When you have produced crap for 50 yrs. you build a reputation that is hard to undo. They took bailout money so they are persona non grata, just like GM to me.
If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between what went on with GM and what went on with Chrysler, then there is no point in trying to have any further discussion.
You can cling to your ideological dogma, or you can get informed.
Whether I agree or not with how Treasury handled any of this is irrelevant, there is a huge difference between we will loan you money with you personally signing on the dotted line for it, and we will give you a huge cash influx.
Chrysler was given loans, not cash, it had to fix itself or die, GM was given cash with no need to fix itself... and guess which one has fixed its issues and paid back its loans? And which one is still in the toilet and cost the taxpayers more than $11 BILLION in losses?
GM didn’t change because it didn’t have to, Chrysler changed because it had no choice. GM will NEVER change until it is put in a position where it has no choice, and the bailout made sure it had a choice. And it chose to keep doing what it was doing, same people, same culture, same process... You can only change a 40-50 year old broken culture by assuring it that starvation is a possibility... GM never faced starvation... Chrysler was 1 month away from being on the scrap heap for years while it fixed itself, and it fixed itself.
If you think GM and Chrysler are the same, or that how they were treated and dealt with during the bailout, you need to get a bit more informed.
Chrysler was so grossly mismanaged by investment bankers who had no idea how to manufacture, that its a wonder they hadn’t collapsed sooner. GM was grossly mismanaged by arrogance and graft for longer than I have walked this planet.... They drank so much of their own kool aid for so long they knew nothing else.