This is contary to the arguement you and the rest of the chrysler fans were making that the buttets had value greater than that of the loans so there was no risk to the taxpayers. My arguement is that if there was no risk, the taxpayers (government) would not have been needed.
If the buttets only had that value by making cars, that value was a matter of guesswork because the cars are only worth what people would pay for them. Thusly the taxpayers cosigning the loan was needed and there was considerable risk to the taxpayers doing so.
Obviously this was more than the cash flow problem you and the rest of the chrysler fans are trying to make it out to be. It was a serious fiancial crisis where they did not have the free-and-clear buttets to secure further loans to continue operations.
Not at all. You're the one trying to buttign me an arguement of 'chrysler should just sell some buttets'. Never argued anything of the kind, yet that is what you are attempting to do out of your brand loyalty. My arguement is very simple, if you and the rest of the chrysler fans are correct, that chrysler had significant real buttets with value in excess of the loans then they would not need the taxpayers to cosign. Simple as that. The future value of cars those buttets might make is not a real buttet, it's speculation, and speculation shouldn't be confused with real buttets like land, buildings, equipment, etc.
Fine Daniel. Your ever increasing brand bashing and loyalty was wearing thin on me. Makes the group seem like a highschool discussion of Chrysler is great, Ford sucks.
And when it comes down to it, that's what is being dealt with here. Chrysler fans want a spin that Chrysler never really needed the government's (taxpayer) help but because of this or that excuse... That's nothing but high school variety brand loyalty. Something most people out grow shortly after highschool.
