Chrysler’s Jim Press is refining the “not a bailout” argument today, calling federal loan proposals “an acceleration of technology into the hands of consumers who couldn’t afford it, if we didn’t do it.” Furthermore, Press tells the Detroit Free Press that taxpayers will reap concrete benefits from the loans. “I think it will allow everybody to bring electric cars, plug-in hybrids, hybrid cars, even range-extended hybrids. All of those vehicles will be accelerated,” says Press. No, seriously. “These are going to be very doable products, looking at production, not just research, he deadpans. “Our focus of our investment from his point forward is improving the environmental footprint of our cars.” Why, Mr Press? Are high oil prices shifting the market towards greater fuel efficiency, making these investments a smart business choice? Not exactly. “We’re worried about dependence on foreign oil,” says Press, getting all national security advisor on us. “But if you fast forward 15 years, where will batteries come from? Right now, the major sources of batteries are other countries. So are we trading our dependence on foreign oil, which is a natural resource, for a dependence on other countries to produce something in a factory? We need to stimulate that development here — here in Michigan.” In other words, the real reason that Detroit should receive bailout loans is that it’s an organ of the national interest. If you think a Volt in every pot, and a head start on tackling Peak Battery sounds tempting, Press is even willing to put some accountability (and your money) on the hood to push you over the top. Press says $25b in loans would be a “good start,” and that the Feds should “look at the return on that $25 billion, and if in everyone’s perspective, we can do it again, we should. I think for a beginning, $25 billion is an appropriate place to start.” The camel knows it need only get its nose into the tent…
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Disgusting…
Press should have stayed at Toyota. I bet he wishes he did too.
He forgot to mention the Project Liberty cars Chrysler (supposedly – but actually “vapor ware”) built under the Clinton administration – that wasn’t even a loan, but was taxpayer money just GIVEN AWAY to these bozo-the-clowns at Chrysler (as well as Ford and GM).
So, where’s my Dodge Liberty Microturbine Hybrid, Jim? My local dealer hasn’t got any in stock, Jim. Your current bunch at Chrysler supposedly engineered this car up some 15 years ago, Jim. Why isn’t IT in production, Jim?
I know where it is. It’s right alongside the 1963 Chrysler Turbine Car I never got and wanted since I was 7 years old, that’s where it is!
To quote Martin Sheen as Carl Fox in the movie Wall Street: “I don’t go to bed with no whore, and I don’t wake up with no whore. That’s how I live with myself. I don’t know how you do it.”
What utter crap. Batteries are high-tech items, made in countries (generally Asian countries) which are far more amenable to cooperating with us (yay interdependence and mutually assured financial destruction) than the oil-rich countries in the middle east.
Somebody should ask Press how much of that money would be allocated to spur US battery manufacturing, and would Chrysler agree to have that percentage written into the loan papers?
You know, the way I see it, 50 billion dollars is more than GM, Ford, and Chrysler are worth. Maybe we should make CEO of those companies public offices, like the University of Michigan and MSU make their Board of Regents.
Yeah, that’s the ticket! Yeah, and uh, if you give us a loan, we’ll buy every American a leather jacket and an iPod. Yeah, and we’ll buy everyone lunch for a month, too.
Just put Jon Lovitz in the picture, and the rest of the article fits.
So, a little truth did poke out at the end. $25B isn’t the end – it’s the beginning. $100B is the magic number.. like 2010.
Press is blowing green smoke up our collective ass. Chrysler reportedly lacks the financial resources to make it to 2010. There will have to be a merger or sale.
My experience with subsidies is from the realm of natural gas production via the Section 29 “unconventional gas credit”, that expired in the 1990’s. The lesson I took away was that if the business activity being subsidized is profitable ONLY because of the subsidy it probably shouldn’t be happening at all. Otherwise it just becomes an addiction.
If these technologies are so great why won’t they stand on their own by way of higher pricing? After all there are people out there paying $10k for plug in conversions on their Prii (sp?).
Worst “green smoke” experience ever.
Jims TR3
“If these technologies are so great why won’t they stand on their own by way of higher pricing?”
One could say the same thing about petroleum, of course. But we’ve thought nothing of mass subsidies for that, have we? And as if to prove your thesis, we seem pretty well addicted to the stuff. I do not, however, think oil production would be “unprofitable” without said subsidies. Just less profitable. Or perhaps more expensive is the term I’m looking for. Yes, that’s the one.
an acceleration of technology into the hands of consumers who couldn’t afford it, if we didn’t do it.
Oh, so it’s all for the consumer! I know from experience that Chrysler is all for the consumer…like my having to argue with Detroit headquarters to get a warranty repair paid for. Yeah, they are all about the consumer.
John
Press says $25b in loans would be a “good start,” and that the Feds should “look at the return on that $25 billion…
Return on investment eh ? Looking on yahoo it says GM has 500 million shares floated and Ford has 2.5 billion shares (there’s nothing of course for Chrysler). So if they got every owner of each share to pony up ten bucks then they’d have their 25 billion. C’mon guys, you’re professional “investors” and it’s a dead cert, can’t lose situation because the PR folks have told us so.
Hmmm a lot of our gas stations are out of gas in NC. Do we need a bailout for car companies if there is no gas to run them on?
Is that 50 Billion instead of being saddled with the pension obligations of these 3 companies, or in addition?
Just curious.
Let me get this straight:
Chrysler, a wholly owned subsidiary of a private equity firm, wants to be given $25B a year to ‘invest in the improvement of their product’s environmental footprint’.
So, if Cerberus was to buy a foundering tech firm (we’ll call it TechX) that, say, needed $15B to stay afloat, they could have Chrysler use $10B and ‘spend’ the $15B on the research being done at TechX?
Sounds like a freakin’ windfall for Cerberus if you ask me! Heck, if you keep playing out this scenario, Cerberus could ask Chrysler to borrow money from ResCap at a usurious rate with obnoxious ‘fees’ built into the loan agreement. Alone it might not save ResCap, but it certainly would help it with it’s cash flow issues!
Man, this whole deal sounds worse and worse.
Jim Press is a dolt. I say this from a visceral anger, but not due to some internal hatred I have. I say it because of the evidence of his inept decision making.
So I say this with all due calmness: Fire his ass. Don’t even ask for a resignation, just let him go. If I ran anything bigger than an ice cream stand, I’d mentally blacklist him for anything above “scooper.”
I wouldn’t even let him run the cash register!
It’s time to retire, sir. You’ve done enough damage already, and you’re looking tired anyhow.