Knock holes in my suggestion for Chrysler

[Stinky The Clown]

This is a big picture thought, NOT a detailed proposal. I'm not that good at details.

Chrysler hasn't made a decent car since Moby Dick was a minnow. There's no reason to 'save' them.

But they have infrastructure in places that need jobs. Manufacturing facilities. R&D facilities (if their products are an indication, these will prove to have been VERY lightly used).

Our country can use some new mass transit infrastructure. Intercity rail. Intracity rail. I say rail. Might be monorail. Or maglev. Or whoknowswhatelse (see R&D facilities, above).

So ... let's print a few more bux and take the company over. Set it up as some special type of government owned incubator business .... or whatever Congress wants to call it. Point is, we nationalize the ashes of Chrysler. We use them to start a new business making new mass transit rolling stock and developing infrastructure.

Congress also dictates that the government put the business up for sale in some specified time frame ... 5 years .... 10. Whatever.

The rust belt become a revitalized manufacturing center. Old parts jobber shops are back jobbing again. New businesses spring up. The country gets new mass transit. Kinda like Europe. Maybe not super long distance, but we could surely do high speed rail in areas such as Texas (Houston to Dallas to San Antonio to Austin, to Houston, etc.) or the Southeast (from Atlanta to Chattanooga to Birmingham to Jackson, to Mobile, Panama City to Tallahassee to Atlanta, etc.) or within Florida ...... or New England or the Middle Atlantic or the Pacific NW ...... you get the idea.

Bold idea.

Totally out of the box, maybe.

But why not? Repurpose what isn't working and make it work for us.

Yeah, we need bridges fixed. But what we might need even more is a way to get off the teat of cars and into mass transit. Connect the high speed intercity trains to intracity light rail or even electric multi-car articulated buses. Whatever. (Again, see R&D facilities, above.)

[BeatleBoot]

1. The Bushies are Nationalizing the Banks

So, the USA following suit by Nationalizing the manufacturing industry is a thought.

Like Hitler, but without the bombs and tanks.

Just keep Japan and Germany out of it.



:7

[Phred42]

2. Let's NAtionalize Oil first

you know - something that makes money and is required for our Survival.

It's a matter of National Security

[1]

3. apples and bowling balls...

nice thought. (i like the idea of trains too.) but building cars and building trains are very different things. that alone would put the kibosh on this idea.

and building a railroad infrastructure is a whole 'nother humongous thing altogether. far beyond the scope of a automobile manufacturer that relies on the infrastructure to already be in place for the product it sells.

i remember the big dig in boston, the most expensive infrastructure project ever (its those costs that kill you.) and that was for just a few miles of roads and tunnels.

a company like chrysler would not be up to the task.


just my $.02

[Monk06]

4. Chrysler could save itself by going back fitty years .......

And design something like this. Yes this is a 1951 Chrysler
concept car designed by Vergil Exner.



This what Chrysler management decided the public would buy.

[1]

5. damn, that's hot,,,

if i had any money i'd but that.

especially if they would do it in a convertible!

[alfredo]

7. Very European. They should spin off the Viper.

[dysfunctional press]

9. the "european" thing might have been part of the problem...

in 1951, who wanted something reminiscent of a german staff car, or a u-boat..?

the times were all about AMERICAN dominance, NOT european influences.

[alfredo]

10. Actually, it seemed more British than Euro. British iron was popular

around this time. My dad was an auto upholsterer, and he worked on a lot of British cars. I saw a lot nice Jags and Rolls in those years. He was really impressed with the Jag. One night he brought home a Roll Silver Cloud. Beautiful machine.

[Monk06]

20. The 1953 Nash Healy was designed by Pininfarina

You can see the same Italian influence on the 53 Corvette



Other Italian designed American cars

http://image.motortrend.com/f/editorial/caddy-yak-part-iii/9727722+cr1+re0+ar1/2.jpg

[Monk06]

13. Sir your convertable has arrived .....

[1]

16. can i has convertable?

my god, where have you been all of my life?

[Monk06]

18. If you think that's cool here's the engine

Stock version below

[dysfunctional press]

8. you've got some kind of problem with the 1951 new yorker?

although exner's concept is VERY cool, too.

[Monk06]

12. Too heavy looking and too much chrome I almost bought a 1963

C 300. I think the 300 series was nicer looking the
New Yorker and Imperial. I owned a 1935 Plymouth Coupe
which was plain looking but sweet lines

[dysfunctional press]

17. in 1951 tho, chrome was what they wanted- big and shiny.

one of my all-time favourite american cars is a 1963 cadillac biarritz convertible...



it's BIG...but the chrome is much more understated. and i LOVE those fins.

[Monk06]

19. Well Chrysler was big on tail fins here's a DeSoto Aventurer concept

[8 track mind]

11. damn that is slick!!!!!!! n/t

[dysfunctional press]

6. it would be better to use the facilities to develop/produce the next-generation cars.

our infrastructure and society is already built around the personal conveyance- what we need to do is replace the internal combustion engine. our money and effort would be better spent there, than trying to force people into a rail system that they don't want, and most wouldn't use.

[1]

14. so well put...

you said it so much better that i attempted.

the roads and bridges are in place. some maintenance is required, but that is a pittance compared to inventing an entire new infrastructure to replace it.

people are used to puttering about in their own little vehicles.

design a vehicle that works for today.

[Indenturedebtor]

15. Skads of people have been using the existing rail in the last couple years

But I don't know that Chrysler would make a good conversion for this plan. Similar does not equal same.

In much the same vein that Medical Doctors make very poor researchers, Chrysler probably wouldn't be very good at making trains.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. That job would be left for Ford and GM

My point in thinking of retasking Chrysler is that they've been at cars for a long time and have yet to get it right.

[dysfunctional press]

25. they did alright with mini-vans...

and their turbine engine car program could have showed some real promise if the government hadn't forced them to give it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

our family has owned A LOT of chryslers- i learned to drive in a 1972 charger se 440 4bbl., and later bought a used coronet with a 318 engine that ran like a top for years.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Have you been watching the incredible increases in ridership

on mass transit since gas went up?

[dysfunctional press]

23. that's fine for the people who it works for- they SHOULD be using it...

but for MOST people in this country- mass transit is not going to be an effective solution.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Well, if it isn't there, it won't get used.

Why do you say what you say?

Who would not use it if it were available?

[dysfunctional press]

26. the thing is that it really can't be made available for everyone.

people who live in rural and semi-rural areas, people who don't go to the same place day after day for work, people who work or live in areas that don't have enough people to support it, people who LIKE their cars and the freedom it gives them. for starters.

if given the choice between mass transit and a workable electric car, most americans would go with the electric car. just ask them.

[Blue_Tires]

27. it's not just buying out chrysler

you'd probably have to buy out a supplier or two, and you would certainly have to buy out EVERY dodge/chrysler/jeep dealership in the country -- by law the dealers are very well protected financially in the event one or all the divisions shut down (iirc)

and i don't have the numbers in front of me, but the bulk of chrysler manufacturing is almost certainly outside of the U.S. (Canada/Mexico)

[ogneopasno]

28. All of these are great ideas AS LONG AS THEY COME WITH GUARANTEES THAT THESE NEW JOBS

will not be outsourced the way the old ones were. And revitalizing and maintaining the manufacturing sector will not happen unless we have single-payer health care in this country. It just isn't. It's all woven together, but it starts with single-payer health care.