AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Byline: Kevin A. Wilson
Impertinent rhetorical questions about pertinent issues with both Ford and Chrysler on the ropes:
If renaming the Five Hundred the Taurus passes for brilliance, need we wonder why Ford saw more white-collar workers applying for the employee buyout program than it could accommodate? Wasn't the name dropped because it had what I call real legacy costs: lousy resale values (thanks to overindulging in fleet sales after years of neglecting to keep the car up to date) and black marks for quality? How does renaming it make the Five Hundred something other than a Ford that people don't want?
If we can say now that Jurgen Schrempp didn't know what he was getting into nine years ago when Daimler-Benz paid $38 billion to conclude a "merger of equals'' with Chrysler, can we also say that Dieter Zetsche, having led the U.S. arm in Auburn Hills before going home to Stuttgart, definitely knows what he's getting out of if he sells it off for less than a quarter of that price? And how do the Wall Street wizards make both ends of taking a bath of that magnitude translate into spikes in the stock value? I mean, without conceding that they're really about short-term speculation and not really a reflection of ...