<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The 1980 Chrysler Bailout</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:00:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: S Brennan</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-167351</link>
		<dc:creator>S Brennan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 04:43:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-167351</guid>
		<description>Barry,

I made two separate points:

[1] Chrysler came up with “new automobile designs, even new markets” Period. Stop.  No mention of fuel efficiency, I did imply that this occurred after the bailout...which it did.

[2] Chrysler followed CAFE standards while Ford &amp; GM did not...and got royally screwed for their efforts

I did not call minivans “fuel-efficient machines”, anybody can read my words above...why lie about what I said.

What innovation &quot;new design&quot; do you consider bigger than minivans in the last thirty years?  FYI, hybrids were some of the earliest cars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barry,</p>
<p>I made two separate points:</p>
<p>[1] Chrysler came up with “new automobile designs, even new markets” Period. Stop.  No mention of fuel efficiency, I did imply that this occurred after the bailout&#8230;which it did.</p>
<p>[2] Chrysler followed CAFE standards while Ford &amp; GM did not&#8230;and got royally screwed for their efforts</p>
<p>I did not call minivans “fuel-efficient machines”, anybody can read my words above&#8230;why lie about what I said.</p>
<p>What innovation &#8220;new design&#8221; do you consider bigger than minivans in the last thirty years?  FYI, hybrids were some of the earliest cars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eren</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-167121</link>
		<dc:creator>eren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 23:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-167121</guid>
		<description>Canadian Chrysler plants shut down as parts not delivered

http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/542582</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Canadian Chrysler plants shut down as parts not delivered</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/542582" rel="nofollow">http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/542582</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: batmando</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-167074</link>
		<dc:creator>batmando</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-167074</guid>
		<description>@MRegan -
Thanks for that Naked Capitalism link &quot;Is Optimism All It&#039;s Cracked Up to Be?&quot; ending with
“A man should swallow a toad every morning to be sure of not meeting with anything more revolting in the day ahead.”
though even a frog a day is no specific against the bail-outs, news and markets these days.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@MRegan -<br />
Thanks for that Naked Capitalism link &#8220;Is Optimism All It&#8217;s Cracked Up to Be?&#8221; ending with<br />
“A man should swallow a toad every morning to be sure of not meeting with anything more revolting in the day ahead.”<br />
though even a frog a day is no specific against the bail-outs, news and markets these days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grabowcp</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-167017</link>
		<dc:creator>grabowcp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 16:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-167017</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Fuel efficiency is a sound national energy policy, economic policy and foreign policy all wrapped into one. &lt;/i&gt;

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/04/fuel-efficiency-doesnt-lower-demand-it.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Fuel efficiency is a sound national energy policy, economic policy and foreign policy all wrapped into one. </i></p>
<p><a href="http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/04/fuel-efficiency-doesnt-lower-demand-it.html" rel="nofollow">http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/04/fuel-efficiency-doesnt-lower-demand-it.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheReformedBroker</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-166895</link>
		<dc:creator>TheReformedBroker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 11:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-166895</guid>
		<description>you know you&#039;re a fucked company when people reminisce about your old bailout on your way into your new one

Fiat should keep Jeep and shut the rest of this freakshow down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you know you&#8217;re a fucked company when people reminisce about your old bailout on your way into your new one</p>
<p>Fiat should keep Jeep and shut the rest of this freakshow down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Your Breakfast Read, Served By The Confluence &#171; The Confluence</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-166886</link>
		<dc:creator>Your Breakfast Read, Served By The Confluence &#171; The Confluence</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 10:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-166886</guid>
		<description>[...] Barry Ritholtz reminisces about another Chrysler bailout and wonders The 1980 Chrysler Bailout  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Barry Ritholtz reminisces about another Chrysler bailout and wonders The 1980 Chrysler Bailout  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Froglips</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-166880</link>
		<dc:creator>Froglips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 10:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-166880</guid>
		<description>Would not bother me to see Opel (GM), Fiat, Rover, Chrysler and GM go. Would be good for the industry. These companies have been poorly managed, produce inferior products and cost/will a lot to their respective tax paying base. 
This is what the USSR did, keep badly run operations in business.

Let me take you down....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would not bother me to see Opel (GM), Fiat, Rover, Chrysler and GM go. Would be good for the industry. These companies have been poorly managed, produce inferior products and cost/will a lot to their respective tax paying base.<br />
This is what the USSR did, keep badly run operations in business.</p>
<p>Let me take you down&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry Ritholtz</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-166881</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry Ritholtz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 05:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-166881</guid>
		<description>SB:

First, the minivan were not introduced to the world until 1983 (Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager). Second, I would hardly call them &quot;fuel-efficient machines&quot; as noted in the excerpt. 

Third, the minivan is not exactly a huge automotive innovation -- take a regular van, make it smaller, build it on a car chassis. If you think the minivan in going to impress any car guy, well, I got news for ya: It wont.

What the minivan was in the real world was a commercial innovation --repackage a truck as a car, and sell millions of them. It was a sales smash, a huge hit for Chrysler, but hardly a work of technological breakthrough or engineering innovation.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SB:</p>
<p>First, the minivan were not introduced to the world until 1983 (Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager). Second, I would hardly call them &#8220;fuel-efficient machines&#8221; as noted in the excerpt. </p>
<p>Third, the minivan is not exactly a huge automotive innovation &#8212; take a regular van, make it smaller, build it on a car chassis. If you think the minivan in going to impress any car guy, well, I got news for ya: It wont.</p>
<p>What the minivan was in the real world was a commercial innovation &#8211;repackage a truck as a car, and sell millions of them. It was a sales smash, a huge hit for Chrysler, but hardly a work of technological breakthrough or engineering innovation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S Brennan</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-166868</link>
		<dc:creator>S Brennan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 04:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-166868</guid>
		<description>Love ya dude, but this post sucks and this:

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Had Chrysler been allowed to fall into bankruptcy, it’s not too difficult to imagine a vulture investor obtaining all of the aforementioned assets, and putting them to good use. Just picture a refurbished Chrysler Corporation – newly recapitalized, minus the onerous labor contracts, pension obligations, and healthcare overhead. Its new owner would have been free to pursue new manufacturing methods, new automobile designs, even new markets – with all the advantages Chrysler itself had, but without the defunct company’s baggage.

A post bankruptcy Chrysler would have been as leaner, meaner and more cost-efficient, and maybe even more fuel-efficient machine than the rest of Detroit. Surely, they would have been willing to take chances on some new designs that broke free of the stodgy boring cars put out by Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s.&quot;  - Barry R  &lt;/blockquote&gt;


...is crappola.  

Whatever Chrysler&#039;s failings:

Chrysler came up with &quot;new automobile designs, even new markets&quot;..ever hear of a Mini-Van?  It did not exist until Chrysler came up with it.  

Chrysler followed CAFE standards while Ford &amp; GM did not. Consider:

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&quot;...In the late 1970&#039;s, President Jimmy Carter implemented CAFE standards to combat an oil shortage driven by policies of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The standards raised fuel efficiency in American cars by 7.6 miles a gallon over six years, causing oil imports from the Persian Gulf to fall by 87 percent. Our economy grew by 27 percent during that period. Detroit, predictably, figured out how to build more fuel-efficient cars largely without reductions in size, comfort or power. 
The CAFE standards worked so well that they produced an oil glut by 1986. That&#039;s when the Reagan administration intervened to rescue America&#039;s domestic oil industry from gasoline price collapse. Ronald Reagan&#039;s rollback of CAFE standards caused America, in that year, to double oil imports from the Persian Gulf nations and to burn more oil than is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

According to a recent report by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate it did in the period from 1976 to 1985, it would no longer have needed Persian Gulf oil after 1985. Had we continued this wise course, we might not have had to fight the Persian Gulf war, and we would have insulated ourselves from price shocks in the international oil market. Fuel efficiency is a sound national energy policy, economic policy and foreign policy all wrapped into one. Every increase of one mile per gallon in auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than is in two Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil! 

Yet the Republican Congress in 1995 made it illegal for the Environmental Protection Agency even to study higher CAFE standards. The result is that America now has the worst energy efficiency in 20 years.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/kennedy.shtml</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love ya dude, but this post sucks and this:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Had Chrysler been allowed to fall into bankruptcy, it’s not too difficult to imagine a vulture investor obtaining all of the aforementioned assets, and putting them to good use. Just picture a refurbished Chrysler Corporation – newly recapitalized, minus the onerous labor contracts, pension obligations, and healthcare overhead. Its new owner would have been free to pursue new manufacturing methods, new automobile designs, even new markets – with all the advantages Chrysler itself had, but without the defunct company’s baggage.</p>
<p>A post bankruptcy Chrysler would have been as leaner, meaner and more cost-efficient, and maybe even more fuel-efficient machine than the rest of Detroit. Surely, they would have been willing to take chances on some new designs that broke free of the stodgy boring cars put out by Detroit in the 1970s and 1980s.&#8221;  &#8211; Barry R  </p></blockquote>
<p>&#8230;is crappola.  </p>
<p>Whatever Chrysler&#8217;s failings:</p>
<p>Chrysler came up with &#8220;new automobile designs, even new markets&#8221;..ever hear of a Mini-Van?  It did not exist until Chrysler came up with it.  </p>
<p>Chrysler followed CAFE standards while Ford &amp; GM did not. Consider:</p>
<blockquote><p>
&#8220;&#8230;In the late 1970&#8242;s, President Jimmy Carter implemented CAFE standards to combat an oil shortage driven by policies of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The standards raised fuel efficiency in American cars by 7.6 miles a gallon over six years, causing oil imports from the Persian Gulf to fall by 87 percent. Our economy grew by 27 percent during that period. Detroit, predictably, figured out how to build more fuel-efficient cars largely without reductions in size, comfort or power.<br />
The CAFE standards worked so well that they produced an oil glut by 1986. That&#8217;s when the Reagan administration intervened to rescue America&#8217;s domestic oil industry from gasoline price collapse. Ronald Reagan&#8217;s rollback of CAFE standards caused America, in that year, to double oil imports from the Persian Gulf nations and to burn more oil than is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. </p>
<p>According to a recent report by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate it did in the period from 1976 to 1985, it would no longer have needed Persian Gulf oil after 1985. Had we continued this wise course, we might not have had to fight the Persian Gulf war, and we would have insulated ourselves from price shocks in the international oil market. Fuel efficiency is a sound national energy policy, economic policy and foreign policy all wrapped into one. Every increase of one mile per gallon in auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than is in two Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil! </p>
<p>Yet the Republican Congress in 1995 made it illegal for the Environmental Protection Agency even to study higher CAFE standards. The result is that America now has the worst energy efficiency in 20 years.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/kennedy.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/kennedy.shtml</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeff in indy</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-1980-chrysler-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-166866</link>
		<dc:creator>jeff in indy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 04:13:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=25299#comment-166866</guid>
		<description>you figure barry (no, the one that walks on water barry) needs to have the auto problem &quot;resolved&quot; soon enough to plan (more like pray)  for a turn by next election cycle.   expend the political capital now.   it will either work or be forgotten by then.   you can always rely on the electorate&#039;s attention span.   the &#039;k&#039; car was the classic example.  it helped keep many an incumbent in office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you figure barry (no, the one that walks on water barry) needs to have the auto problem &#8220;resolved&#8221; soon enough to plan (more like pray)  for a turn by next election cycle.   expend the political capital now.   it will either work or be forgotten by then.   you can always rely on the electorate&#8217;s attention span.   the &#8216;k&#8217; car was the classic example.  it helped keep many an incumbent in office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

