|
|
Posted by mannyc on Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 11:08:26 :
In Reply to: the bottom line is the demand is too low posted by mannyc on Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 08:22:29 :
i'm unclear which part you disagree with. that demand for cars is low?
that there hasn't really been any 'got to
have' cars where demand outstripped supply. name a us production car you cant get.
that ordering what you want is somehow going against sales and customer demand?
in my opinion, when a dealer has to rely on selling used cars and charging over 100 dollars per hour to eek out a profit something with balance of supply & demand and the dealer / factory relationship is wrong. the individual dealer you might refer to could be great at rendering service, employing union labor, etc., etc..
the big problem that i see is that the automakers and banks and insurance companies should have been allowed to fail. it would have freed the car companies from their union obligations (the real problem), the banks would have dissolved and smaller leaner banks could buy the assets they wanted and the rest would have been written off corporately and personally. as it is, the bondholders of chrysler and soon to be gm will be stripped of their investments and obama will reward the unions once again. how much did the govt spend on the companies before they failed anyway? this giving of US companies will be seen one day as a travesty, an illegal act of transference and unions will be looked at as as the pariahs they have come to be.
i am considering buying a new dodge diesel. i have waited a long time to do so. Im really concerned and somewhat put off that my new rig's performance will be backed by the us govt and the company will be owned by the UAW.
think about the service you get at the DMV and compound that with the service levels a union managed / operated company will provide. its scary sh*t to be sure.
Follow Ups: