Hi Lennart,
On May 20, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Lennart Johansson wrote:
True, a Chrysler dealership might not have been the best investment.
So why not let the courts work it out? Why have the President
dictate the terms and manipulate the outcome? President Obama seems
above the law. Is it an RC tenant that the end justify the means?
Is there any evidence Obama dictated this outcome?
I'm seeing a lot of assumptions, with very little in the way of facts.
The most likely logic I for what actually is happening, i believe, is
that:
a) Chrysler was a downward death spiral
b) A key part of their problem was delivery chain management
c) Everyone involved knew that a 'rational' Chrysler had to have far
fewer dealers
d) It was impossible for Chrysler to cut out dealers due to
protectionist state laws
e) As condition of bailing Chrysler out, there were provision
mandating/allowing dealer closures
That all seems perfectly plausible and reasonable to me.
Again, the details of this particular dealer getting shafted sound bad
to me -- but then again, we only have one side of the story. I highly
doubt that the federal government told them exactly which dealers to
shut, or what terms to use -- just that it had to be done.
-- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
