Off-Topic: GM -GoneFishin's comments

Hardy Lake Topics

(Hardy Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,091 messages

Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Hardy Lake Fishing

(Hardy Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,262 messages

Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Welcome, Guest

Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]

	Name:	Yankee06
	Subject:	GM -GoneFishin's comments
	Date:	7/10/2009 9:48:56 PM

-Good points GoneFishin made above about why GM and Chrysler cut so many dealers. GF's points were similar to what I heard on the TV hearings. But several things still bother me and I think most people should be asking themselves if they should be bothered also. Or maybe I'm just a little slow on understanding all this. However, ...
-First: I heard the GM guys say they could save several miliion per dealer dropped, up to about $1 or $1.5 billioin saved per year. That would seem to me that it would be done by dropping unprofitatble dealers. But I don't understand why they would drop profitable dealers. How would dropping profitable dealers help GM unless GM management was so stupid that their contracts were better for the dealers than GM. In that case, renegotiate them. In any case, GM should fire its contract officers.
-Second; low financing for cars cost them? That's the name of the game. GMAC had their own financing and was the most profitable arm of GM, and that is why GM sold it off, in order to make money.
-Third: dealers had lots of money invested in their cars and their facilities. I think GM have some responsibility for this. I believe that some of the bailout money go to helping ameliorate this dealer debt. (personally of course, I think GM should have been allowed to fail and no bailout money be provided to anybody. ---but if some are getting it, then maybe othe people have a claim, maybe an even more rightful one.)
-Forurth: Dealers were competing with each other? This is as it is suppose to be. If a dealer can't compete then one will go out of business. BUt if they are competting and staying in business, then why force one to close? IF people aren't happy with a dealer, they won't buy their cars and the place will close. GM has let many places close over the years when profits got too low.
-I asked my local dealer about all this, and he couldn't give me any real good answers. he was just glad he wasn't on the list.
-But worst of all, is why is a senator meddling in this as a broker. ANd if GM made a decision to close a dealer on a "financial " basis, then why is it right for GM to change it on a "political" basis. This suggests that their original rationale for closing all the other dealers was probably wrong. This should be of great concern to the American people. When a political party whether dem or repub, can force companies to make decisions for political vs economic reasons, then we are on that proverbial slippery slope, this time to full socialism and thus national mediocrity. The historry of the 20th century suggests that the negative effects of socialism takes about two generations, or 40 years, to shhow their full impact on a culture.
-All this makes me very concerned about the kind of America my grand children will inherit.