You lost me there at the end.

I will agree and yet again add: “damned if they do, damned if they don’t”

Someone with some skillz needs to make a Firefox script for TTAC, that changes every instance of the work “Chrysler” to “Chrysler: ditd,ditd”

It’s sad really, everyone is dog piling on Chrysler for being trying to be responsible with inventory.

@ Lokki:
“They have a 117 day supply of cars, and they’re not selling any. So, they had 117 day supply of cars last week, and they’re likely to have 117 day supply of cars next week.”

Give “Chrysler: ditd,ditd” some credit… if they had 117 day inventory last week, they would have a 116 day inventory this week… /sarcasm

That would be Chapter 7, of course, and I agree.>>

Actually, it would not be a Chapter 7 it would be a liquidating 11 where you continue to run the business and sell off the various parts as a going concern. Generally, this provides a much larger return to the creditors than a 7.

Regards,

Secondly, are you saying that Chrysler will not start up production again in 2009? I don’t see how you mean it any other way, but I’d like to ask you to clarify your position if you are implying they won’t start up again in ‘09.

RealAutoGuy -

They have a 117 day supply of cars, and they’re not selling any. So, they had 117 day supply of cars last week, and they’re likely to have 117 day supply of cars next week.

GM, Ford, and now Toyota and Honda are all having firesales – on objectively better cars-

What makes you think that Chrysler sales are suddenly going to pick up enough to clear that backlog?

It isn’t raining on Chrysler. It’s raining on the six feet of water that Chrylser is already under.

The bigger picture point being made here is that Chrysler has vehicles that it cannot sell, regardless of the quantity of inventory.

The problem cannot be fixed by halting production, halting production only slows the bleeding. The problem can only be fixed by completely revamping the lineup. But they don’t have the time or money for that, so it is as good as saying as they are close to being done. The company needs to either be sold or bailed out again, otherwise it’s going to die.

Not as big as the non-public-outcry over investing money in banks that held onto it instead of lending.

This isn’t to say that one was a good idea while the other wasn’t.

That would be Chapter 7, of course, and I agree. Daimler mortally wounded Chrysler, and allowing the ever-fading patient to remain on life support for an eternity is unacceptable. The only real mystery here is who will end up with Jeep (and perhaps whether VW will go whole hog into the “domestic” minivan game in Chrysler’s absence). Even those who are convinced that Detroit must be saved “at all costs” should understand that trying to save a privately held automaker with no conceivable chance of future prosperity and very little public support makes no sense.

Then the Ecoweenies and the math-impaired will implore their representatives to save Chrysler.

Besides, they are posturing with the UAW to let them know that they are serious about changing their deal with them; supposedly the longer the brotherhood sits one out, the harder Gettelfinger will have to think about what to do to ensure his long term viability.

Look for dismal January sales that may even make December 08 look good. Not producing cars may be the prudent course, if your wares aren’t selling.

It’s one thing to pay them to build cars that no one wants. It’s another to pay them to not build them.

The “put in a field comment” was somewhat ironic.

The best thing for them to do is declare C11. Part the company out and be done with it. ChryCo’s disappearance would help the remaining domestics and the U.S. car market in general. Giving them $4b to get ready to do this is quasi-criminal IMHO.

Cerberus has screwed us (the tax payers) twice, once with GMAC and now with Chrysler.

Thank you Mr Snow and former VP, Mr. Quayle.

You would all yell at them for making cars, too, so what’s the point?

Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks.

First, I don’t see the connection — kind of like saying that “it’s raining today so soon everything will be underwater.”

Secondly, are you saying that Chrysler will not start up production again in 2009? I don’t see how you mean it any other way, but I’d like to ask you to clarify your position if you are implying they won’t start up again in ‘09.

The Bush/Nardelli photo is unmodified. Nardelli was the CEO of Home Depot before getting shown the door and Bush made a speech there in December 2003. Have a look:

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0buO88R5ztajg