This is part of a weekly series about the car business. The auto industry plays an important role in the global economy, and record-high oil prices and a global slowdown have contributed to a crisis in the sector. This column will highlight some of the interesting stories that emerge as that crisis plays out.

"These are truly unimaginable times for our industry."

Thanks to Bob Nardelli (and our pals at Autoblog) for a quote that captures the state of the American automotive industry. Who could have imagined just a few years ago, when Detroit was still raking in the profits selling fancy pickup trucks in a booming, bubbly economy, that the big American auto companies would have to go begging in the halls of Congress for a few billion dollars just to survive?

The quote comes from an email Nardelli recently sent to Chrysler employees, in which he announced that 25% of the company's salaried employees would be let go before the end of the year. Of course, the job cuts aren't referred to as such. Instead, in perfect corporate-speak, the cuts are called "right-sizing" -- "Working as a team, we have been right-sizing our organization to become as competitive as possible."

Detroit is right-sizing at a furious pace. General Motors (NYSE: GM) announced that it will cut 15% of its salaried workforce -- almost 5,000 people -- and then warned that it will need to get rid of even more. Equally grim, GM has stopped paying into existing employees' retirement funds.

The much-discussed GM-Chrysler merger would also result in some pretty serious right-sizing. Some estimate that Chrysler would fire at least half of its blue collar workforce of 66,000, on top of the 25% of its white collar workforce of 18,000.

Meanwhile, Ford (NYSE: F) is rumored to be considering selling its 33% share in Mazda. This seems particularly short-sighted, given that Ford will likely get only $600 million or so for its share in the company, which it has owned since 1979. Ford needs all the small car technology and expertise it can get as Americans continue to turn away from trucks and SUVs.

The bottom line is that the Big Three are getting desperate as they burn through billions in cash with no relief in sight. And they'll do just about anything -- mergers, spin-offs, massive down-sizing, foreign investment, government bailout -- to stay alive.

So where do the CEOs of General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F) and Chrysler go when they need to turn their companies around? Are they huddled in their boardrooms in Detroit, planning sales strategies with top executives? Are they cracking the whip in their design studios as they seek to build the perfect car?

Nah. They go where every other corporate bigwig goes when there's trouble afoot: Washington, D.C., home to the world's most dependable source of capital -- the U.S. Treasury.

This week, Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford and Bob Nardelli of Chrysler are testifying before Congress as they go fishing for $25 billion in funding to help develop more fuel efficient cars. Now that the SUV craze is over and Detroit has consumed the hundreds of millions in fat profits those trucks produced, the car companies find that they failed to save for a rainy day.

It's more than a little ironic that the one-time powerhouses of the American economy are begging the federal government for help. Major corporations have spent the last 40 years fighting government involvement in the economy -- the Big Three fought government rules requiring seat belts, for goodness sake. And GM played a major role in defeating national health insurance decades ago, among many other sins committed in the name of maintaining the glorious free market. But when they hit a wall, the corporate powers know just where to go -- and it's certainly not to the free market. No, Uncle Sam is a far more reliable source, especially in hard times. So much for free market capitalism.

The only problem is, with the bailout of AIG among others, Detroit may not like its place at the end of the state capital line. And the Big Three had better hope that voters don't start wondering why the government is spending the limited capital of the American people on an industry that is currently dedicated to lowering the wages and eliminating the benefits of its workers.

I certainly don't want to see large American companies go out of business. I just hope that they repay the generosity of the tax-payers with something other than low wages and canceled pensions.

UPDATE: In response to a question in the comments about GM's role in opposing national health insurance, you can start reading about that shameful history in a New Yorker piece by Malcolm Gladwell. Here's an excerpt:

In 1945, when President Truman first proposed national health insurance, they [union leaders] cheered. In 1947, when Ford offered its workers a pension, the union voted it down. The labor movement believed that the safest and most efficient way to provide insurance against ill health or old age was to spread the costs and risks of benefits over the biggest and most diverse group possible. Walter Reuther [the national president of the U.A.W at the time]...believed that risk ought to be broadly collectivized. Charlie Wilson [president of G.M.], on the other hand, felt the way the business leaders of Toledo did: that collectivization was a threat to the free market and to the autonomy of business owners. In his view, companies themselves ought to assume the risks of providing insurance.

If that's too 'liberal media' for you and you need something more academic, try For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America's Public-Private Welfare State (Princeton, 2003) by Jennifer Klein, a labor historian at Yale. Please send your revised analysis to me after you do a little reading . . .

Sometimes, it's hard to determine if major investors are being overly optimistic, outright daffy, or are simply seeing something that the rest of us just don't see.

In my view, the current course of events at Chrysler Corp. is one of those difficult to determine situations. On its face, it looks like it could be a case of basic business logic in action. But on closer examination, it just doesn't make sense, at least not to me.

Declaring a payoff horizon of ten years, Cerberus Capital Management has placed a great deal of faith in Chrysler, the American auto manufacturer which is best described these days as an also ran. The kicker is, the Cerberus ten year plan is being initiated at a time when auto industry profitability is near impossible. Consider also the fact that current Chrysler management openly admits that the company isn't in any condition to go it alone.

And there's more trouble in the mix. Cerberus said in a New York Times story that Chrysler is meeting "every financial metric." But Cerberus considers the world's current economic turmoil to be a temporary problem, not the economic world change that it actually is. Meanwhile, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli is smiling because Cerberus has given Chrysler lots of money, and he gets to cut heads.

This post is one in a series on prominent company nicknames. See all 25, and share your thoughts and memories about Home Despot below in the comments.

One of the most unfortunate of company nicknames that I have ever been witness to, is the distasteful tag of homage that has been bestowed upon Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD). Even more disconcerting than the nickname itself, is the fact that it was bestowed on the company not from outside sources, but from within the company's own hierarchy. "Home Despot" is a name that shall long remain the legacy of one well-jettisoned corporate executive. Home Despot is the name that distinctly belongs to Bob Nardelli, a man who took his own personal neuroses and bound a great corporation with them.

I could feel the effects of the Home Despot when I entered one of the company's retail locations in my neighborhood. Though the store was always tidy and quiet, it had a tight and smothering feel to it. Associates were always available to show me where specific merchandise was, but they were never friendly or engaging. They always seemed afraid to get involved. It was quite a stark contrast to the Menard's store where I definitely preferred to shop. At that store I always felt welcome, and it always felt like things were going on.

I have moved away from the Home Depot store since then, so I can't say if the effects of the Home Despot still linger there. I can however, say that the name itself still does. It's an unfortunate reality that negative nicknames often have a tendency to hang around far longer than the good ones do. I can only hope that the man who gave spawn to the concepts that deserved that nasty title, took with him all the negative sentiment such a name entails. Home Depot never deserved such a negative association, and I think that Bob Nardelli never deserved Home Depot.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• Steven Spielberg and his DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc (NYSE: DWA) partners are close to signing a deal with India's Reliance ADA Group for between $500M and $600M that would provide financing to the company as it prepares to leave Viacom Inc's (NYSE: VIA) Paramount Pictures this year, the Wall Street Journal reported. DreamWorks will seek to obtain an additional $500M in debt financing to make about six new films a year.
• The Wall Street Journal also reported that at an investor update yesterday, The Hershey Company (NYSE: HSY) CEO David West said the chocolate-bar maker would boost spending on marketing about 20% this year and next, and slightly increased the company's long-term annual sales targets. West offered little detail on how Hershey will address its reliance on the U.S. market for revenue.

OTHER PAPERS:

• The Economic Times reported that India's Maneesh Pharmaceuticals, a mid-sized company, bought a 51% stake in U.S.-based Synovics Pharmaceuticals Inc (OTC: SYVC). The terms of the deal were not disclosed.
• The Economic Times also reported that General Electric Company's (NYSE: GE) GE Money Financial Services, which was seeking a parter for its personal and home loan portfolios, may have called off the process after it was unable to get the right valuation.
• Bob Nardelli, the chairman and CEO of Chrysler LLC, sent a memo to employees warning them of worsening U.S. sales, the Detroit News reported. The e-mail did not indicate the auto maker would look to soon further cut production or lay off staff, a person familiar with the matter said.

So what do you do if your company produces mostly heavy, inefficient vehicles as gas soars past $4 a gallon? Some might say you should produce more efficient cars. But not Chrysler, which has instead opted to make gas cheaper, guaranteed!

Today, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli announced that anyone crazy enough to buy a heavy, high-horsepower, low-mileage Chrysler product before May 31 will be able to buy gas for no more than $2.99 a gallon for three years. Just take your shiny new Aspen or PT Cruiser to the gas station and use your special gas card; Chrysler will pick up the cost over $2.99 a gallon.

Some critics are calling this plan a cheap gimmick. But there is no denying that Chrysler is at a disadvantage relative to General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F) when it comes to offering new cars that get decent mileage. And it is light years behind the auto design leaders, Toyota (NYSE: TM) and Honda (NYSE: HMC). So it needs some kind of gimmick to help its dealers clear out the cobwebs that are quickly forming on their lots.

In recent years, Chrysler has relied heavily on trucks and SUVs for sales, and its hot new cars like the Challenger are gas guzzlers. (Hey, your Hemi sure is fast! Sorry about the 11mpg!) Its lineup is in desperate need of an overhaul and products that offer decent mileage. But developing new cars is difficult and very expensive, and it's not clear that Chrysler's owner, Cerberus Capital Management, has the money to do it. The alternative -- advertising and sales gimmicks, long favorites in Detroit -- is cheap by comparison.

This promotion might work, at least for a few weeks. But it points to much larger problem: Chrysler doesn't have the goods to compete right now, and it's not clear when it will, if ever.

We recently took a look at the Best & Worst of 2007 in sixteen categories and asked you to vote for your favorites, as well as sharing the reasons for your picks and any other contenders we may have overlooked. And voting is off to a strong start, with more than 100,000 votes in each category so far.

Some categories have shaped up to be close races. Chuck Prince, Bill Ford, and Bob Nardelli each have a little less than a third of the vote for Best CEO Departure of the Year. Britney Spears and Michael Vick are neck and neck as the Celebrity Most Likely to Lose It All, while Lindsey Lohan's relatively low profile recently has garnered her just 6 percent of that vote. In the Most Shameless Attempt at Cashing in on '15 Minutes', Sanjaya Malakar has a slim lead over Howard K. Stern/Larry Birkhead, but poor Chris "Leave Britney Alone!" Crocker has gotten no respect with a mere 6 percent of the vote. McDonald's has a small lead as the Hottest Chain Restaurant, thought Chipotle isn't far behind with more than a quarter of the vote. And while the iPhone has the lead now as the Hottest Gadget of the Year, it and the Nintendo Wii have been trading places as the front runner.

This post was part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007. Voting has now closed and, in a close race, readers have chosen Chuck Prince as the best CEO departure of the year. Let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

When looking back at 2007, there were some larger-than-life CEO departures that semi-rocked the business world and brought some investors to the realization of over-the-top compensation yet again. Let's look at a few and then you can decide the winner. Sound good?

First up comes Bill Ford, Jr., from the automotive industry. Under Ford's leadership, Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) lost its way in terms of correctly forecasting what kind of vehicles customers actually wanted, in addition to becoming horribly leveraged. As soon as gas prices began shooting up, Ford Motor started spiraling down. Long-time Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) executive Alan Mulally was brought in to replace Ford as the automaker's CEO just in the nick of time. Ford Motor's expected profitability date with Ford now gone: 2009.

How about Bob Nardelli, formerly CEO of Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD)? Nardelli made global headlines by making tens of millions while leading Home Depot shares to the basement and apparently making all kinds of bad decisions that finally led to his ouster this year. On top of that, his severance package made a Brad Pitt paycheck seem like pennies, and Home Depot shareholders paid for it. Did Home Depot stakeholders get a voice in this corporate travesty? A small one, perhaps.

The Associated Press reports that Chrysler has slashed the jobs of 12,000 workers -- a Halloween trick for its people if there ever was one. But is this 15% of its workforce layoff going to make Chrysler competitive?

Chrysler's cutting slow selling products and investing in new ones. Specifically, Chrysler is eliminating the Dodge Magnum wagon, the convertible version of the Chrysler PT Cruiser, the Chrysler Pacifica crossover and the Chrysler Crossfire sportscar. And it's introducing the Dodge Journey crossover and Dodge Challenger, along with two new hybrid models, the Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango.

The New York Times is reporting that if Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER) CEO Stanley O'Neal left he would be entitled to $159 million in retirement benefits ($30 million) and stock and option holdings ($129 million). This does not include any severance payment the board might award him. Add that to the $160 million Merrill paid him since he took over almost five years ago and you get a $319 million investment in its CEO by Merrill's shareholders.

If these numbers turn out to be right, I think Merrill is getting a better deal than did Home Depot's shareholders. For instance, at Home Depot (NYSE: HD), former CEO Bob Nardelli got $450 million -- a $210 million going away package plus $240 million in salary and other compensation -- and its stock was down 8% during his six-year tenure. By contrast, Merrill's stock is up 59% since O'Neal took over on December 2, 2002 -- creating $20.9 billion in additional shareholder value.

This sounds good in an absolute sense but it's not so great when viewed relative to other investments. Merrill's return under O'Neal is 9% less than that of the S&P 500 during the period and 217% below the return of competitor Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) since December 2002. If we credit O'Neal for the 59% return, then his $319 million pay generated a 65.5x return on investment -- including the additional $4.4 billion in shareholder value created by Friday's announcement that O'Neal was probably leaving -- which caused Merrill's stock to rise 8.5%.

The Associated Press reports that Chrysler's 45,000 workers represented by the UAW are on strike. But they are facing Bob Nardelli, a CEO with a track record of replacing many thousands of full-time store workers with legions of part-timers, as part of a relentless cost-cutting program at The Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD). So there is a real question about how effective the union will be in getting concessions from Chrysler.

What are the issues?

• Whether the UAW will grant the same health care cost concessions to Chrysler as it did to GM and Ford in 2005;
• How much Chrysler would pay into a company-funded, UAW-run trust that would take on its $18 billion worth of retiree health care costs such as the one GM is creating;
• Whether the UAW can get job security pledges at U.S. factories; and
• Whether Chrysler will get the UAW to allow it to outsource parts transportation now done by higher-wage union members.

Chrysler's owner, private equity firm Cerberus, is eager to turn Chrysler profitable and sell it quickly at a huge profit. With Nardelli sporting a reputation as a cost cutter, the UAW could find itself on the short end of this negotiation. And if Nardelli's leadership of quality at Home Depot are any indication -- Home Depot slipped to last among major U.S. retailers in the University of Michigan's annual American Consumer Satisfaction Index -- Chrysler's product quality and revenues could suffer along with its workers.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Home Depot.

Chrysler has been the No. 3 automaker in the U.S. for decades. It bought Jeep and American Motors along the way, and for over a decade was part of Daimler (NYSE: DAI). Over the last two years, the company fell on hard times and hedge-fund Cerberus was willing to take a chance on it.

Cerberus has done a couple of things to improve the odds that Chrysler may actually be rebuilt. Hiring former General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) and Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD) executive Bob Nardelli was an odd choice. But, under him the company has brought in the former head of Toyota's U.S. operations, as well as the former chief of GM in China. Neither executive could have come cheap.

A stronger Chrysler is probably a bigger threat to General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) and Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) than it is to any of the overseas auto firms. Chrysler still sells almost all of its cars in the U.S. It has aspirations of building beachheads in Latin American and China, but that could take a number of years.

Toyota Motor Corp. (NYSE: TM), Honda Motor Co. (NYSE: HMC), and Nissan are already squeezing sales from the two largest U.S. car companies. If Chrysler is going to regain sales quickly, it will have to do what it did under Lee Iaccoca, which is hurt its cross-town rivals.

Chrysler says it will keep all of its brands but cut back some of its models. The devil is in the details on that set of decisions. But, Ford and GM may have something new to worry about.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

Bob Nardelli's old boss Jack Welch seems to be one of the few people who think his appointment as the new Chrysler CEO is a good idea.

"This is an absolutely perfect fit,'' the former General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) chief executive told Bloomberg News. ``They've got to get cost, efficiency, service -- all those things in line. He's the best in the world at that."

Neutron Jack goes even further saying his relationship with GE's unions were fabulous and that Chrysler has "got to have straightforward, no-baloney, on-the-table relationships with the unions there. And Bob is perfect for that.''

As I've argued before, Nardelli was a success at General Electric. Then again, he wasn't the boss either. When he got to Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD), he quickly became an imperial CEO who seemed to care little what shareholders, employees or the media thought of him.

Chrysler needs someone who isn't out to win any popularity contests. Tough decisions have to be made. But leaders also need to be good listeners and willing to compromise, two qualities that Nardelli just doesn't seem to have.

When Paris talks, people listen. Or at least branding executives do. And let's be clear, Paris doesn't know much, but she sure knows Hummers.

I'm talking about the other kind of Hummer here, boys. The big, garish gas-guzzling ones on wheels. But Paris is eco-savvy. Paris wants a hybrid. A hybrid Hummer. And a cute one, too. Maybe in green.

Of course, as our sister blog AutoBlog Green points out, that kind of car doesn't exist. Yet.

What do you think, General Motors (NYSE: GM)? Gonna make it happen? Think of the publicity. Or heck, think of the commercial! It would, pardon the pun, blow that Carl's Junior commercial right out of the water. Tongues would wag!

After all, now that more Americans prefer foreign made cars, the Big Three had better bring out the big guns and prove they're really back on track. Maybe GM can design and roll one out just in time for $100 oil, too.

Although on second thought, maybe a Paris Hilton Hummer wouldn't be such a branding success story. Maybe it would be right up there with Cerberus hiring former Home Depot (NYSE: HD) Bob Nardelli to fix what ails Chrysler.

What do you think?

MAJOR PAPERS:

• With his company's stock near a 52-week low, Robert Willett, CEO of Best Buy Incorporated's (NYSE: BBY) international operations, bought nearly $500K in stock, reported Barron's Online's "Inside Scoop" section.
• In a rare instance of a foreign company being allowed into the Chinese onshore oil and gas industry, Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) will develop a natural gas filed owned by PetroChina Company Limited (NYSE: PTR), reported the Wall Street Journal.
• The Wall Street Journal reported that Sun Microsystems Inc (NASDAQ: SUNW) is today expected to introduce a new microprocessor called UltraSparc T2, will be able to process up to 64 threads at one time -- most chips can handle up to four threads at a time.
• According to the Financial Times, citing a source familiar with his pay package, Robert Nardelli will college a salary of $1 a year in his new role as CEO of Chrysler, which is 20% owned by DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX).

OTHER PAPERS:

• The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYSE: NMX) is quietly selling its lower Manhattan headquarters, asking for between $600M and $700M, ahead of a deal to sell itself, reported the New York Post.