[First] Quote of the Day: Marchionne: At Chrysler, We Own You

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

So, you thought your $14,312,130,642 “investment” in New Chrysler bought you some accountability, seeing as it’s your tax money? Here’s your Frankfurt wake-up call from Uncle Sam’s appointed/anointed ChryCo CEO, via t he Associated Press:

Marchionne said Wednesday that Chrysler’s new business plan won’t be released until November, and declined to discuss the forthcoming model lineup.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
4 of 13 comments
  • Jkross22 Jkross22 on Sep 16, 2009

    Is there anyone that doesn't believe Chrysler, err Fiat, will be back in DC in a few months asking for more taxpayer money? It's not about being angry about what's been done... it's about avoiding making the same mistake over and over.

  • Rpiotr01 Rpiotr01 on Sep 16, 2009

    Sorry, but Sergio gets the benefit of the doubt from me. I read somewhere recently that even he was surprised by how little Cerberus actually did with Chrysler. It's going to be a slog with them and I think Marchionne knows this. His approach thus far is 100X more preferable than GM's blustering and delusion. And as for asking for another bailout, I think everyone can rest assured that if another auto bailout is given it will NOT be to Chrysler. Save your future rage for GM's next handout and Ford's first.

  • Windswords Windswords on Sep 16, 2009

    Geez, here we go again: rnc: "ChryCo should have been allowed to fail, it is very small in comparison to GM and the economic impact would have been limited plus the additional sales that would have gone to GM would have been more beneficial than the $15b plowed into ChryCo economically speaking (most of ChryCo customers are A) die hard buy american, those I imagine would have gone to Ford, the remainder are B) people who buy cars based on who will give them cheapest price and financing, those would have gone to GM.)" No, no, and no. Did I mention no? When Plymouth was shut down the supposed loyal "buy American" customers didn't even switch over to Dodge or Chrysler. Most of them went to Hyundai. Today most of them would go to Hyundai and Kia. As I have repeated here ad nauseum, killing Chrysler would not have produced significantly more sales for GM or Ford. "But since the BK was handled by US politically it would have been suicide to bail out GM and not ChryCo (there is a reason that Bush gave them a loan as well), just as it would have been politically impossible for Germany to just let Opel fail (before elections, despite the national mood, when the news starts running stories every night of dying communities and little children with dirty faces and raggy clothes, those feelings change quickly*) *Those things already exist, just aren’t shown" My opinion is that for the Obama administration at least, Chrysler was the dry run for the GM bankruptcy/bailout. As for Chrysler being small as in having no effect on the national economy, the numbers don't add up, especially when you factor in all the dealer employees that would have lost their jobs. One of the arguments against giving Chrysler loan guarantees (not loans) in the early 80's was that if they went out of business Ford and GM would take up the slack, so no biggie. Lee and company had to educate the Congress that when all those dealers lost their franchises they were not going to get a Ford or GM one. They would end up for the most part as Toyondsan dealerships. GM & Ford were not in a position to take up the slack in manufacturing or dealers.

  • Loser Loser on Sep 16, 2009

    The below link will explain a lot. The situation at recently rescued Chrysler Group is even more dire than first thought, the CEO of Italy's Fiat -- which came to the aid of the U.S. automaker -- said Wednesday. Now, where have I heard this before? http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/16/autos/fiat_chrysler/index.htm?postversion=2009091614