8 ms·

“We at Chrysler borrow money the old-fashioned way. We pay it back.”—Lee Iacocca A refreshing alternative to this generation’s public bailouts of private busin

“We at Chrysler borrow money the old-fashioned way. We pay it back.”—Lee Iacocca A refreshing alternative to this generation’s public bailouts of private businesses.

abtinf 7y ago
“He was widely credited with saving the company from bankruptcy by persuading Congress in 1980 to approve federal loan guarantees of up to $1.5 billion.”
- braythwayt 7y ago
  Loans that were repaid. Compare and contrast to the bank bailouts, which were used to give bonuses to the very execs who ruined the banks in the first place.
  - addicted 7y ago
    TARP, i.e. the bank bailouts, was profitable for the government, to the tune of over $100Bn. https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ Of course, the government should have gotten a much better return for the risk they took, but for a program that has been reviled as $600bn giveaway, and is remembered that way, a $100bn profit is an incredible gain.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - hermitdev 7y ago
      Yes, but this is an uncomfortable truth for those that want to blame banks for the 2008 collapse (especially ignoring the federal mandates that they make a lot of the loans behid the 2008 collapse).
  - savanaly 7y ago
    In the case of the bank bailouts of 2008, didn't they all get repaid, with interest, and the government made money on it?
  - basementcat 7y ago
    Bank bailouts were mostly repaid, turning a profit for taxpayers. https://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/ https://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct...
throw20102010 7y ago
I think we're looking at Mr. Iacocca with some rose-tinted glasses. He sought government bailouts, fought against requiring seatbelts in cars (because a few dollars worth of nylon would "ruin" his margins), and also fought against environmental standards, particularly requiring catalytic converters (to be fair, catalytic converters probably did ruin his margins). He is definitely an icon, but do not forget that he was a cutthroat businessman that would do anything to make sure his businessed thrived. https://nader.org/1979/10/25/iacoccas-gw-commencement-speech-on-auto-safety/ https://nader.org/1979/10/25/iacoccas-gw-commencement-speech...
- braythwayt 7y ago
  I’m actually not very pro-Iacocca in the least, but I must give credit where credit is due. At the time I questioned the loans, and still do. But in comparison to bank bailouts, Those arrangements were far less costly for taxpayers.
  - throw20102010 7y ago
    In your original comment you never mention bank bailouts. A far more appropriate comparison would be the more recent bailouts of US automakers in which the TARP loans were all repaid. Granted, the partial ownership of the companies that the government took on during the bailout resulted in a loss- but I'm not sure if it would have been more appropriate for the government to hold the stock until it recovered. https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670 https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chr...
    - addicted 7y ago
      TARP was primarily about the banks, but the money authorized was expanded to cover automakers as well. The government made a profit on it overall, and both the bank and auto parts were profitable. The problem with TARP was the government should have got a lot more equity in return for what it provided (for example, Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffett also invested, and got better terms, but the government's impact was even greater, and should have gotten as good terms, if not even better ones than Buffett and Goldman).

“We at Chrysler borrow money the old-fashioned way. We pay it back.”—Lee Iacocca A refreshing alternative to this generation’s public bailouts of private businesses.

abtinf 7y ago

“He was widely credited with saving the company from bankruptcy by persuading Congress in 1980 to approve federal loan guarantees of up to $1.5 billion.”

braythwayt 7y ago
Loans that were repaid. Compare and contrast to the bank bailouts, which were used to give bonuses to the very execs who ruined the banks in the first place.
- addicted 7y ago
  TARP, i.e. the bank bailouts, was profitable for the government, to the tune of over $100Bn. https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ Of course, the government should have gotten a much better return for the risk they took, but for a program that has been reviled as $600bn giveaway, and is remembered that way, a $100bn profit is an incredible gain.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - hermitdev 7y ago
    Yes, but this is an uncomfortable truth for those that want to blame banks for the 2008 collapse (especially ignoring the federal mandates that they make a lot of the loans behid the 2008 collapse).
- savanaly 7y ago
  In the case of the bank bailouts of 2008, didn't they all get repaid, with interest, and the government made money on it?
- basementcat 7y ago
  Bank bailouts were mostly repaid, turning a profit for taxpayers. https://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/ https://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct...

throw20102010 7y ago

I think we're looking at Mr. Iacocca with some rose-tinted glasses. He sought government bailouts, fought against requiring seatbelts in cars (because a few dollars worth of nylon would "ruin" his margins), and also fought against environmental standards, particularly requiring catalytic converters (to be fair, catalytic converters probably did ruin his margins). He is definitely an icon, but do not forget that he was a cutthroat businessman that would do anything to make sure his businessed thrived. https://nader.org/1979/10/25/iacoccas-gw-commencement-speech-on-auto-safety/ https://nader.org/1979/10/25/iacoccas-gw-commencement-speech...

braythwayt 7y ago
I’m actually not very pro-Iacocca in the least, but I must give credit where credit is due. At the time I questioned the loans, and still do. But in comparison to bank bailouts, Those arrangements were far less costly for taxpayers.
- throw20102010 7y ago
  In your original comment you never mention bank bailouts. A far more appropriate comparison would be the more recent bailouts of US automakers in which the TARP loans were all repaid. Granted, the partial ownership of the companies that the government took on during the bailout resulted in a loss- but I'm not sure if it would have been more appropriate for the government to hold the stock until it recovered. https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670 https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chr...
  - addicted 7y ago
    TARP was primarily about the banks, but the money authorized was expanded to cover automakers as well. The government made a profit on it overall, and both the bank and auto parts were profitable. The problem with TARP was the government should have got a lot more equity in return for what it provided (for example, Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffett also invested, and got better terms, but the government's impact was even greater, and should have gotten as good terms, if not even better ones than Buffett and Goldman).