Comments on: GM: dealers must stop selling non-GM brands

By: Glenn E.

Glenn E. — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:06:32 +0000

What applies to selling food, should apply to selling cars. Would you like going to a grocery store that only sold the Post brand, but not Quaker? Utz, but not Frito Lay? Nabisco, but not Keebler? Most other retail outlets supply a token of brand competition, in practically everything they sell. But I’m sure the mega chains, such as Target, KMart, and Walmart, limit this to a few carefully negotiated brands, only. For example, not much competes with the Martha Stewart brand, at KMart. But still, there’s almost always a minimum of two brand per item.

Now along comes cars, and the dealerships that are allowed to sell them. And suddenly, it’s all out the window. Competition, that its. Perhaps its fine for a large metro area, to limit one auto brand per dealership. As there are probably dozens of dealerships in that town. But out in the “sticks” somewhere, there may only be one or two dealerships, period. And if you or I lived in small town USA. Why should we be limited to only the one or two brands of cars, those dealerships were signed up to sell, exclusively? It’s the makers who came up with this notion of exclusivity. And they eventually allowed the foreign brands to creep in, because they didn’t see them as much of a threat. But the big three domestic brands are still not, sold together at any one dealership. It’s one US brand, and one foreign brand, per dealer.

It’s not the overseas competition that ruined GM. It’s their own fault for trying to dictate what the public wants. And ignoring that the foreign brands are actually responding to what the public wants. Like quality, and economy. Rather than big and wasteful SUVs and Vans. Which the big three keep wanting to push out on everyone, even with high gas prices. They practically killed the economy car class, by turning out the crappiest quality and design, that they could come up with. Thankfully I never bought a Geo Metro. Or any of the other Geo line. And where are they now? Probably all in junk yards. And after that brief taste of economy, it was out with the SUVs. Cause they didn’t have to meet the mileage or air emission standards of the compacts.

What concerns me now, about these major US makers bankruptcy deals is. Are they going to use this to get out of making any Electric cars, in the foreseeable future (bet so)? And will they also use this ploy to retrain the resale of used cars online? Let’s face it, the major makers have always gotten the concessions they’ve wanted from Congress, by bribing them silly. So they get to sell their wares, as almost no one else can. Except for other US defense / aerospace contractors.

By: moondawg

moondawg — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:43:32 +0000

#8, Jerry, Do you mean foreign BRANDED cars, largely (if not totally) built in America, or do you mean Domestically BRANDED cars largely assembled in Mexico?

By: Rick's Cafe

Rick's Cafe — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:31:39 +0000

#42
oooooooohhhhhhh – how I love it when you talk strong. What are you going to do to me when I ‘refuse to talk’….don’t keep me in suspense, tell me now!!

On the other hand. Since I (we the people) am a 60% majority holder in this company, I declare that Union Contracts null & void. And further, I demand 150% payment on my bonds!

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:05:17 +0000

#52, Cow-Patty,

Still won’t answer what is unconstitutional?

By: The Crypticone

The Crypticone — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:02:59 +0000

@ Ed. How is this socialism? This is a coporate business exhibiting some economic might over dealerships it has business dealings with not some government body creating a welfare or socialist system.
But I am sure you know this.

Follow me at http://www.twitter.com/thecrypticone

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:19:22 +0000

# 51 OvenMaster said, “All I know is that ±60% of GM is now owned by the US taxpayer, and I want to sell my share”

And, the US paid the equivolent of 78% of the asset value for that 60% share. What moron authorized that?

By: OvenMaster

OvenMaster — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:15:36 +0000

All I know is that ±60% of GM is now owned by the US taxpayer, and I want to sell my share . I need the cash in hand, not a piece of corporate turd.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:05:40 +0000

#48, Cow-Patty,

What effen gall!!! The brazen audacity!!! The almighty nerve, to imply something and turn around and deny it.

No wonder the right has such vacant leadership. When Boss Limpdick says something, all you nimrods jump on the band wagon and parrot the same crap. None of you have the ability to think.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:28 +0000

#45, pmitchell

Where is the evidence or even the charge what has happened is unconstitutional? I really hate it when the right wing nuts start just claiming that any garbage they want to invent is the truth. You are parroting what Boss Limpdick is crapping again. You don’t have any idea what is unconstitutional about this.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:47:41 +0000

# 47 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, on June “#46 Patrick, the Executive didn’t change any laws here, as you’re alleging here,”

I alledged nothing.

By: Gary, the dangerous infidel

Gary, the dangerous infidel — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:38:44 +0000

#46 Patrick, the Executive didn’t change any laws here, as you’re alleging here, and neither did the congress. You’re forgetting the one branch that holds more power (and discretion) than any other in bankruptcy proceedings, and that’s the judiciary. Bankruptcy judges hold enormous power in deciding upon a fair plan for creditors, but if you don’t believe me, perhaps you’ll believe it if you hear it on FOX…

http://foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/20925770/lehman-s-bankruptcy-process.htm

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:10:38 +0000

Article 1, Section 8: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
Only congress may change the BK laws, not the Executive

By: PMitchell

PMitchell — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:18:27 +0000

fusion show any where that is says the unions were secured creditors and had first rights nothing I have read ever said they were secured creditors

the law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:44:51 +0000

#37, pmitchell,

I asked how this is unconstitutional. You failed to provide any evidence or even a suggestion why.

Second, the Union were not unsecured creditors. According to their contract, they had first preference in any bankruptcy agreement. There is nothing illegal nor sinister in that as such contracts are written all the time.

By: faxon

faxon — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:30:54 +0000

It really does not matter to me. I would never buy a GM car now that the government runs it.