Like the ad, but it kinda glosses over the fact that Ford went to Congress with GM and Chrysler hat in hand and secured a government line of credit as well.
The only reason why Ford went to Congress to help GM and Chrysler secure the loans is because they all share the same manufacturers, so if GM and Chrysler went down then it would cost Ford more money to buys seat, dashboards, headlights, brakes, transmissions etc....
I love the Don't call it a comeback commercial! Good post!
If the others hadn't been saved, I would guess Ford also would have had problems because many suppliers would have gone out of business too.
I am glad Ford didn't need the help, but I think without it Ford and all of us would have suffered.
Like the ad, but it kinda glosses over the fact that Ford went to Congress with GM and Chrysler hat in hand and secured a government line of credit as well.
I don't think the loans were a "secret". I remember hearing that Ford was taking loans. The loans were a normal part of operations at the auto companies. As it was literally impossible for companies to get these from the failed banking system, the government cut out the middle man. If you feel it is underhanded or dishonest to say they weren't "bailed out" because they were loaned money I guess I don't understand. I guess every company should include in all of their ads that they need loans to operate.
I don't think the loans were a "secret". I remember hearing that Ford was taking loans. The loans were a normal part of operations at the auto companies. As it was literally impossible for companies to get these from the failed banking system, the government cut out the middle man. If you feel it is underhanded or dishonest to say they weren't "bailed out" because they were loaned money I guess I don't understand. I guess every company should include in all of their ads that they need loans to operate.
Lesson of the day. Solvent companies do NOT need loans to operate. Normally, a company takes out a loan for the purpose of investing in expanding the businesses. When a company is taking out loans to cover daily operating expenses, it means the company is failing...i.e. they are losing money and have no remaining liquid assests...i.e. bankrupt.
GM and Chrysler could not get credit not because of the banking crisis, but because they were bankrupt. The companies where completely out of money, operating at a loss, and had completely mortgaged everything they had already, thus having no collateral left with which to take out a loan. No one in their right mind would have lent them money, because it was obvious the loans would/could never be paid back.
Then, the government came in not to cut out the middle man, but to prop up the failing institutions and seize the companies remaining assets/property from their rightful owners and redistribute them. Bankruptcy law was simply ignored. Creditors where stiffed, and a sizable portion of the companies were simply given to the unions as a thank you for their support in 2008. The deal was shady at its core at best, and probably closer to criminally corrupt in reality. The whole situation bears no resemblance at all to the normal workings of business and finance, and to suggest that it does reveals either a deep ignorance of reality, willful or not, or a quasi-religious devotion to government shenanigans.
^Can't argue there. And most of Ford's loan money did come from banks, too. Still, I don't think they should have borrowed from the government, propping up the corrupt system described above, and I don't think they should advertise as if they hadn't.