Ford doing right by their dealer's

[poppie]

See this video from a chrysler dealer,http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/05/20/jack-fitzgerald-a-hit-on-the-record-at-10pm/ ,hit the expand button and turn your volume up,---also this letter to the editor from a Dodge dealer, letter to the editor, Welcome to Sunshine Dodge Isuzu
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.


We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.


I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life. < NOW IT GET'S UGLY, JOHN >


On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, "that we purchased", will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 "without compensation"and given to another dealer at "no cost" to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of "125 vehicles" with a financed balance of "3 million dollars". This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. "There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory".


Our facility was recently "totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence", incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.


HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?


THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY


This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.


This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.


HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.


Sincerely,



George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

[drcampbell]

Um, where's the part that speaks to anything Ford's doing?

Actually, this is an example of how unregulated laissez faire (free-market) capitalism really works. Before filing Chapter 11, Chrysler Corporation had to abide by the contracts it signed because the government would step in to enforce them if they didn't. Now it's free not to. And since Chrysler swings a bigger club than Sunshine, it gets what it wants.

Totally-free-market capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.

[checkthisout]

Not that Isuzu's are bad cars, but you can only sell them for so long until all the wealth has left the country and there is no money left to buy anything.

[DirtFarmer]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Actually, this is an example of how unregulated laissez faire (free-market) capitalism really works. Before filing Chapter 11, Chrysler Corporation had to abide by the contracts it signed because the government would step in to enforce them if they didn't. Now it's free not to. And since Chrysler swings a bigger club than Sunshine, it gets what it wants.

Totally-free-market capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.

This seems like a poor example to use to support your opinion that capitalism is bad and the government is good.

You state that "before filing for bankruptcy, the government would force Chrysler to honor the contracts with their dealers". Well, GM hasn't filed for bankruptcy, but they took the exact same path Chrysler did and the government praised the decision!

GM and Chrysler took the same action (slashing dealerships) within days of each other. What do they both have in common? They've taken federal dollars which has apparently given tremendous power to the white house. The decisions to reduce the number of dealerships was done with the blessing of (and likely at the direction of) the white house.

With Chrysler and GM on their way to being majority government and/or UAW owned, the terms "free market capitalism" sure as heck no longer apply to them!

A more accurate term can be found here: State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Totally-free-market capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.

BINGO!



If the last 8 years of a "hands off business" philosophy didn't convince us of that, then someone is really naive.

[Super_Dave]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Actually, this is an example of how unregulated laissez faire (free-market) capitalism really works.

No, it doesn't.

Government intervention into the market place has caused this. Contracts are not being enforced as they are to be within the confines of the US Constitution. The federal government has thrown that out.

[Super_Dave]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Totally-free-market capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.

Governments are monopolies and are corrupt.

It's job is to protect.

Outside of protecting citizens, we now have the monopoly of government schools. Corrupt entities that cost more than other counterparts that have lower rates of graduation, and the highest costing schools have the worst rates of graduation.

And don't forget that the force of government is used under the threat and use of force to seize property in one does not support it.

Theft by an individual is immoral. It is for government too.

[Super_Dave]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

If the last 8 years of a "hands off business" philosophy didn't convince us of that, then someone is really naive.

Where was the "hands off business"?

[DirtFarmer]

One of the primary functions of government is to provide for the rule of law. When the government can come in and break contracts, it is a disincentive for anybody to enter into a contract (in other words, a disincentive to do business). For more details on this, see: Breaking Contracts - Forbes.com

If I can get you to agree to the terms of a contract, get what I want from you and then use my political contacts to have the terms of the contract changed before I fulfill my half, it means that contracts are not worth much. The power to do this is a huge open door to corruption.

It has been mentioned in one of the threads on this board that there were many oil contracts offered up for bid, but few were bid on. As was pointed out, many of the contracts were of little value and also, there is no trust that the government wouldn't pull the rug out from under the oil companies after they've spent time and money moving down the path towards exploration:

Obama blocks offshore drilling

Here's a simple truism that is another argument for limited government: The larger the government is and the greater its influence, the greater the temptation will be to abuse the power and invite corruption. You want to clean up corruption? Trim the government. Passing more rules, etc does not work.

[CZDiesel]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Um, where's the part that speaks to anything Ford's doing?

Actually, this is an example of how unregulated laissez faire (free-market) capitalism really works. Before filing Chapter 11, Chrysler Corporation had to abide by the contracts it signed because the government would step in to enforce them if they didn't. Now it's free not to. And since Chrysler swings a bigger club than Sunshine, it gets what it wants.

Totally-free-market capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

BINGO!
If the last 8 years of a "hands off business" philosophy didn't convince us of that, then someone is really naive.

I'd like to know what economics class taught you this???? You guys are way off! And have obviously never owned a business! Oh and its raining here today in ABQ, that darn George Bush! Causing it to rain on Memorial Day!

[inod3]

Originally Posted by CZDiesel

I'd like to know what economics class taught you this???? You guys are way off! And have obviously never owned a business! Oh and its raining here today in ABQ, that damn George Bush! Causing it to rain on Memorial Day!

Even Adam Smith wrote about the pitfalls of monopoly.

[Super_Dave]

Originally Posted by inod3

Even Adam Smith wrote about the pitfalls of monopoly.

Indeed.

Public school systems are monopolies. I agree that it is terrible. It has the force of government in there too. Generally, that is almost necessary to happen. Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly. Amazingly, high prices existed in Bell and are out of control in public schools as a result of government propping them up.

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by Super_Dave

Where was the "hands off business"?

Where have you been?

Tougher Regulatory Environment Looms - Kiplinger.com

"The shift is a backlash to the Bush years when regulators were largely reined in by a decidedly pro-business White House, which required cost-benefit studies and other considerations before substantial regulations were implemented."

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by CZDiesel

I'd like to know what economics class taught you this???? You guys are way off! And have obviously never owned a business!

Without reasonable regulations and controls, monopolies and market meltdowns soon follow. Do you really need me to provide a link to that little tidbit of information?

Oh and its raining here today in ABQ, that darn George Bush! Causing it to rain on Memorial Day!

Oh well, Arroyo Del Oso/Sandia/Isleta/UNM Championship/etc. can probably use the moisture.

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by DirtFarmer

It has been mentioned in one of the threads on this board that there were many oil contracts offered up for bid, but few were bid on. As was pointed out, many of the contracts were of little value and also, there is no trust that the government wouldn't pull the rug out from under the oil companies after they've spent time and money moving down the path towards exploration:
Obama blocks offshore drilling

1: Apples & oranges. The drilling ban applies only to near-shore reservoirs where a spill is likely to reach shore and wreak havoc. The tracts being offered for lease by the Department of the Interior are further offshore.

2: That the unbid leases are of little or no value is a matter of speculation, not fact. For that matter, the value of the tracts which have been leased is also a matter of speculation until somebody sinks a drill bit into them.