July 19, 2010
— Gabriel Malor Et tu Times?
President ObamaÂ’s auto task force pressed General Motors and Chrysler to close scores of dealerships without adequately considering the jobs that would be lost or having a firm idea of the cost savings that would be achieved, an audit of the process has concluded.The report by Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program of the Treasury Department, said both carmakers needed to shut down some underperforming dealerships. But it questioned whether the cuts should have been made so quickly, particularly during a recession. The report, released on Sunday, estimated that tens of thousands of jobs were lost as a result.
“It is not at all clear that the greatly accelerated pace of the dealership closings during one of the most severe economic downturns in our nation’s history was either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery,” the report said.
Translation of that last bit: it was bad management and bad economics and we can't for the life of us figure out what the President thought he was doing. However, I have a suggestion or two.
The truth is that the Administration was in full panic mode and were trying to chop the auto companies down to something a distracted, inexperienced bureaucracy could manage. Both GM and Chrysler ultimately rejected hundreds of Obama terminations -- evidence that the President's taskforce was making hasty and arbitrary choices.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
07:33 AM
| Comments (46)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Ben at July 19, 2010 07:37 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: elspeth at July 19, 2010 07:37 AM (0AkWH)
He threw Contract Law out the window on this and we are debating whether he lost 10,000 jobs?
He arbitrarily (at best) trashed the income and buisness of Dozens of American families when doing this.
I would gather there were a few 100,000 jobs that were 'never created and or destroyed' as the result of this administrations actions re: the GM Chrysler Take-Overs.
Posted by: garrett at July 19, 2010 07:39 AM (4OnPC)
Get beyond the spin HERE.
Posted by: Dan at July 19, 2010 07:41 AM (9L1z6)
FIFY
Posted by: Tami at July 19, 2010 07:42 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: maddogg at July 19, 2010 07:44 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: alppuccino at July 19, 2010 07:46 AM (nw07T)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at July 19, 2010 07:46 AM (V/EYZ)
Posted by: Senor Toonces at July 19, 2010 07:46 AM (aOKEC)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 19, 2010 07:47 AM (R/qRq)
Posted by: GarandFan at July 19, 2010 07:48 AM (6mwMs)
Hasty? Yes. Arbitrary? Hardly. There's a substantial body of evidence the ax fell heavily on those dealers who's politics was unacceptable to the new junta.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 19, 2010 07:48 AM (Z7zil)
Posted by: dagny at July 19, 2010 07:50 AM (DgcO5)
The stimulus program was about 3 words "Jobs Jobs Jobs"
Oh it was about 3 words alright. But it wasn't Jobs Jobs Jobs. It was more like Fuck You America.
Posted by: Stuck On Stupid at July 19, 2010 07:50 AM (e8T35)
Posted by: alppuccino at July 19, 2010 07:51 AM (nw07T)
Arbitrary? Hardly. There's a substantial body of evidence the ax fell heavily on those dealers who's politics was unacceptable to the new junta.
Are you implying some dealers who were not well known Democrat supporters had their Dealership Status stripped so they would not be competing with other Dealers who did have Democratic Party ties?
Surely you don't think there was Political motivation involved!?!?
Posted by: garrett at July 19, 2010 07:52 AM (4OnPC)
I firmly believe the Traitor-in-Chief can't understand that he and his co-conspirators need to focus on a given issue after he has spoken publicly about it. Broken things do not fix themselves.
And putting all those dealership employees on unemployment gives him more fodder to whine because Repubs are blocking his efforts to print more money for extended extended jobless benefits.
Does this sound to you like someone who is panicky? To me, it sounds like someone who simply doesn't think ahead to a time beyond his next TV appearance, golf game or vacation.
Posted by: MrScribbler at July 19, 2010 07:52 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Pecos Bill at July 19, 2010 07:52 AM (8WOM0)
Notice how we never hear any more of Boy Genius's (Geithner's) awesome toxic asset scheme?
He will be the Greatest Secretary of the Treasury, Evah!
Posted by: Barack H. Obama - I said this! at July 19, 2010 07:54 AM (4OnPC)
Clyburn?
Because he's so well spoken? Or he's an economic expert?
Help me out here.
Posted by: alppuccino at July 19, 2010 11:46 AM (nw07T)
He sounded like a complete fucking idiot because assbreath Cwis Wawwace wouldn't call him out on any of his bullshit claims (8 meeyun jobs destroyed by GWB; illiegal immigrants have served in the military in Iraq & Afghanistan). I don't know if Pence thought he should shit, laugh or cut bait in the face of such unrefuted dumbfuckery.
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 19, 2010 07:54 AM (qPpkJ)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at July 19, 2010 07:55 AM (V/EYZ)
Posted by: Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. at July 19, 2010 07:57 AM (2AwFA)
I firmly believe the Traitor-in-Chief can't understand that he and his co-conspirators need to focus on a given issue after he has spoken publicly about it.
This comes from the Messiah complex and his academia background. Why wouldn't his speaking about it be the conclusion of action. First, the Messiah's words should have an effect, a healing, of any issue he deems worthy of his attention and secondly, in the realm of academia, speaking about something is the action. It's the theory, the attention, the focus, the idea that matters not the action. These people believe that theories are reality and are truly surprised when real life doesn't correspond to what they think "should" be the outcome even if there are scads of instances proving the opposite.
Posted by: dagny at July 19, 2010 07:57 AM (DgcO5)
Posted by: alppuccino at July 19, 2010 07:59 AM (nw07T)
Posted by: Tom Cruise at July 19, 2010 08:00 AM (2AwFA)
GM waited far too long to pull the plug on diseased brands because they thought they could not afford to buy out the franchises of the affected dealers. In retrospect it's clear they should have done it twenty years ago.
Posted by: mrkwong at July 19, 2010 08:02 AM (G8Eo0)
Posted by: Vic at July 19, 2010 08:06 AM (/jbAw)
The junta wasn't in "full panic mode". THey were in full salivation mode. We need to recall what was going on at the time and how the junta was determined to do whatever the hell they wanted to do - blaming and threatening everyone else within arm's reach.
The Precedent should have been impeached over this, but, hey! He should have been impeached over tens of criminal violations since he slimed into an office he isn't even eligible, nor qualified, in any way, shape, or form, for.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 19, 2010 08:17 AM (Qp4DT)
When they made the decision to close dealerships, they didn't even look at a detailed map--they simply drew a circle X miles in diameter around cities and got rid of outlying dealerships.
Never mind that, in some cases, the "outlying dealership" was on the other side of a nearly impassable mountain range or other major obstacle to commerce . . .
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at July 19, 2010 08:27 AM (v3pYe)
GM = Union workers = Dim contributions and votes
Auto Dealers = Capitalist Republicans FTMP, non-union workforce, tough shit.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 19, 2010 08:28 AM (i3AsK)
Another article of impeachment ... faded into the history of the late, great US.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 19, 2010 08:35 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Charles Johnson at July 19, 2010 08:52 AM (mka2b)
Where I live, they forced closed the only Jeep dealership in my town of 80,000. This Jeep dealership was owned by the local large Ford dealership which had it since the AMC days. Now the closest Jeep dealership is 40 miles away in a small town of 4000. There was another dealership about 20 miles alway in town of 20,000 but they forced closed the entire Chrysler dealership in that town.
IOW, there was no economic logic to the closing of the local Jeep dealership.
Posted by: Prof. Venkman at July 19, 2010 09:04 AM (Bs34i)
It seems completely obvious to me that he's here to objectively fuck things up. His background, his actions...you have to invent a pretty funky theory to explain how he gets virtually everything wrong while simultaneously acting in good faith.
Posted by: tachyonshuggy at July 19, 2010 09:14 AM (yUybe)
Political retribution in the form of losing one's business. That's wrong.
But I find it hard to get worked up about car dealers getting screwed.
I just remember how I felt every time I went in shopping for a car -- I felt they were trying to fleece me, feed me lies, and in general, take advantage of my good and trusting nature. Being taken advantage of by people who are right down there with Congresscritters on the "have faith in" scale.
Kinda like they're just getting their karmic books recentered.
Posted by: Dan the Unsupervised at July 19, 2010 09:20 AM (yOk5u)
Sorry to say I was a poster there for years, until that huge lurch to the left. Watching the slap fights is fun at times, tho'.
Posted by: irongrampa at July 19, 2010 09:23 AM (ud5dN)
Uhmmm. There was significant politics (at least at GM, for which I'm familier) at play regarding which dealership stayed open or closed that has not been touched on. Not a Republican vs Democratic issue, but internal to the corporation issue.
Keep in mind that at least with GM, relationships between the corporation and dealers was, over the decades, ah..."guarded". At times it was almost outright rebellion. And there is such a thing as "corporate memory". The corporation thought it knew how not just to design but also how to sell product and the franchisee was just an irritation in the way.
I'm simplifying, but that's how (along with god damned those goddamned "focus groups") GM ended up with the Chevy whalelike Caprise (though the redesign gave us the Impala SS, which was in essence a patrol care with leather, no toplights and 30 more horsepower) and Buicks Aztek. They didn't listen to dealers, who knew what will sell in their defined areas. Instead the corporation listened to some 25 year old with their MBS.
In some cases, top selling franchises were eliminated or split up, giving one part of an existing dealership to an older owner in the next town, without any regard to succession. That dealer does not have any children showing any interest in the franchise.
Another GM dealer lost their brand when the corporation gave it to a megastore francisee a few miles away. Nevermind that the megastore will have to sell at twice the current sales just to make the principal on the construction costs. And then GM creates another competiting same brand dealer just over the states border from the one that they just closed. Go figure.
Much of what and how they reached conclusions defy common business sense.
They closed many Cadillac dealers because they see that Mercedes Benz only has XX amount, so why would GM need twice that? And the client should get the same type of service. Here's reality: the _net_ profit on a MB is easily _four to five_ times that of any Cadillac. With that type of profit, sure, a MB dealership can afford staffing to pickup and deliver customers vehicles. Profit margin is too slim for a Cadillac dealer to do that. And the corporation ignores their own surveys that have indicated for decades, that a typical customer travels less then 15 miles to vehicle shop.
Prediction? - There will only be Chevy and Cadillac within three years, and they'll be back to Congress in the meantime. And GM deserves what they get...
Posted by: runswithknives at July 19, 2010 12:22 PM (apKTU)
Posted by: HeftyJo at July 20, 2010 07:09 AM (0/c8m)
Posted by: this at October 25, 2010 01:55 PM (Z/FJi)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2093 seconds, 174 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








That guy couldn't sell Watermelons in Alabama if he had a State Trooper stopping Traffic for him!
Posted by: Dan Rather at July 19, 2010 07:36 AM (4OnPC)