Chrylser to America:Thank you! America:bite it

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lunar]

So should they not advertise at all?

This seems like basic PR which upholds its obligation to both the shareholders and the U.S. government.  You have to convince people that you're a new company if they're going to buy your cars.


This is a stupid complaint, and how much do these newspaper ads cost compared to the typical advertisement buy on TV?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Little BS complaints like this are why I don't like libertarians.

[k-onmmunist]

To be fair, its their money now. If they choose to waste it, fine, but Congress shouldnt bail them out again.

[Marokai Backbeat]

To be fair, its their money now. If they choose to waste it, fine, but Congress shouldnt bail them out again.

It's freakin' newspaper advertisements. They're not buying a baseball field or sponsoring a stock racing car or something.

[dead0man]

Little BS complaints like this are why I don't like libertarians.

Aye!  Good thing Republicans and Democrats never complain about little BS things.  It's always those lazy libertarians and their tin foil hats crying about the end of the world.

So should they not advertise at all?

This seems like basic PR which upholds its obligation to both the shareholders and the U.S. government.  You have to convince people that you're a new company if they're going to buy your cars.


This is a stupid complaint, and how much do these newspaper ads cost compared to the typical advertisement buy on TV?

Maybe they should spend the money actually making better cars, not telling us they are going to make better cars.  They should have been making better cars for the last couple of decades.  Didn't we bail them out in the early 80's too?  Are we going to have to do this every 30 years (which is at least 29 years longer than America's attention span) for now on?

[Lunar]

I'm sorry, but isn't 50-75% of capitalism (especially in the car business) a matter of convincing rather than producing?  What is Chrysler supposed to do, research, develop and start building an entire new line of cars within six months?


Why are these newspaper advertisements more outrageous than the generic GM TV ads I see?  Because they are more tangible and you can hold them in your hand is why, I suspect.


The Big Three make awful cars, but they're never going to ever be capable of making better cars unless people buy their current ones.  Fact.

[Lunar]

by the way, I adopt a somewhat weird stance on the issue as I've stated earlier. 

I think it's horrible to let these companies exist if they'll constantly need subsidies, yet horrible to let mass firings occur, thus I support simply hiring these workers to do more productive things than working in dying industry - U.S. officials should stand outside of those autoplants as they do their firings and hire the workers [with more oversight] to do public works projects like infrastructure of every kind and education (does education count as infrastructure?), especially if that means moving to a more productive state.  But I live in a dream world with this type of proposal.

But the entire reason for the auto bailout is not the company, but rather than the employees,  We can employee the same workers a lot cheaper on Uncle Sam's dollar and with a lot better long-term payout, so why not?

[dead0man]

I'm sorry, but isn't 50-75% of capitalism (especially in the car business) a matter of convincing rather than producing?  What is Chrysler supposed to do, research, develop and start building an entire new line of cars within six months?


Why are these newspaper advertisements more outrageous than the generic GM TV ads I see?  Because they are more tangible and you can hold them in your hand is why, I suspect.


The Big Three make awful cars, but they're never going to ever be capable of making better cars unless people buy their current ones.  Fact.

So Americans must suffer through more sh**tty American cars in the hopes that finally, this time, Detroit will get it right in another 5 years and ideally, the next car we buy supporting the corrupt asshats will be as good as the Toyota I can buy today?  No thanks.  Maybe if they hadn't guilted us into buying Ford Escorts and Chevy Cavaliers by telling us to buy American and pissing us off, then guilting us into buying Neons and Luminas and pissing us off some more we'd be a little more willing to give them a chance.  It's not the fault of the American consumer that Chrysler can't build a good car, it's the fault of those million employees we're all supposed to feel guilty about.

[Lunar]

Dude I hate Chrysler and I never supported giving them money.  I thought it was a dilemma but with a much better alternative (if we're going to be spending 800 bil, let's just hire unemployed autoworkers to move to other parts of the country and build infrastructure).  I MIGHT support the Bush alternative (giving them money) if the alternative was refused (hiring the newly unemployed workers), which is likely.  Thus I'm kind of torn on the bailout.   It's stupid economically, but I wonder if it's the best feasible option.  Meh.  I oppose it, but barely.

As I said before, the only people who buy sedans like Malibu are car rental agencies and people who buy Nickleback Albums in the store, end of story.

[dead0man]

I wonder if this guy was among the million saved by the bailout?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bono]

[k-onmmunist]

If they can't stand on their own, there's not a whole lot that can be done to help them.

[Lunar]

If they can't stand on their own, there's not a whole lot that can be done to help them.

but the real question is: supposing they already have help, is it a wise investment to spend money as they are doing in newspaper advertisements compared to other forms of advertisements?  I don't think any of us really has any authority to compare these mediums of advertisement relative to television advertisement and it really seems like a gimmick issue overall.



I really don't see what the big deal is.  They are "thanking" us -- which is what I guess what irks some people, but really it's just a big ad attempting to rebrand themeselves, which is more legitimate.

[dead0man]

It's not a big deal.  It's funny, in a sad, fu@ked up way.

[Lunar]

It's not a big deal.  It's funny, in a sad, fu@ked up way.

ah, well, I'm just saying I don't view this different from any other form of advertising except it provides a "gotcha" moment to media outlets that don't realize how gullible the public is

[Ban my account ffs!]

Little BS complaints like this are why I don't like libertarians.

Except you Dead0man... you're cool.  And most libertarians, actually... it's just the ones with a lot of little BS to dish out.

[CARLHAYDEN]

To be fair, its their money now. If they choose to waste it, fine, but Congress shouldnt bail them out again.

Sorry Winston, but Congress rejected the auto bailout earlier this month.

What happened is that con man Bush, aided and abetted by his chief cutpurse (Hank Paulson) took money that they had told Congress back in September would be used to buy up bad mortgages and instead use part of it to bail out GM and Chrysler.

[bullmoose88]

Chrysler can rebuild its public image to the extent that public funding will allow it, but it still can't get its customers financing (this, IIRC, was the major reason they're shutting plants down an extra week).

[opebo]

Two thoughts -

Firstly, the primary obstacle to alleviating this depression, just as inthe first one, is the simpleminded anti-spending mentality of most americans.  People, it is good that Chrysler is spending this money.  Spending is what we want!  If they spend it all, we get to give them more - this is great.  The more we print up and get somebody to spend, the better.

Secondly, if it is true that people cannot get cars finance, as bullmoose says, then we are doomd.  The Federal government should immediately create an entity (an offshoot of the Fed) to print up money and loan it out to anyone who wants a new car.

[Flying Dog]

You're welcome.