- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Yes, more than unions would have been effected by their collapse, but that is the same of any business, and no reason for the government to save them.
This is a truly sad statement.
The auto parts suppliers is the key here.
Ford and Japanese automakers would probably take over the business that GM and Chrysler would lose them.
Republicans would have done the bailout as well. No one was going to let them fold.
If they would have let them fail it woud have been because, long term, it is better for these probelems to fix themselves than to have the government do it.i would disagree....they would have let them fail if anything to cripple the unions
Ford didn't take any bailout money, Einstein.
Yes, more than unions would have been effected by their collapse, but that is the same of any business, and no reason for the government to save them.
This is a truly sad statement.
correction. Certain republicans would have done them, yes McCain so you are right there. but nah, if they cant hang they should fold
You use a 2008 article that it could help? Is that because there is no proof it helped.
Ford did not take the bailout because they did not want government control over their business.
Ford did what it had to do and GM could have done the same.
Enough would have that it would have been done. It doesn't matter if they should of or not, the fact is history shows us they would have bailed them out. Remember, this isn't the first bailout.
Is there a point to this red herring?
Enough would have that it would have been done. It doesn't matter if they should of or not, the fact is history shows us they would have bailed them out. Remember, this isn't the first bailout.
Fallacy: Red Herring
:shrug:
We are talking about harry ried and his gaffe, your talking about McCain and republicans as usual.
His gaft is meaningless. But I was actually speaking to someone else about something specific. You entered the discussion. Discussions often move from the meaningless to something deeper and vice versa. You always have a choice to participate or ignore. But, it is not a red herring. Go back and try to follow the discussion you entered into.
Uhm I started the thread, you entered my discussion with a red herring regarding republicans. please go back and try to not fail so hard.
:failpail:
You're gonna need a bigger bucket.
You don't control the discussion. Nor was I talking to you. You entered into another sub discussion. Gafts are uninteresting and unimportant. Others started talking about the bailouts, a better discussion IMHO.
That is as usual a retarded response boo, you responded in post #2 to my post #1, who the hell did you think you were talking to chuckles?
Are admitting to hijacking my thread?
Perhaps if you want to whine about republicans you go get yer own thread.
I disagree "Gafts" are interesting and important. :doh
That's true.
However, I was having a nice discussion with others. Gafts and gottcha politics don't do much for me. I prefer substance. Sue me.
It's "gaffes", chief. :thumbs:
Well go find you some, preferably in your own thread. :shrug:
Over the long run absolutely. But that takes time. Time to build new plants. Time to line up new suppliers (especially in the case of the Japanese manufacturers considering how they operate). Time to hire new workers. In the mean time, the supply chain would have effectively died off with too little demand coming from just Ford. Lord Tammerlain is 100% correct on this and ptif219 has utterly failed to grasp the concept of. The immediate effets of GM and Chrysler going down would be immense and not easily recoverable from.
That said, GM is still fracked up and Chrysler even more so. GM should spin off its North American branch and focus on where it makes money: every where else.
Most of the supply chain would die off, but Ford and Japan's business isn't going away. This also doesn't take into account that the remains of GM and Chrysler would also go somewhere. The demand for cars is still there, and others would fill the gap.
The supply chain is the issue
Ford uses many of the same suppliers as GM and Chrysler. A bankrupt GM unable to buy new parts and pay for ones already delievered means those suppliers go broke. That means Ford does not get any parts to manufacture its cars for a few months
It does not mean that they go broke. It means that they have to downsize.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?