Fiat

Italian Automaker Brings about Chrysler Success after GOP Private Equity Failure

I’ve been a bit tardy in responding to Mitt’s latest cynical ploy, to pretend that rather than expanding production and jobs in both OH and MI, Chrysler is outsourcing production to China.

The Detroit News’ David Shepardson has a good fact check on Mitt’s latest ad here. Greg Sargent rounds of OH papers mocking Mitt’s claims here.

But there’s an angle on Mitt’s claims that has been missed. His ad says,

Obama … sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps, in China.

As Shepardson notes, Chrysler used to build Jeeps in China for the Chinese market. Ford builds cars in China for the Chinese market. GM builds cars in China for the Chinese market (GM also exports Chinese-built subcompacts to Latin America). Chrysler’s return to the world’s largest car market is smart business, something any viable global brand needs to do.

If it’s a moral failing for Presidents to preside over private car companies trying to compete in China, then Mitt has a problem with St. Reagan, during whose Administration Jeep first made groundbreaking entries into the Chinese market.

And if Mitt has a problem with Chrysler (or Ford or GM) building cars in China to sell in China, then he had better prepare to get far tougher with China than he has threatened to do so far. China still slaps huge tariffs on cars made outside of the country, so to be viable in the world’s largest automotive market, you have to build in China. That is the crux of the argument American car companies (and Midwestern politicians) have been making for decades: while the US allows imports from all countries, Japan and Korea and now China make it very difficult to export to those countries. This is not fair trade.

But I’m most offended by Mitt’s insinuation that selling Chrysler to an Italian company–he doesn’t mention Fiat by name–was disloyal.

Recall Chrysler’s recent history. Chrysler’s most recent strong point was the early 2000s, when it succeeded in developing nifty (albeit gimmicky) cars with shortened development cycles (think PT Cruiser). But as Daimler took more control over Chrysler, it invested less in the brand. GOP Private Equity firm Cerberus bought its first 80% of the company in 2007 and picked up the rest in 2009.

Cerberus had no intention of bringing Chrysler back to its former strength. Rather, it wanted to strip out the finance side of the company (it was investing in GMAC at the same time) and sell off the rest. But with the impending financial crisis, it never managed to pull off the trick (though it did get a bank bailout in the very last days of the Bush Administration). Meanwhile, it virtually put the Chrysler model development on autopilot while it tried to find a way to cut its losses.

Thus, when it came time for bailouts, there didn’t seem much to bail out at Chrysler. Unlike GM, which really had started making a turnaround, Chrysler had no product in the pipeline to suggest it would be worth bailing out (though it did have a few super efficient factories in the US).

Choosing to bailout Chrysler was the most difficult decision Obama made during the auto bailout. I’m not even sure I would have chosen to bail it out. And it was difficult precisely because a bunch of Republican vulture capitalist types–people like former VP Dan Quayle and former Treasury Secretary John Snow–had stripped the company.

[youtube]SKL254Y_jtc[/youtube]

In came Fiat and its Steve Jobs-like CEO Sergio Marchionne. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz King v. Burwell: What will we learn from oral argument? http://t.co/4XuFrtLmZb Nice take by @armandodkos
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ThePlumLineGS: Reposting my read on how Roberts and Kennedy could side with challengers, if they so choose: http://t.co/wmQ1CVcaBv
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ggreenwald: FYI: The "Snowden to return if fair trial!!" stories are silly: he's been saying the same exact thing for 20 months http:/…
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @emptywheel: I'm happy for Hillary to pay price for dodging transparency, but ALL citizens have interest in fixing email retention for A…
11mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel Also, didn't Obama have an issue with non-existent WH Tech Officers?
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @PhilPerspective Robert Kraft was also in attendance. He could make clapping like trained seals very lucrative for Dems too. @bmaz
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @emptywheel: On Hillary and email control, remember that White House control of emails didn't prevent a slew of emails from disappearing…
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @joshua_eaton Yes, he raised it.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @emptywheel: Anyone yet get the details on the fundraiser(s) after Bibi's speech? Did Sheldon Adelson basically buy Bibi a session of Co…
17mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @jgarzik: @jackgillum @NoahShachtman Standard legal trick. I knew a paranoid techie whose email server resided in his attorney's office.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @JohnWonderlich: years of a vacant inspector general position looks even worse when your email has been removed from public employees' r…
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @OrinKerr The Politico report is stupid. There is nothing new as to Snowden's status, just a Russian lawyer getting publicity for a book.
26mreplyretweetfavorite
March 2015
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031