What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

unofan said:
Your premise is false. The scenario the U.S. faced was a self-imposed limit, not one based upon our finances. The "debt ceiling" isn't the amount lenders are willing to give us, but a self-imposed political hurdle to be wielded by the minority party for cheap points before doing the responsible thing and letting us continue to fund the already agreed upon budget. It's as though you borrowed $1000 on a $10,000 limit card, and said you weren't going to service that debt properly because you simply didn't want to.

If people are continuing to lend the U.S. money at record low interest rates, then we clearly aren't near our credit limit. Or, as I asked before, are you saying the free market is wrong?
Click to expand...

I like how you turn every indirect correlation into a direct correlation. :rolleyes: If you set a spending limit upon yourself, and are dumb enough to shout it out to the world, people are going to take notice. Go over it a couple of times? Understandable, as not only can it happen from time to time, but also there's a little uncertainty on your ability to repay it, as you could have a "rainy day fund". Consistently upping the limit just to pass a budget is where the issue comes in, and is why credit card companies establish credit limits for this frivolous spending.

I also love how you're under the impression that market prices are like the ones you see at a grocery store. They're determined in an auction style of trade, and the price you're used to seeing is where the last trade was made. To see the real price, you want to look at "bid" and "ask". See the stock market thread for more, as I'm not going to tie this thread up with information about how the market works. And yes, I do believe that those who bought at such a low rate are suckers.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

duper said:
It does seem odd that dealers would choose to buy cars from the company that they have no market for. I wonder what the agreements that dealers have in place with the manufacturers look like.
Click to expand...

wait! so you have no idea what is going on here... can't google it yourself to get an answer.. YET STILL COMMENT AND OPINE FREELY AND LOUDLY!!!


(i am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!!! :D)
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

duper said:
It does seem odd that dealers would choose to buy cars from the company that they have no market for. I wonder what the agreements that dealers have in place with the manufacturers look like.
Click to expand...

Given that dealerships offer "year end clearances" around the same time, I would imagine that these dealers have signed a contract with the manufacturer to offer a certain number of vehicles each year, and since they're probably still under contract, they need to take the inventory. How long? I'm sure it's multi-year. I don't know how many non-conglomerate dealers out there have changed branding once their contract has expired and they choose not to renew, though.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

geezer said:
Personally, I'm not interested in whether GM stock is a "good investment", since I have no money to invest anywhere in any case. The broader point is that the bailout hurt the industry as a whole by removing benefits of competition such as a pursuit of quality and competition for finite resources and market share and so on. By the extension of moral hazards, government and union co-ownership in any company also damages the ideals of working capitalism by introducing the uncertainties of executive whim into the market.
Click to expand...

This discussion is on a circular treadmill. It starts...

"Here's a dumb move by GM"
"GM is far from perfect and might go out of business some day"
"Why did the govt bailout GM...what a waste"
"...and its just bad to interfere from a principle standpoint"

I don't know why it takes no more than a week for everyone to forget that 2012 is radically different than the potentially catastrophic fork in the road that the country faced in 2009. It wouldn't surprise me that its radically different because we did make the one time tough decisions that patched us over by limiting crisis carnage. And that in the end, the tax revenues saved by keeping sector employees off the streets and minimizing related govt services makes saving the industry at that point in time financially acceptable.

After discussing this GM discussion cycle over and over, we have yet to see any evidence that this single decision for this single company at this single time was a long term bad move for the country.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Privately owned stores are pretty straight forward franchises. The franchise is the property of the dealer with the agreement focused on the commitments and obligations of the manufacturer and the dealer. The franchise can be yanked by the manufacturer for shenanigans by the dealer...violations of strict manufacturer defined policy and procedures, or given up voluntarily...but once it's yours, it's yours, with no annual, or semi annual renewals.

Dealers are given product allocations by the manufacturer based on factors such as store size...recent sales numbers, availability per production etc. etc. Dealers order the bulk of their inventory as they want it. The manufacturer often pressures the dealer to buy / order more vehicles...with tactics that can get less than gentle at times. This is nearly a constant...as is their pressure to sell more cars. They're almost always in your face with their "expectations" regarding your sales numbers and rarely content. I was a 3rd gen. owner of a Chrysler store my family owned for 67 years. They'll leverage their objective of forcing more product on you...often more than the dealer really wants, against the dealers future allocations. These are common circumstances when sales are down and dealer orders are down. When the manufacturer has inventory backlogs on their lots they'll often put dealer incentives on vehicles..."dealer cash" on vehicles to motivate dealers to take the cars.

In times of strong sales the dealer often can't get the allocation...number of units they'd like to get. Circumstances that also create friction between franchiser and franchisee.

I'm out of the business since 2007 but I should add, there is some misinformation posted on this topic regarding manufacturers accounting practices.

Edit: The store my family owned was one that lost their franchise in the reorganization. The subsequent owner got the franchises (Chrysler Dodge) back in arbitration.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

mookie1995 said:
wait! so you have no idea what is going on here... can't google it yourself to get an answer.. YET STILL COMMENT AND OPINE FREELY AND LOUDLY!!!


(i am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!!! :D)
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? What opinion did I express about cars?
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

FlagDUDE08 said:
I also love how you're under the impression that market prices are like the ones you see at a grocery store.
Click to expand...

Yet you're the one who compared the U.S. government debt to a freaking credit card in the first place. So gimme a freaking break for not wasting my time by re-posting my senior thesis on here.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

unofan said:
Yet you're the one who compared the U.S. government debt to a freaking credit card in the first place. So gimme a freaking break for not wasting my time by re-posting my senior thesis on here.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I post on here; whether it's to submit valuable information, or to watch libtards emotionally debate themselves into heart attacks. I swear, I've seen some of them try to preach their points like Southern Baptist ministers...
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I read the thread content to keep abreast of the latest conservatard doctrine posted in fine bull**** used car salesman schtick, but that's just me. :)
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

unofan said:
Read the statement of the credit agencies. The debt played only a minor role. Had they agreed to the grand bargain, we'd still have a AAA rating. The key factor in the decision to downgrade the debt was the fact that politicians were not only willing to let the U.S. default, but were actively pushing us to do so.
Click to expand...
I've read a lot about the debt, debt ratings, etc. There was talk of a downgrade long before there was the standoff on the grand bargain. We were never in serious risk of defaulting. People knew that when push came to shove the debt limit would be pushed higher. There wasn't nearly enough hard line tea party folks to really follow through on defaulting, even one believes they wanted to.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

brookyone said:
I'd rather be quoted accurately, than say, more akin to FAUX News standards of journalism. ;)
Click to expand...

It's utterly amazing how many libstains are up to date on every shortcoming, real and imagined, at Fox. I don't watch it. Why do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top