Comments on: Bailout Watch 117: General Mopar Would be Too Big To Fail

By: pariah

pariah — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:34:21 +0000

A Democratic Congress and White House couldn’t possibly let them go down.” And just like that, the worst possible reasons for a merger (making GM “too big to fail”) are taking center stage.

For what it’s worth, I’d say that political gain is one of the worst possible reasons for making anything happen.

By: gslippy

gslippy — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:34:09 +0000

There is no actual need to preserve GM, other than its support network for existing product, which is sizable. The government will take this over, as well as its pension plan.

It is ridiculous to believe GM-Mopar would be too big to fail. The Titanic was “unsinkable”, too.

By: jkross22

jkross22 — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:10:20 +0000

The Democrats will say too many (of our supporters) jobs will be lost if GM fails, but I don’t get why the Republicans don’t say, “Look, these companies are unable to make enough desirable products to invest taxpayer dollars to save”.

For GM to be saved, it’s got to go through Ch. 11. Is it really that hard to understand?

By: njgreene

njgreene — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:06:43 +0000

And how many dealerships would that be?

By: npbheights

npbheights — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:43:18 +0000

It was Buickman quoting Ross Perot back in 1991 about the way GM management operates.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/between-the-lines-jalopniks-ray-wert-on-gm-chrysler-merger/

See the first response.

By: 1996MEdition

1996MEdition — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:44:36 +0000

Just for kicks, let’s see some photochops of General Mopar….the Malavenger, the Calimaro, Ramarado, Durangahoe…..Vipette?

By: gamper

gamper — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:43:13 +0000

Being too big to fail and securing Chrysler’s share of the bailout money seem to be the biggest upsides to such a merger.

There is also be some interesting product/brand/parts bin loot to be had from such a raid.

By: Adub

Adub — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:34:05 +0000

netrun, I’m pretty sure it was Buickman.

By: indi500fan

indi500fan — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:24:38 +0000

For those too young to remember or so old they forgot (crediting Wiki):

“British Leyland was a vehicle manufacturing company formed in the United Kingdom in 1968 as British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd (BLMC). It was partly nationalised in 1975 with the government creating a new holding company called British Leyland Ltd which became BL Ltd (later BL plc) in 1978. [1] [2] It incorporated much of the British owned motor vehicle industry, and held 40% of the UK car market,[3] with roots going back to 1895.

Despite containing profitable marques such as Jaguar, Rover and Land Rover, as well as the best selling Mini, British Leyland had a troubled history.[4] In 1986 it was renamed as the Rover Group, later to become MG Rover Group, which went bankrupt in 2005, bringing an end to mass car production by British owned manufacturers – with MG becoming part of Chinese Nanjing Automobile.”

By: netrun

netrun — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:21:51 +0000

“Gorilla Dust”

(from another poster in a previous thread, sorry I’ve forgotten your name)

By: Bunter1

Bunter1 — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:14:43 +0000

If there is any credibility to this looniness I want to propose a possible reason.

“The Artist Formerly…etc.” could once again claim to be the biggest for an hour or two.

Ego has cause crazier disasters, WWII comes to mind.

Bunter

By: Sherman Lin

Sherman Lin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:05:56 +0000

They will get a bailout and another and another etc and they will still fail. American Leyland is the perfect analogy

By: indi500fan

indi500fan — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:59:19 +0000

American Leyland.