Let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, Americans say

Let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, Americans say

formatting link
Most of those surveyed say they would rather the automakers fall into bankruptcy than get more bailout cash. By Catherine Clifford, CNNMoney.com staff writer Last Updated: April 9, 2009: 4:14 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Americans are fed up with the Detroit drama.

Three out of four Americans would rather see General Motors (GM, Fortune

500) and Chrysler face bankruptcy than watch the government pour yet another round of bailout cash into the big U.S. automakers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Thursday.

While 76% of survey respondents want to see the automakers face bankruptcy, 22% are willing to prop them up with more bailout cash, according to the poll, which surveyed 1,000 Americans from April 3-5.

While GM still hopes to avoid going bankrupt, preparations for a bankruptcy filing have become "intense and earnest" at the Detroit giant, according to a source familiar with the company's plans.

Americans are more divided on the Obama administration's increased involvement in the way businesses and financial institutions are run. According to the survey, which has margin of error of plus or minus 3%,

42% of Americans think the Obama administration has done what it should, while 23% think the government ought to have even more oversight powers. But 35% of respondents say the government has gone too far.

One of the reasons Americans are willing to let the Big Three head into bankruptcy is that many don't see Detroit's woes significantly affecting the national economy.

Of those surveyed, 44% said auto bankruptcies would only cause "minor problems" for the U.S. economy. That's an increase from December's poll results, when 28% of those questioned said the bankruptcy effects would be minor. (For more on Detroit's ripple effects, see "Auto bankruptcy: What it means")

But only 37% of those surveyed in April thought a Detroit bankruptcy would cause "major problems" for the U.S. economy, down from 51% of those polled in December. More than half of Americans think that a Detroit bankruptcy would have no impact on their personal financial situation.

If a major manufacturer does fall into bankruptcy, government guarantees on their warranties could prove critical to maintaining consumer demand for their inventory of cars. The CNN/Opinion Research pollsters divided their respondent pool in half, asking one group about their willingness to buy a car from a bankrupt auto company. Almost half of those asked -

47% - said they were "not likely at all" to do so, and only 12% said they were "very likely" to buy from a bankrupt company.

But when researchers asked the other half of their survey pool about buying a car from a bankrupt auto maker, they asked how likely the respondent would be to buy if they knew the government would stand behind the warranty on the car. Among those respondents, the "very likely" to buy response rate doubled, to 24%, while the "not likely at all" response declined to 27%.

President Barack Obama said late last month that the federal government would stand behind the warranties on all purchases of GM and Chrysler vehicles going forward. Analysts are waiting to see how much the moves pump up sales.

Reply to
Jim Higgins
Loading thread data ...

Funny how the way that kind of thing is reported reveals the beliefs and politics of the author or publisher (and/or the entity sponsoring/paying for the poll).

Since the poll takers see fit to educate the respondents with the particular information they want them to have (IOW biasing the results to a conclusion they want the poll to favor), which again can reveal a bias in whoever is doing - or paying for - the poll, I can't help but wonder how the results would have changed if they informed them that (a) bankruptcy does not mean that the company just closes it's doors and sends everyone home - it gives them an opportunity to stream line and restructure debt, and (b) it allows them to start with a clean slate on what now are unsustainable union agreements so that they can start paying and offering benefits more in line with other wage earners for the work being performed.

Reply to
Bill Putney

If the USA brands of GM and Chrysler end up going away, the typical USA new car buyer will not be inconvenienced in any way. Therefore, why should their tax dollars be used to save something they see as "not necessary to continue my life". When Zenith, Motorola, General Electric, Magnavox, and others stopped manufacturing televisions, it didn't stop consumers from buying televisions, they just bought Sonys and such instead.

Same thing with cars. If they can't buy a new Chrysler, they'll buy a Nissan, KIA, or Hyundai, for example. No inconvenience to the consumer who simply buys another brand of transportation appliance.

Part of this negativity could be the result of prior dealership experiences (of the poll respondents or some of their friends/associates) in the past. If the local franchised dealer is the local "face" of the manufacturer, if the consumer has a poor experience there, it hurts the reputation of the manufacturer plus that of the local dealer. Likewise, a good dealer and their employees who takes very good care of their customers can reflect positively upon the manufacturer.

Regards,

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

If you don't consider reduced selection and higher prices caused by a reduction of makers, then sure I guess they won't be "inconvenienced".

But I for one value the selection and the price-pressure that comes from having a healthy number of companies operating in the car sector or any sector of consumer goods.

And I guess it's OK for Canada and the US gov'ts to not supply their domestic auto companies with bridge loans when that's what other countries are doing to keep their domestic companies from going out of business?

These are not really "bailouts" as much as they are the gov't stepping in and providing bridge financing because the banks are holding back on all sorts of lending that they traditionally would otherwise do.

Many companies operate on loan. On debt. The auto makers are no different, and many people finance that debt either directly or indirectly through bonds. When interest rates go so low such that the risk-reward for financing that debt turns negative, that's when all companies will have problems continuing to operate, regardless how well they're run.

The real problem right now is that interest rates are too low. The fed bank rate needs to be 2 or 3%, not 0.15% as it is right now. Only when the fed rate is higher, will more investers and banks take their money off the sidelines and buy corporate bonds and finance the lines of credit those companies need and traditionally have had, even in bad economic times.

Reply to
MoPar Man

They should go bankrupt. That does NOT mean going out of business. GM and Chrysler have huge market value. They're not going to do away with the brand names. They should reorganize under bankruptcy and come back strong without bankrupting the American consumer through bailouts.

Reply to
Miles

Exactly. But that's what "they" don't want people to realize. They want us to equate bankruptcy to closing the doors and sending everyone home, which it isn't. Bankruptcy would also go a long way towards getting the manufacturers out from under business-killing union agreements. But the people in control are beholden to the unions to the extent that, using your words, "bankrupting the American consumer through bailouts" is preferred.

Reply to
Bill Putney

No, THIS one would buy a Ford.

Reply to
Steve

"They" being the politicians who favor government intervention in everything... :-/

Reply to
Steve

Exactly.

Reply to
Bill Putney

Yes Ford would be on my short list, as well as VW; well ahead of the Asian brands.

Reply to
who

Yep. Government got us into this mess and people think we need MORE Government involvement?

Reply to
Miles

Yes, but Americans didn't get jobs building the Sonys. It's about producers, not consumers. What's good for producers and not consumers should be the standard.

it also meant that the TV repair shops went out of business because Sonys were tough to fix and parts and service documentation were exppensive and intermittently available. The Japanese systematically put the service men out of business so you'd buy a new TV instead.

The Japanese think long term and they put Japan first as a nation.

A good example is their steamrollering of the ham radio equipment business. There never was any volume in it, but they came up with low cost featureful equipment that made it "not worth it" for hams to homebrew or small companies to manufacture ham equipment. That made a lot more hams into "appliance operators" and cut off a major route into the electronics business for a lot of people. Fewer people learned electronics.

Reply to
ixtarbrules

No unions means no political pressure against even more free market interdependence and globalism, is that what you really want? American industrial might was at its peak when the unions wielded enormous power.

Reply to
ixtarbrules

Can I have a Chevy engine, a Mopar transmission and a 9" Ford rear end? That would be a good car.

Reply to
ixtarbrules

You're saying free market interdependence is bad? I guess, first of all, define what you mean by free market interdependence.

Reply to
Bill Putney

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.