Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (13480)	1/27/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18056

Zeev- Nice to get a post from you. I disagree that the Chyrsler bailout was primarily for national security reasons (remember, national security is all-to-frequently the last refuge of a scoundrel!). I think the the C bailout was an attempt to re-elect the wierd Jimmy Carter. Ironically, given your argument, unless my memory is deficient, Chrysler did not get into the tank business until it purchased AMC (I believe it has since sold it to GD). The government did lean on AMC to structure the tank biz so that it could easily be separated from the rest of the company. In any case, I think C's defense business in 1980 was very small. While I have little memory of the Lockheed bailout, I question whether national security was a major issue there. Remember, Lockheed did not become the defense behemouth it is now until the merger with Martin-Marietta. Of more concern were the jobs and votes in CA. National security interests could have been served by structuring Lockheed's defense biz in a manner similar to what AMC did with the tank biz, so that it could be easily spun off or sold in the event the parent company floundered. Regards, Larry