Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
While the dealer might be making a profit [and we don't know if it is $1M or $100], the cost of two dealers COST CHRYSLER more than one. If it was only dealer profit/loss this would not be a question. The issue is cost of the dealer network to the Corporation. The profit of the individual dealer is not part of that equation. So, two profitable dealers in a small area might be a market for the dealers but still cost the Company double money [the object of cutting dealers in the first place]. Field support, distribution, advertising coop costs and other dealer support pieces would be reduced. And those are the reduction goals of reducing the dealer network.
WOW! Anybody else dizzy from the spin?
You are so invested in this that you are willing to forgo basic principles of economic theory to make this sound like a good idea. Pure and simple.
You make these pronouncements based on supposition. You have no idea why the Obama Administration is making any of these decisions. And yet you put forth all this craptastic Scientific Wild Ass Guessing as fact.
This is one of the many large and small reasons people have been screaming for transparency. A lot of people have been saying that the Government should not be involved in this process and let the market sort this stuff out.
And you think Nader is irrelevant?
Looks like that Free Market Capitalism gets the shaft yet again.
Who's John Galt.
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu