Glenn Beck screams like a little girl

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 August 2009 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1249615359' post='788771']
Hold the boat a second here Rick, your telling me a business that likely has lawyers draw up contracts with their customers to sell these cars, didnt use those lawyers to look at what they were getting into?

Somehow I doubt that.
[/quote]

Even if they did have lawyers that drew up generic basic contracts... Lets say they got them together and asked... The facts are, this is a gov't program and the consumers would have a backlash if they didn't accept clunkers. They had two choices: a.) give up their rights and accept the clunkers b.) go out of business.

Quit bypassing the main point here.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='07 August 2009 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1249638190' post='788788']
Even if they did have lawyers that drew up generic basic contracts... Lets say they got them together and asked... The facts are, this is a gov't program and the consumers would have a backlash if they didn't accept clunkers. They had two choices: a.) give up their rights and accept the clunkers b.) go out of business.

Quit bypassing the main point here.
[/quote]

Under this program GM has sold the most thus far at 18 percent of cars sold, 17 for toyota, and 16 for Ford. ([url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akjL3wiDVfnU"]bloomgerg[/url]) now when you keep in mind that is for the whole company, then divide that out to every gm/toyota/ford lot in the country. I sincearly doubt anyone was going bankrupt.

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 August 2009 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1249654580' post='788809']
Under this program GM has sold the most thus far at 18 percent of cars sold, 17 for toyota, and 16 for Ford. ([url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akjL3wiDVfnU"]bloomgerg[/url]) now when you keep in mind that is for the whole company, then divide that out to every gm/toyota/ford lot in the country. I sincearly doubt anyone was going bankrupt.
[/quote]


Huh?

His point is, any dealers that wouldn't do the clunkers, wouldn't sell any cars when other dealers are doing it. I can't figure out what point you're trying to make here.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='07 August 2009 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1249659576' post='788829']
Huh?

His point is, any dealers that wouldn't do the clunkers, wouldn't sell any cars when other dealers are doing it. I can't figure out what point you're trying to make here.
[/quote]


That they wouldnt go out of business as he suggests.

Bottom line is that it's part of doing business with the government, just as other rules are put in place with other areas of business (like the Executive-Pay Caps). Im completely fine with them being heavy handed with business that couldnt manage themselves to not be in this trouble in the first place, when you have to go to the goverment for help you should expect that your going to have to give up some things and ways of doing business. The rights of a business and individual are not the same here, and they shouldnt get something for nothing.

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 August 2009 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1249661186' post='788836']
Im completely fine with them being heavy handed with business that couldnt manage themselves to not be in this trouble in the first place, when you have to go to the goverment for help you should expect that your going to have to give up some things and ways of doing business. The rights of a business and individual are not the same here, and they shouldnt get something for nothing.
[/quote]

What did car dealerships do to "get themselves in trouble", and how did they go to the government for help? Seems to me the government forced this on them, not to mention the government forced many of them to close.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='07 August 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1249662723' post='788849']
What did car dealerships do to "get themselves in trouble", and how did they go to the government for help? Seems to me the government forced this on them, not to mention the government forced many of them to close.
[/quote]


Perhaps Im unaware of how dealerships work but I dont think they are allowed to sell cars from the big three and be solely owned, I am under the assumption that if your selling cars from these companies that they have a percentage of ownership in your dealership.

[bengalrick]

I am lost here...

If dealership A will give you 4500 dollars for a car worth 500, and dealership B will give you 500 dollars for your car worth 500, which do you choose?

Dealers averaged about 20 per week selling these vehicles, so that is 20 cars that dealership B loses out on to the former. That is a HUGE deal, and I dont know if they are going out of business b/c that takes awhile... But it sucks ass for dealership B, huh?

So I'll rephrase my statement so we can get passed that, since for some reason you can't understand this simple point: The dealers can either give up their rights and agree to the CFC program, or they can slowly starve (possibly to death) while watching other dealers reel in record sales... I don't see a good option, do you? If you were a dealer, would you give up your constitutional rights or starve?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='07 August 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1249662723' post='788849']
What did car dealerships do to "get themselves in trouble", and how did they go to the government for help? Seems to me the government forced this on them, not to mention the government forced many of them to close.
[/quote]

Exactly... The dealerships have been scratching and clawing for every sale they can get... They did NOTHING wrong!!! The manufacturers are what drove the companies into the ground... I am lost on Jamie's point, but keep fighting the good fight Backer.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='07 August 2009 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1249674457' post='788921']
I am lost here...

If dealership A will give you 4500 dollars for a car worth 500, and dealership B will give you 500 dollars for your car worth 500, which do you choose?

Dealers averaged about 20 per week selling these vehicles, so that is 20 cars that dealership B loses out on to the former. That is a HUGE deal, and I dont know if they are going out of business b/c that takes awhile... But it sucks ass for dealership B, huh?

So I'll rephrase my statement so we can get passed that, since for some reason you can't understand this simple point: The dealers can either give up their rights and agree to the CFC program, or they can slowly starve (possibly to death) while watching other dealers reel in record sales... I don't see a good option, do you? If you were a dealer, would you give up your constitutional rights or starve?
[/quote]


That depends, do I have enough of a reserve to make deals without the help of the goverment? Can I get creative in how I sell these things so that I dont have to take their help? You make a big assumption that they will starve if they dont take their help.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='07 August 2009 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1249674562' post='788922']
Exactly... The dealerships have been scratching and clawing for every sale they can get... They did NOTHING wrong!!! The manufacturers are what drove the companies into the ground... I am lost on Jamie's point, but keep fighting the good fight Backer.
[/quote]


Answer this simple question, so we can move further in my explanation here.

Do the manufactures own any percentage of these dealerships? Even if that percentage is .000000000001?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 August 2009 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1249675232' post='788926']
Answer this simple question, so we can move further in my explanation here.

Do the manufactures own any percentage of these dealerships? Even if that percentage is .000000000001?
[/quote]

I honestly don't know... The dealerships I worked for were supposidely owned by a specific person, but I can't say if any other people or the manufacturer owned a piece as well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mMomBmuYY5AC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=are+dealerships+owned+by+the+manufacturer&source=bl&ots=zhNPbv3lbg&sig=lYH7xbJ6pxRKjXdaGYLJAdA7QR8&hl=en&ei=s7Z8SuTSGM2ltgfqwcHkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Not sure of the source, but I found this via Google.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 August 2009 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1249675136' post='788925']
That depends, do I have enough of a reserve to make deals without the help of the goverment? Can I get creative in how I sell these things so that I dont have to take their help? You make a big assumption that they will starve if they dont take their help.
[/quote]

cars do not have that kind of markup... Corvettes, Diesel trucks might, but the majority of vehicles do not. But that is besides the point, b/c the dealer that is doing the cars for clunkers program have the same markup.

Through my example, dealership A would sell 20 more cars a week. I don't see how you can't see how dealership B would be shit up a creek. Imagine turning down customers left and right because they can't offer the extra 4000 dollars!!! How do you not see this buddy?

People rarely turn down free money...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='07 August 2009 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1249687427' post='789027']
I honestly don't know... The dealerships I worked for were supposidely owned by a specific person, but I can't say if any other people or the manufacturer owned a piece as well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mMomBmuYY5AC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=are+dealerships+owned+by+the+manufacturer&source=bl&ots=zhNPbv3lbg&sig=lYH7xbJ6pxRKjXdaGYLJAdA7QR8&hl=en&ei=s7Z8SuTSGM2ltgfqwcHkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Not sure of the source, but I found this via Google.
[/quote]


My assumption is that there is a steak in ownership by the manufactures, and that they dont just give cars to anyone to sell without that.

So with the fact that the goverment owns a good portion of the big 3, they can choose to do that to what are now essentially their employees computers.

Outside of the big 3 you may have an argument, but not with the big 3 you dont.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='07 August 2009 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1249687685' post='789034']
cars do not have that kind of markup... Corvettes, Diesel trucks might, but the majority of vehicles do not. But that is besides the point, b/c the dealer that is doing the cars for clunkers program have the same markup.

Through my example, dealership A would sell 20 more cars a week. I don't see how you can't see how dealership B would be shit up a creek. Imagine turning down customers left and right because they can't offer the extra 4000 dollars!!! How do you not see this buddy?

People rarely turn down free money...
[/quote]


If I have 1000 dollars and you have 500 and backer comes to both of us saying "hey ill give you a hand job for 250" im going to pass on it, but you may take it because your business is in more of a need for it. Now I may like the 250 but if it means i got to take a handjob to get it and i dont absolutely have to have the 250 i will pass on it.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 August 2009 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1249703951' post='789095']
If I have 1000 dollars and you have 500 and backer comes to both of us saying "hey ill give you a hand job for 250" im going to pass on it, but you may take it because your business is in more of a need for it. Now I may like the 250 but if it means i got to take a handjob to get it and i dont absolutely have to have the 250 i will pass on it.
[/quote]

[BengalBacker]

Jamie, even you have to know you are completely full of shit on this one.

It's ok to admit you're wrong.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='08 August 2009 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1249711548' post='789107']
Jamie, even you have to know you are completely full of shit on this one.

It's ok to admit you're wrong.
[/quote]


I am if the manufactures dont own any steak in dealerships.

[bengalrick]

Not sure where hand jobs came into play... We don't have to use theoretical examples... It is a pretty clear cut case imo. If you are looking to buy a car, and one guy says "I'll give you 4,500 dollars" and the other says "I'll give you 500 dollars" you are a damned fool to take the $500.

I have a feeling that you will look back on this time period, and you will feel similar to how I felt about Bush in the latter years of his presidency...

Save yourself the embarrassment I had, and just admit that the dealers are getting strong armed out of their rights...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='08 August 2009 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1249746442' post='789160']
Not sure where hand jobs came into play... We don't have to use theoretical examples... It is a pretty clear cut case imo. If you are looking to buy a car, and one guy says "I'll give you 4,500 dollars" and the other says "I'll give you 500 dollars" you are a damned fool to take the $500.

I have a feeling that you will look back on this time period, and you will feel similar to how I felt about Bush in the latter years of his presidency...

Save yourself the embarrassment I had, and just admit that the dealers are getting strong armed out of their rights...
[/quote]



Your missing the point entirely. Yes a CONSUMER will take the 4500, but the government still pays the dealership the 4500, and thus they can ask for certain stipulations in this contract. Now if a dealer has enough overhead that they can afford to say no and still give the consumer the 4500 on their own then they can tell the government to screw off. Because there is no such thing as free money. Get it now?


Now of course that the above model assumes that there is no ownership by the manufactures on these dealerships. But Im not sure that is the case and here is why...

How many times do you hear on the news things like "ford is closing down X number of dealerships..."

This is why I assume the manufacture owns a percentage in these dealerships, well guess what?

The government is now 60% shareholder in GM (http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/06/now_that_the_government_owns_general_motors.php) (not sure what the percentages are of the other two, but Im sure it is significant), this means they are the majority stakeholder and essentially the owner of GM, which means exactly what?


THEY OWN THE COMPUTERS TOO!!!

And it's why it can also decide what dealerships to close down, same as if a private board of directors did.

Now does my point make any more since?

[Homer_Rice]

Just prior and for a while after 9-11 I was in a situation in which I had to listen to Beck's radio program every weekday. Sometimes it just sucks when someone else has the "remote control." I wasn't particularly impressed before 9-11 and in the period after, he struck me as a quasi-hysterical news-tainer. BTW, an elevated pitch in voice is a sure sign of at least a momentary lapse into a highly emotional state not that different from the kind of childish/infantile behavior our society ought to frown upon--at least when it comes to making important decisions. (If you think I'm kidding, just listen to yourself the next time you enter a similar psychological frame of mind--it's something we all do, regretably, from time to time, when we lose our composure.) Imo, Beck is just another voice in a crowd filled with all kinds of posers from all across the political spectrum. Olbermann is no better--just consider how he played off the real reason why he toned down on O'Reilly versus the mandate from GE, which was the real reason. BTW, that episode ought to strongly suggest just who controls the media. It's all about controlling the parameters of what is allowable for discussion and what is out of bounds.

Insofar as this "clunker" business goes, I suggest that folks key on a few salient features of this weak palliative.

1) What's the point of creating a program in which consumer-driven indebtedness (buying a car is no small purchase) causes a bump in transactions? Especially at a time when more and more folks are very close to the edge financially. Might this have anything to do with the false notion that we can help save the economy with some profligate consumer-driven behavior? Pretty weak broth if you ask me. And who does this really help? Finance, for sure, the auto manufacturing sector a little. Consumers? Only marginally.

2) Why must dealers disable the trade-in? Seems to me that there is still some value in many of the "clunkers" so why not be able to resell them? Lots of folks cannot afford shiny new cars but might benefit from access to a moderately-priced, fairly reliable vehicle. Lots of dealers could use the sales. This is an example where silly environmentalist thinking distorts the debate over what is equitable and reasonable behavior in the marketplace.

If we were really committed to more than saving the current dysfunctional system, then we'd hear a lot of different policy proposals in the forefront of debate in Congress and coming from the White House. Transformational stuff, not mere band-aids for the cancer patient. But if you take a broad view, all the transformational proposals are precisely the ones being pushed to the margin, with a few decent souls fighting to get a fair hearing. This is true with the health care debate, the whole bail-out business, the paucity of ideas when it comes to integrating new and advanced technologies into our transportation and distribution systems, etc...

Seems to me that this post calls for one of my favorite movie scenes, although the context is somewhat different:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV7yx2y3TtY[/media]

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 August 2009 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1249768466' post='789252']
Your missing the point entirely. Yes a CONSUMER will take the 4500, but the government still pays the dealership the 4500, and thus they can ask for certain stipulations in this contract. Now if a dealer has enough overhead that they can afford to say no and still give the consumer the 4500 on their own then they can tell the government to screw off. Because there is no such thing as free money. Get it now?


Now of course that the above model assumes that there is no ownership by the manufactures on these dealerships. But Im not sure that is the case and here is why...

How many times do you hear on the news things like "ford is closing down X number of dealerships..."

This is why I assume the manufacture owns a percentage in these dealerships, well guess what?

The government is now 60% shareholder in GM (http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/06/now_that_the_government_owns_general_motors.php) (not sure what the percentages are of the other two, but Im sure it is significant), this means they are the majority stakeholder and essentially the owner of GM, which means exactly what?


THEY OWN THE COMPUTERS TOO!!!

And it's why it can also decide what dealerships to close down, same as if a private board of directors did.

Now does my point make any more since?
[/quote]


You done lost yo damn mind.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='09 August 2009 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1249788041' post='789289']
You done lost yo damn mind.
[/quote]


whatever

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='08 August 2009 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1249773204' post='789262']
Just prior and for a while after 9-11 I was in a situation in which I had to listen to Beck's radio program every weekday. Sometimes it just sucks when someone else has the "remote control." I wasn't particularly impressed before 9-11 and in the period after, he struck me as a quasi-hysterical news-tainer. BTW, an elevated pitch in voice is a sure sign of at least a momentary lapse into a highly emotional state not that different from the kind of childish/infantile behavior our society ought to frown upon--at least when it comes to making important decisions. (If you think I'm kidding, just listen to yourself the next time you enter a similar psychological frame of mind--it's something we all do, regretably, from time to time, when we lose our composure.) Imo, Beck is just another voice in a crowd filled with all kinds of posers from all across the political spectrum. Olbermann is no better--just consider how he played off the real reason why he toned down on O'Reilly versus the mandate from GE, which was the real reason. BTW, that episode ought to strongly suggest just who controls the media. It's all about controlling the parameters of what is allowable for discussion and what is out of bounds.

Insofar as this "clunker" business goes, I suggest that folks key on a few salient features of this weak palliative.

1) What's the point of creating a program in which consumer-driven indebtedness (buying a car is no small purchase) causes a bump in transactions? Especially at a time when more and more folks are very close to the edge financially. Might this have anything to do with the false notion that we can help save the economy with some profligate consumer-driven behavior? Pretty weak broth if you ask me. And who does this really help? Finance, for sure, the auto manufacturing sector a little. Consumers? Only marginally.

2) Why must dealers disable the trade-in? Seems to me that there is still some value in many of the "clunkers" so why not be able to resell them? Lots of folks cannot afford shiny new cars but might benefit from access to a moderately-priced, fairly reliable vehicle. Lots of dealers could use the sales. This is an example where silly environmentalist thinking distorts the debate over what is equitable and reasonable behavior in the marketplace.

If we were really committed to more than saving the current dysfunctional system, then we'd hear a lot of different policy proposals in the forefront of debate in Congress and coming from the White House. Transformational stuff, not mere band-aids for the cancer patient. But if you take a broad view, all the transformational proposals are precisely the ones being pushed to the margin, with a few decent souls fighting to get a fair hearing. This is true with the health care debate, the whole bail-out business, the paucity of ideas when it comes to integrating new and advanced technologies into our transportation and distribution systems, etc...

Seems to me that this post calls for one of my favorite movie scenes, although the context is somewhat different:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV7yx2y3TtY[/media]
[/quote]

Homer, you are generally pretty good on this type of stuff, but you missed both points on this deal. 1st, the clunker idea isn't really cash for clunkers, its cash for fuel-inefficient vehicles. The whole goal is to stimulate an area of the economy that has been extremely hard hit, and at the same point, to get some of the least fuel efficient vehicles out of the system. By giving the money, they have increased dealer sales, increased dealership paychecks, increased local and state tax revenues, and given increases to all of the multitude of vendors that do business with dealerships. This is the first program introduced that has been almost 100% stimulative.

Secondly, you disable the engine, because if you don't then you do not recieve the full benefit of the gas savings, nor do you get the lowered emmisions. The scrappers are allowed to pull parts off the vehicles, they are just not allowed to use the engine and tranny. Also, by doing this, they have taken less fuel efficent vehicles out of the system, and increased the values of the cars remaining, that are more fuel efficient. The people that need cars will still be able to find inexpensive cars, but the overall pool will be a much more fuel efficient vehicle, and since a lot of the vehicles being scrapped are old SUV's, the roads will also be a little safer.

complain if you want, but as a member of the automotive industry, I'm glad they did it, and a lot of my vendors are as well.

BTW, Jamie, most automobile franchises are privately owned, and the Manufacturer has no stake in the business. The problem is that the Business Model they have been under has been flawed for the last 20 years, but because of the State Automotive Franchise laws, It was almost impossible to get the model rightsized. These bankruptcy's finally allowed them to get a little closer.

[Homer_Rice]

You've laid it out well, Kenneth. I do get the points, I just disagree with the macro policy behind it--that's why I described it as a palliative. This is only short term, it helps preserve a bankrupt and dysfunctional system, and a year from now (and quite possibly much less than that, imo) we'll be in worse shape than we are now.

A few years ago I suggested that we preserve the industrial/machine tool capabilities of the auto industry. I don't really see that happening here. I see a band aid, not a serious, full-on look at the future of the transportation industry and how the American people will handle our growing needs to move products and people over the next 50 years or so.

So, I do (sort of) agree with you that this is a stimulus that actually has an effect. But that effect will be short term. If my glance at a recent blurb gets the gist, already inventory is drying up and while this might force some new production throughout the supply chain, at some point we'll run out of people who will be able to afford (or have vehicles which qualify for) participation in this kind of program.

Better to rebuild out our entire transport infrastructure: high speed and maglev trains, refueling grids capable of handling both electric and hydrogen vehicles*, etc... More jobs which last longer and we've also put current industrial capacity to work while laying groundwork for a more efficient, more "earth-friendly" use of resources.

We sunk 12 trillion into the black hole of financial usury and shenanigans; I argue that the money could have been better spent (with the added benefit of actually seeing some tangible social and individual profit from the investment.)

*edit to add this: also including the kind of fundamental research which will help break through current technological limitations in those (and other areas) such as battery capacity, cost-effective hydrogen production, etc...

[|kennethmw|]

Homer, I think you also have some great points. I am probably more of a short term guy, because Sales is a month to month business. You can be a superstar one month and an ass the next. But, you are right, we need to develop a comprehensive transportation infrastructure plan that will allow us to move into the 21st century and beyond.