You know, everyone is characterizing this as a bail out.
As in, we're going to give the auto makers billions of dollars and that's it.
That's not true.
This is a Chrysler in the 1980s situation.
Chrysler requested LOANS in the 1980s to get themselves back in the black, or go under.
That's what the automakers today are requesting -- LOANS.
Chrysler re-engineered its entire way of making cars in the 1980s, and it was extremely successful at the time. Chrysler paid back those loans in, IIRC, 1/10th the term.
Of course, some people will say "Well, Chrysler HAD their bite at the apple 25 years ago! Let them fail!"
That's a lovely concept.
IF time stands still. IF nothing ever chances. IF no one in management gets old, retires, gives up to a newer generation with newer ideas.
IF the American buying public doesn't mind buying the same model car year after decade.
Quite unrealistic, don't you think?
Yes, there's always an element of danger with a loan to an organization that's in trouble.
That's potential danger.
But the REAL danger, the KNOWN danger, is what will happen if two, or all three, of those manufacturers fold.
Chrysler, Ford, and GM directly employ what, 100,000+ people in the United States?
But the big three don't provide jobs just for those 100,000+ people. The auto industry has incredibly strong linkages (ties to multiple, diverse industries).
Let all three fail, and the steel and coal industries take a huge hit. Again.
Let all three fail, and dozens, if not hundreds, of small to midsize companies that provide supplies to the Big Three are in jeopardy, companies that likely employ just as many, if not more, people than the B3.
Let all three fail, and the independent dealer network folds. Thousands more jobs.
It just goes on and on.
The potential is that, in short order, unemployment in the United States could go up by a million or more in a matter of days, and a huge segment of the industrial base is shuttered.
I don't know about you, but to me, that happening really ends in only one outcome - economic depression, not recession, approaching that of the 1930s.
That's something that's just a bit too frightening to contemplate.
That's also why I agree with those who are saying that the money MUST be tied to concrete reorganization plans, not the nebulous crap that they're coming up with right now. And, the UAW has got to see reality. They're going to have to give, and give hard, or they'll be just as responsible for the impending disaster as are the managers at the three companies. The rank and file has to see that, as well. I'd love to make $120,000 a year working on an assembly line because my Union is a bulldog and is good at squeezing the blood out of a turnip. But it's not realistic anymore.