Hopey Changey, Amurrrica. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/letter_from_a_dodge_dealer.html
So, he was given roughly 26 days notice? Under residential landlord/tenant law, you are required to give at least 30 days notice. So, his multi-million dollar business is worth less than a lease on an apartment? We're living in bizarro world.
This is happenning because this is a free market. The government is not the one taking the cars. That's the way the cookie crumbles in capitolism
Having one's business taken from them with zero compensation is a part of the free market? I suggest you may not know exactly what a free market is.
It really sucks for this guy. My heart goes out to him, as I own a small business too and I can't imagine what it's like to look into your employees' eyes and tell them this news. That said, any business owner will tell you that when you buy all your merchandise from a single vendor, you lose a ton of control over your business. It's a shame he wasn't able to diversify into other types of products. When he says, "We did NOTHING wrong.", he may or may not exactly be telling the truth. He might have been in a no-win situation where every choice was bad. Or he might have had other business options. (For example, at some point Americans will need to buy cars from somebody. Perhaps he could've actively sought out Toyota, Nissan, etc.) The post title seems to imply this is all part of Obama's socialist plot. It's not. It's what happens when badly run car companies fail for years, and a lot of small businesses who played by the old rules consequently get fucked over.
How does the blame for this fall on Obama's desk? Chrysler ran their company into the ground and continued to make absolute atrocities like the Charger and the Magnum while other companies were making more economical and environmental options for their consumers. Chrysler declared bankruptcy and then decided to close dealers around the country. I feel bad for this guy and his family, but he should be pissed off at the car company name on his dealership, not the government. And in terms of legality, federal bankruptcy law supercedes state franchise laws, so franchise agreements can be terminated at the parent company's discretion. -Pop
BTW--Nissan stock is up 50% year to date. Toyota is up 17%. Honda is up 32%. There are going to be huge dealer job losses now, but the stock market seems to say that it won't go on forever.
So Obama is responsible for the resulting actions of a poorly-run company going bankrupt? Quick ... name me a model that Chrysler or Dodge builds that is top-of-class. Best mid-sized sedan? Best pickup? Best SUV? Best minivan? Best hybrid? Best economy car? Best luxury sedan? Didn't think so. They have been irrelevant as a car-maker long before Obama even ran for president, let alone took office. -Pop
As much as I like blaming Obama... This doesn't seem like an Obama issue, or a spreading the wealth issue. His vendor went out of business. My company is strict about always maintaining at least 2 sources as vendors for this exact reason.
So are you saying that the government should have given the car companies more money? Friggin Socialist
A free market is an economic system in which a company can act without government interference. I don't know the details of his agreement with Dodge but their actions must be within confines of their contract. Otherwise he would be taking legal action to protect his business. This sucks but America would need more government involvement to prevent these situations. I suspect some people would cry "too much government!" if that happened.
You're right, there are no free markets, except between nations. The more the government interferes, the worse things get. Boom & bust is because we don't have free markets. We've tried the regulation route, each one closing the barn door after the horse has run away. Maybe it's time to try true free markets and give them a chance. We know socialism is a terrible means of distributing goods and services.
Exactly. I own a software business where we produce our software internally. But a year ago I realized it was dumb to rely on one revenue stream to keep my company viable. I branched out into three other areas that weren't directly related to software production, even though I knew those other streams were less profitable. I just wanted to be as diversified as possible because shit happens. Computers change, consumer demand changes, my ability to support software might change. Because I diversified, now I'm in a position where if a major competitor came along and stole all my software business, I'd still be viable. This guy is complaining because: a) He didn't diversify b) His one revenue source went tits up Now it's the government's fault that his one revenue source went tits up. Sorry, but his business was always risky. I'm sorry he didn't recognize it a hell of a lot sooner.
I can see this guy writing a similar letter if his wife divorced him. "I did nothing wrong! How can this happen?" Buddy, your partner just doesn't want you anymore. Takes two to tango. barfo
This guy should check his franchise/distributorship agreement that he signed with Dodge. I suspect that it gave Dodge the right to terminate with four weeks' notice for any reason whatsoever. His problem is that he never thought that the clause would be executed--and that there was no accompanying clauses relating to the fate of his inventory. That's the risk he (or his father) took. It seems to me that his contract with Dodge was an arm's length, negotiated deal. Sounds like he is suggesting that the government step in and prevent Chrysler from utilizing its negotiated contractual rights.
