back to the company calling all the shots?

          It’s a moment where we have more than two options but the other others besides those two involve upsetting an apple cart nobody in power is interested in doing and this group is even less so.

          It isn’t a battle between management & Unions or one vs. two tiers, it’s an acknowledgement that business under current economic scheme dictated this and we vote to continue this system.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” – Oscar Wilde

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    I hope Ron is ok, but this sounds like “happy talk” when someone is sick.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      Yep… smell of death. Nobody spontaneously praises the enemy until the enemy is ready to push daisies. Always creepy to hear.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        Why do you view organized workers as an enemy? The enemy of what exactly?

        • 0 avatar
          Kenmore

          Everybody is everyone else’s enemy in a time of hardship. Organizing seeks to depersonalize the status of “enemy” and elevate it to larger groups with opposing interests for larger battles. Otherwise disgruntled workers would have to return to the days of highwaymen and individually try robbing lordly-rich executives.

          Organized labor’s interests are usually diametrically opposed to those of organized managers. So I just meant they’re mutual enemies.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            This assumes so many things but lets take it at the most basic levels:

            1.) Management’s single solitary goal is not to turn a profit for continued existence but to maximize profit.

            2.) Labor’s goal is to maximize their earnings regardless of future health of the company and personal stability.

            In reality neither is really true in the most literal sense. The fact that we confuse ‘maximizing stock value’ with actual corporate control is something that really needs to be rectified. In fact every corporate chartering system in the western world does NOT use the idea of ‘maximizing stock value’ but simply that the corporate leaders cannot knowingly and intentionally harm stock holders which is akin to embezzlement or corruption. If corporate leaders want to turn most of their annual profits over to labor or inject it back into R&D they are perfectly within their rights to. This is especially true in very large Fortune 50/100/200 companies where the largest investors are…Other Fortune 500 companies and the Pension funds that have been forcible marketized.

            With that being said there is no active or logical reason to want to squeeze labor’s value except that it is exceptionally easy compared to producing innovation or reducing the material use/cost. Labor is the most flexible in most areas of cost in a business and is usually the first to be attacked when the business feels threatened.

            But I rambled enough, the point is that stocks should return some value (as it is only fair to expect a share in our capitalist society…though I point out capitalism as a beneficial economic system is a failure) but to argue that management is diametrically opposed to labor is simply an untrue statement.

          • 0 avatar

            > In fact every corporate chartering system in the western world does NOT use the idea of ‘maximizing stock value’ but simply that the corporate leaders cannot knowingly and intentionally harm stock holders which is akin to embezzlement or corruption.

            Fiduciary duty to the corp/holders might as well be the same thing, esp. if compensation/employment of those hired is predicated on stock performance.

        • 0 avatar

          > Why do you view organized workers as an enemy? The enemy of what exactly?

          House slave v field slave mentality.

        • 0 avatar
          alsorl

          Success can bring out the hate in many people. Jealousy can bring out the worst in people and shadow the truth in many ways.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            That’s as profound and substantial as a Raisinet.

            But since I just ate a bunch I guess I’m agreeing with you.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Yes, like the success that Toyota has enjoyed in the North American market, which seems to drive some people right around the bend.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Popping up some popcorn, the wails and gnashing of teeth from the B&B are going to be great reading.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I love how the dominant reaction is “Bill Ford is lying through his teeth.” Apparently the idea that a union leader could be a constructive presence is just so contrary to the ingrained worldview of most of the commentariat that it has to be spontaneously and violently rejected like a transfusion of the wrong type of blood.

    Seriously, it’s Union Derangement Syndrome.

    • 0 avatar
      cpthaddock

      It seems Ford employed more creative back abnd forth in product dvelopment between the core Ford brand and it’s Nasser acquired minions. As an example, and despite criticism, the Volvo derived D4 platform is currently doing well for them, in Law Enforcement sales for one example.

      Who’s to say that the same principle of collaboration might not also be enabling Ford to recognize some of the same benefits that VW enjoys with (most of) it’s own workforce?

      I’d say the smart money has transcended the ancient nonsense of Boo / Cheer union attitudes and left it behind in the 1970’s. Thatcher and Reagan are both long dead and gone, move along.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Without the Explorer, the D3/4 platform would be a disaster. Ford finally made it work after six years. Everything else based on that platform, including Volvo products, hasn’t exactly lit the sales charts on fire.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The UAW has had a tendency to be blind to the fact that their SOP was/is killing car companies. The metaphor of a parasite sucking blood from the host organism is appropriate. Most parasites do not stop until the organism dies.
    I suspect that Ford giving props to the union for helping save the company is appropriate considering the circumstances I describe.

    Thank you for realizing that you were/are parasites killing us.

    Is Bill Ford Jr. saying thank you (nicely) for saving us while thinking “my post”????

    • 0 avatar

      Don’t think so Lou. What I think is that Ford Jr is trying to build bridges when the world is exploding around the unions. I think it’s a smart move and can help the company along. As proven by the unions in Japan and Germany, unions can be a great asset to a company if adversarial relations are overcome and everybody realizes that they’re on the same boat.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Marcelo de Vasconcellos – I agree that if the adversarial process is minimized it is mutually beneficial. Unions are realizing that they (not just UAW) had become parasites killing the host. Working together to remain profitable and viable is the best approach.

        The UAW had a near death experience with Chrysler and GMC. If those companies would of been allowed to go through bankruptcy without government intervention the UAW would of died.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Short reply: Lou, every country that didn’t melt down in 2008 due to financial shenanigans had either a powerful leftist government OR a powerful labor movement. You argue parasite but reality really has you in a vice grip to prove it. If your best argument is UAW….well the World Auto Market is a largely unionized system. The Japanese, the Germans, the Americans, and the Koreans are all unionized by and large. So………..yeah……I know, you’re going to stick to your moral economic views but just try and read some non-popular economic books (i.e. ones that aren’t sold by the big publishers). The majority of ‘pop econ’ books are written by business majors selling their variant on the same cock and bull stories they sell in business schools.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Xeranar – quite a few years before the meltdown an economist stated that the USA auto industry was destined to fail. He said that the big 3 were retirement trusts masquerading as auto companies.

          But hey, he might of had that book published by a large publisher.

          Let me see………. Canada didn’t have a big melt down and a Conservative government was in power……..
          ohhhhh…….
          wait…………

          they have unionized workers.

          Talk about covering all angles ;)

          I don’t have a problem with unions, I do have a problem with unions that get too big and turn into parasitic organisms.

        • 0 avatar

          Well put Xeranar, but I would add that the countries also had a functioning regulatory system, that wasn’t a revolving door of cronyism..

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Xeranar
          Your comment.

          ” Lou, every country that didn’t melt down in 2008 due to financial shenanigans had either a powerful leftist government OR a powerful labor movement.”

          This is quite misleading. It’s like making a comment that if the coal industry collapses coal mines will be affected. Doh, it appears you have made an extraordinary error. Stick with your life as a shop steward or some other within the socialist union institution.

          It seems ALL OECD economies were affected by the Great Recession with a few exceptions. The exceptions are the countries that have had something different to trade and/or had the most LIBERAL and open economies. Nothing to do who with whether a left wing or right wing government was in power at the time.

          The countries that fell over had high debt due to protectionist and subsidization and poor financial regulation.

          So, what and whom supports protectionism and subsidisation?

          UNIONS!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Big Al from Oz – There were a few things that saved Canada from going down the toilet with the USA.

            We have some very conservative/strict rules for banks that kept them from doing the same kind of cowboy banking that occurred in the USA.

            Our Lumber sector was previously hit by USA protectionist measures which forced Canadian companies to look for other markets.

            Our oil industry was/is booming which also was a huge buffer.

            Ontario got hit hard due to its manufacturing foundation but the Western Provinces being resource based did well. The Forest Industry did take a hit but it wasn’t catastrophic.

            FTA’s with the EU and other countries outside the NAFTA zone will help wean Canada from USA dependence.

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      Lou. Looks like you’ve drank the koolaid of ignorance regarding unions and U.S. auto makers.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Ford is on the money. The 2007 contract is the primary enabler of the profit being generated by all three US makers, thanks to Gettelfinger.

  • avatar

    As I recall, Gettlefinger and the UAW had to sign off on an agreement for Chrysler and GM labor costs to achieve parity with the transplants for TARP money to be provided in the form of a loan to bridge the two ailing companies over to the next administration. The UAW signed off. The two tier system is what they came up with the achieve that. If the UAW wants to change that they need to do it within the parity parameters IMHO.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    @Ruggles- Actually, the 2007 UAW contract followed the practice of “pattern bargaining”, applied similarly to all three US makers, and was in place well before the financial crisis induced auto collapse.

    The VEBA provisions saved GM about $7B/ year net, smaller, but still huge numbers for Ford and Chrysler. Elimination of the Jobs bank saved GM almost another $1B a year, with proportionately smaller savings for the others. The two tier wage provisions were part of that contract as well. These issues comprise the basis for Ford’s profitability as well as GM and Chrysler’s.

    The point that deserves repetition, is that all of this took place well before either the $4 gas spike that depressed the market (especially trucks) in early ’08, as well as the financial crisis in October. The immense savings of the contract were the basis for GM’s board supporting Wagoner. There seemed to be a reasonable shot at making it until the VEBA was to be operational in 2010, but the financial crisis killed that possibility without additional capital.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    If the question is whether or not the left learned anything from the bailouts and bankruptcies, the answer is no.

    • 0 avatar

      I am interested in what you on the right have learned from the bailouts and bankruptcies. But please don’t include me, a card carrying lefty, in your over-generalizations. If you really want to know what we on the left think, just ask. There is probably a lot of common ground we can agree on, the rest we can disagree about so long as we’re not disagreeable about it.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States