Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Obviously there are winners and losers, and the 'winners' will benefit from a thinning of the herd.  Of course it's designed to "benefit someone," including Chrysler.

I don't believe it does benefit Chrysler.
If Chrysler owned the dealerships, it may benefit Chrysler to close down the dealerships that lose them money.
Chrysler doesn't own them, and many of the dealerships they closed make them money, and push more Chrysler cars through than dealerships that remain open.

Asked for the thousandth time: why, does Chrysler want to do this, why has Chrysler wanted to do this for years, if Chrysler won't benefit?

Screw that. A strong Irish coffee is sublime.

An Irish coffee. Hold the coffee.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Obviously there are winners and losers, and the 'winners' will benefit from a thinning of the herd.  Of course it's designed to "benefit someone," including Chrysler.

I don't believe it does benefit Chrysler.
If Chrysler owned the dealerships, it may benefit Chrysler to close down the dealerships that lose them money.
Chrysler doesn't own them, and many of the dealerships they closed make them money, and push more Chrysler cars through than dealerships that remain open.

Asked for the thousandth time: why, does Chrysler want to do this, why has Chrysler wanted to do this for years, if Chrysler won't benefit?

I don't know why Chrysler wants to do this, and if Chrysler has wanted to do this for years, how come they didn't do it until now?

Because it would have cost them a smurfload to shut down the dealerships but now under bankruptcy protection they can do it.

resedit wrote:

I don't know why Chrysler wants to do this, and if Chrysler has wanted to do this for years, how come they didn't do it until now?

How can you feel comfortable engaging in this discussion (or forming an opinion about the closing of dealerships) without knowing the basics such as this?

Last edited by bratboy (2009-06-01 11:00 am)

sturner wrote:

I still want to know what the percentage of dealers is that are Republican oriented as opposed to Demorcratic oriented. I suspect that it follows the percentage of the terminated dealerships. If so, then it's not a problem.

I thought it had already been shown that the vast majority of all dealers are Republicans ...

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/05/n … ysler.html

Methodology

50 dealerships were picked at random from the list of 789 closing dealerships, and another 50 from the list of 2392 dealerships that are to remain open. I used a random number generator to determine which dealerships were selected.

The two groups of dealerships happen to be spread through the country similarly. In our sample of 50 closing dealerships, 60% came from states that Obama won. In the sample of 50 open dealerships, 62% came from states Obama won. The average amount Obama won by in these states was also very similar for both groups (closing dealerships were in states where Obama got an average of 51.36% of the vote, whereas open dealerships were in ones where he got 49.84% of the vote.)

Results

Among closing dealerships, 6 out of 50 donors (12%) donated to Republicans. 4 out of 50 donated to Democrats (8%)

Among open dealerships, 7 out of 50 (14%) donated to Republicans. 5 out of 50 donated to Democrats (10%)

The average size of donations was nearly identical for both parties, in both samples.

While there is no evidence of a systematic political bias, that does not rule out the possibility that there were a few politically motivated decisions regarding the biggest donors, as some are suggesting might be the case.

Our data do indicate one major factor in determining whether a dealership was closed or not: The size of the dealership, measured by the number of product lines carried (the 4 lines are Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Dodge Truck.) The average store that will be closed in our sample carries just 2.5 of those product lines, whereas the average store that will stay open carries 3.64.

"We responded to their rifle fire with everything we had"


The Duke would be proud!

sturner wrote:

I haz a life!

Taking the unlives of zumbies is a life?

Since I plan on joining you as soon as practical, you know It's not much of a slam. It was good for a chuckle, tho.

The states wrote franchise laws that strongly favored dealers over the automakers. This is how 90 year old dealerships were created - not because they were necessarily good for 90 years, but because they were legally protected. Now, the gloves are off, and deadwood dealers can't count on those laws anymore.

For the auto manufacturers, there really isn't a good reason to have more than a couple of dealers for any specific car maker in an area. In some places, there are nearly a half-dozen or more dealerships all peddling the same makes. They end up competing with each other for the same customers, which isn't helpful to the car manufacturer.

For the car buyer, however; this is going to be bad. If you really have your heart set on a new GM or Chrysler product, you can no longer count on the several dealers in the area competing for your business. Instead, you will have to decide whether to make the long journey to the neighboring town to check out their dealer - if they have one.

Tallgeese wrote:

radarman wrote:

For the car buyer, however; this is going to be bad. If you really have your heart set on a new GM or Chrysler product, you can no longer count on the several dealers in the area competing for your business. Instead, you will have to decide whether to make the long journey to the neighboring town to check out their dealer - if they have one.

I've never heard a Toyota or Nissan owner complain about this.

Indeed.