TARP audit on dealer shutdowns: Ethnic, gender issues trumped economics

posted at 12:55 pm on July 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The difference between private-sector decisions on business consolidation and those under government supervision gets exposed in a portion of Neil Barofsky’s audit of the government-driven closures of GM auto dealerships during the $62 billion bailout.  There may be a question of whether the automakers needed to consolidate in order to shed poorly performing dealerships at all, but we’ll get back to that.  The plan to consolidate dealerships that resulted from the push by the car czar and TARP used rational, objective measures to select the target outlets. In practice, those often got ignored in favor of politics, according to the audit:

GM determined that dealerships with a DPS Score of 100 were average performers; those below 70 were considered poor performers and would not be retained. SIGTARP noted, however, that GM did not uniformly apply the phase one criteria to the entire network. For example, our analysis found that two of the wind-down dealers did not meet either criterion. Furthermore, we found that, of the dealerships that met only one of the two criteria:

GM retained 355 (or approximately 41 percent) of the 858 dealerships that had a DPS score below 70.16

GM retained 9 of the 394 dealerships that sold fewer than 50 new vehicles in 2008.17

An additional 10 dealerships with a DPS score below 70 were in phase two wind-downs.

GM officials attributed these inconsistencies primarily to a desire to maintain coverage in certain rural areas where they have a competitive advantage over import auto companies that are not typically located in rural areas, although ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas. Other dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships (emphasis mine).

On June 1, 2009, GM filed for bankruptcy. As indicated earlier in this report, bankruptcy would permit GM to accelerate the process without the restriction of state franchise laws. Bankruptcy laws supersede various state franchise laws, which could have required litigation or arbitration. GM management had also determined that the company would need to wind down more dealerships than those designated in phase one to get close enough to the “ideal network size” of 3,380 dealerships.

A couple of points should be made clear on this.  Nothing in the report says that the Obama administration forced GM into these specific decisions, and apparently this didn’t happen with Chrysler’s closures.  Nevertheless, it seems certain that GM would have been particularly sensitive to political considerations after begging for an receiving tens of billions of dollars to unwind its collapsing finances.  If the point was saving money through the closures, GM didn’t act as if they had so much need for that to trump political considerations.

There’s a reason for that, too.  The American Thinker points out that Barofsky actually found that closing dealerships wouldn’t save the automakers all that much money, anyway.  A Chrysler exec told the Special Inspector General for TARP that at best it each closure would save less than $46,000, although GM put the savings at $1.1 million.  But the issue was scalable, as lower performing dealerships ate up less resources anyway.  One GM exec said closures weren’t going to make much difference at all:

GM would usually save ‘not one damn cent’ by closing any particular dealership. … Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM — it might even cost GM money — and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.

So why close them if doing so would not save any real money?  After all, both automakers need a substantial retail network to maintain their sales output.  The Boss Emeritus explains why politics trumped business concerns:

In search of the rationale for Team Obama’s bizarre, job-killing exercise of power over thousands of small car dealerships, the TARP inspector general may have stumbled onto the truth from Bloom. On page 33 of its report, Barofsky writes that “no one from Treasury, the manufacturers or from anywhere else indicated that implementing a smaller or more gradual dealership termination plan would have resulted in the cataclysmic scenario spelled out in Treasury’s response; indeed, when asked explicitly whether the Auto Team could have left the dealerships out of the restructurings, Mr. Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, confirmed that the Auto Team ‘could have left any one component (of the restructuring plan) alone,’ but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President’s mandate for ‘shared sacrifice.’”

In other words,we destroyed tens of thousands of jobs in the private sector for a soundbite about sacrifice.  In doing so, we weakened the economy and handicapped the automakers’ ability to push sales through their network of dealerships.  A board that made those kinds of decisions in the private sector would get sacked by its shareholders — which is why those decisions should have stayed in the private sector in the first place, and taxpayers shouldn’t have had to shoulder the risk.

Update: WTPOTUS notes that the government didn’t force Chrysler to close dealerships, according to counsel for some of the dealers:

Nowhere in the SIGTARP Report does it say that the Government “forced” (as Malkin put it) Chrysler to reduce its dealership network. As to GM, yes the Government did specifically urge dealership reductions, but as to Chrysler the Government did not.  The SIGTARP Report is very clear on this point.

I’ve amended the first paragraph to remove Chrysler.  The rest of the post dealt mainly with GM anyway.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A power grab. Couple hundred thousand layoffs.

seven on July 23, 2010 at 1:03 PM

When you have to check a box identifying your race or ethnicity to get a medical appointment under ObamaCare, you’ll know why.

Cicero43 on July 23, 2010 at 1:04 PM

If this isn’t criminal, what is?

notagool on July 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM

The Obama administration has been applying their version of ‘social justice’ from day 1.

Where is the story here? Everyone that was watching the THEFT of PRIVATE PROPERTY knew this was a corrupt unconstitutional rip-off!

The Congress and Senate FAILED MISERABLY in executing their sworn oath of office to PROTECT the CONSTITUTION!

Freddy on July 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM

And now, rather than pay back the tax payers for their sacrifice, they want to spend billions on a loan company, so they can hand out car leases, and loans to people with bad credit?

GM must be salivating at the financial reform law, where they’ll get endless bail outs, for making crappy decisions.

capejasmine on July 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM

I need a palate cleanser, STAT!

I’m not shocked. I’m just flabbergasted at the audacity!

Change is truly coming … Nov. 2, 2010.

30 pcs of silver on July 23, 2010 at 1:07 PM

So the manufacturer sells the cars to the dealer and the dealer tries to make a profit by selling that inventory to the public. How does it save money for GM to stop selling cars to their customers, the dealers?

Skandia Recluse on July 23, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Economic/Social justice on display for all to see.

portlandon on July 23, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Really watch and prevent this – pretext is ‘discrimination’ – result is that the gov’t has more data on all of us, especially on taxpayers. Hate them with all you possess! Fight them hard!

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration is backing legislation that includes regulations requiring U.S. businesses to provide to the government data about employee pay as it relates to the sex, race and national origin of employees.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Obama is for blatant job destruction. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Punish him in 2010 and 2012 for this reason alone.

All other is rubbish.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM

The closing of the dealerships reeked right from the get go.

There are a big pile of episodes to choose from now, but the Chrysler investors getting ripped off and the GM and Chrysler dealerships having their franchises yanked are still the two most damaging moves by the Regime to date – in my book anyway.

It’s economic fascism, and it’s why businesses aren’t taking risks or hiring (also a form of risk).

forest on July 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM

or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships

But racial profiling is bad, right?

MayBee on July 23, 2010 at 1:13 PM

So the manufacturer sells the cars to the dealer and the dealer tries to make a profit by selling that inventory to the public. How does it save money for GM to stop selling cars to their customers, the dealers?

Skandia Recluse on July 23, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Don’t ask them that question… they’re still struggling with the concept of having to give something of value to people in order to get money. They think that they can just decree that everyone will buy GM by law, like with ObamaCare, and that GM will profit as a result.

teke184 on July 23, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Dear President Obama,

Thanks for not sending any help our way.

Sincerely,

The Ford Motor Company

.

fogw on July 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM

I am ashamed of the right wingmedia that did not, and still does not, recognize this for the criminal act that this was.

A Dem administration closed down hundreds of GOP donor businesses.

faraway on July 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Well,as Obama said to Jindal,
they can collect unemployment!!!
(sarc).

canopfor on July 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM

And now, rather than pay back the tax payers for their sacrifice, they want to spend billions on a loan company, so they can hand out car leases, and loans to people with bad credit?

GM must be salivating at the financial reform law, where they’ll get endless bail outs, for making crappy decisions.

capejasmine on July 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Yea, but they’re going to loan people with bad credit very high interest rates so they’ll make billions of dollars in the process.

scalleywag on July 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM

There are a big pile of episodes to choose from now, but the Chrysler investors getting ripped off and the GM and Chrysler dealerships having their franchises yanked are still the two most damaging moves by the Regime to date – in my book anyway.

It’s economic fascism, and it’s why businesses aren’t taking risks or hiring (also a form of risk).

forest on July 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM

What was done to the Chrysler investors gave me the chills. This administration is completely out of control, and you’re right…. the incidents are piling up. There’s plenty to choose from.

When are we going to start pushing back – hard? If someone got busy, some resignations would no doubt ensue – right up to the top.

Cody1991 on July 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM

OT: PLO flag can now be flown in DC (plus they can sneak in anything in diplomatic pouches)

faraway on July 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM

forest on July 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Thanks. Couldn’t say it better myself.

That contract law was nullified simply by presidential desire made flesh crawl.

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM

This thugocracy brought to you by…

Barack Hussein Obama,
Mmmm mmm mmm!

Lawyer up, everyone. I can see January 2011 from my house.

petefrt on July 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM

A lot of us hang out here at Hot Air and so we know this stuff… What depresses me is that we’re only a few… Most Amercans don’t know or understand the fascism overtaking us… The Democrats know this and now we have proof that they have been colluding with the Journolisters to manipulate and keep Americans ignorant until the takeover is complete… I think it’s getting too far to reverse… November is literally our last chance.

CCRWM on July 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Cody1991 on July 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM
like minds

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM

It’s a pretty easy nexus folks. The more dealerships that close, the more people on unemployment. The more people on unemployment, the more dependents on government. The more dependents on government, the more democrat votes.

dirtseller on July 23, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I think it’s getting too far to reverse… November is literally our last chance.

CCRWM on July 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Never too late to reverse. Palin’s Revolution?

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I have yet to understand how closing dealers saved any money for GM. GM manufactures a product. Dealers sell the product.

It would be the equivalent of closing Best Buy stores in order to save Sony money. Makes no sense.

angryed on July 23, 2010 at 1:25 PM

The most racist administration of modern times. This will not end well.

We now have surrendered our medical/health and financial records…what liberty do we have left?

Hmmmm, guns.

ornery_independent on July 23, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM

All sorts of other good stuff too. The IRS now has the power to deny tax deductions based on “socioeconomic need”; they can deny deductions if some clerk figures you have enough money and don’t need it.

Plus, there is a new regulation that will allow women to sue their employer if the women work in a field that is dominated by women and they aren’t paid comparably to a field dominated by men.

Insanity, and I hope the American people react accordingly.

Bishop on July 23, 2010 at 1:25 PM

I think it’s getting too far to reverse…
CCRWM on July 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Hm, response denied.

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Not only was it jobs forced to be terminated (and don’t tell me the order didn’t come from Ogabe) but for folks in rural areas it means having to go to the next county or further for some dealership issues.

The worst perpetrators in the entire government takeover of business is our so-called “press.” They have decided not to investigate or report on anything that might reflect badly upon our half-black President.

When chaos and anarchy become the daily routine in America I say we alter Shakespeare just a bit. Let’s kill all the lawyers second, right after the “reporters.”

TugboatPhil on July 23, 2010 at 1:26 PM

November is literally our last chance.
CCRWM on July 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Have faith, good men and women are out there and will come together one fine day if it becomes necessary. They have before, they can again.

Bishop on July 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM

A lot of us hang out here at Hot Air and so we know this stuff… What depresses me is that we’re only a few… Most Amercans don’t know or understand the fascism overtaking us… The Democrats know this and now we have proof that they have been colluding with the Journolisters to manipulate and keep Americans ignorant until the takeover is complete… I think it’s getting too far to reverse… November is literally our last chance.

CCRWM on July 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM

It’s true that there are a lot of nitwits watching American Idol and sports all the time, but I am impressed with the concern and alarm that people are expressing to me. Previously they were uninterested in politics. They weren’t terribly worried about this administration thinking they could wait out the 4 yrs. No more.

I live in a place where people usually smile a lot, enjoy life and live simply. I don’t see many smiling faces any more, and people no longer think I was an alarmist.

Cody1991 on July 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM

I am sure they can just go on unemployment.

rob verdi on July 23, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Of COURSE they didn’t need to happen at all. The Dealerships are primarily a Franchise operation. Their costs to the manufacture are almost nil. It is a fiction that they were a burden to the manf. There was no economic reason to close them.
Compounded with a desperate need to sell their product, even before they became tainted as Government Motors, it takes a special kind of overeducated stupid to think closing off a substantial portion of your sales outlets will in any way INCREASE sales.

Then compound it with the correlation of who go shut down with who DIDN’T donate to Democrats and it becomes plainly obvious that this was nothing more than a political-ideological -driven round of garbage. For which the perpetrators should hang by their necks.

rayra on July 23, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I’m certain I’ll be purchasing another Ford on my next automobile, if and when that time comes.

wonk-a-donk on July 23, 2010 at 1:32 PM

What is unfortunate is that many libs will not believe this. I was discussing this with a good friend who is a liberal and his kneejerk response was that I was spouting garbage from some right-wing finge group. When I told him again that this was from the govt’s own IG his response was “did the govt demand the auto people do specifically that? So unless you have a signed document with the Administration demanding XYZ the libs just aren’t going to see the truth.

katiejane on July 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM

That car ad makes me want to hurl.
Patriotism; last refuge of a scoundrel.
Samuel Johnson

borntoraisehogs on July 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM

(CNSNews.com) James Sherk, Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at conservative The Heritage Foundation, said that the law would be a boon to trial lawyers seeking damages from employers for their clients and would allow the courts to “micro-manage” American businesses.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM

This is the first thing that came to mind reading your post. How many businesses are they willing to “micro manage” right into oblivion?

Gang-of-One on July 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM

But did they need to happen at all?

For Obama to get his way, yes.

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration is backing legislation that includes regulations requiring U.S. businesses to provide to the government data about employee pay as it relates to the sex, race and national origin of employees.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM

We’re ALL multi-racial now. Just check a few boxes on the forms…

Jeff2161 on July 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM

That car ad makes me want to hurl.

borntoraisehogs on July 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Heck, I still laugh at the chronological juxtaposition. You’ve got to admit, had Washington a muscle car on open battlefield to charge the British Red Coats, he would have used it to his advantage.

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM

How many businesses are they willing to “micro manage” right into oblivion?

Gang-of-One on July 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM

According to the latest law, every single business. Easy pickings on small businesses.

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM

So unless you have a signed document with the Administration demanding XYZ the libs just aren’t going to see the truth.

katiejane on July 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM

There are none so blind as those unwilling to see.

teke184 on July 23, 2010 at 1:42 PM

muscle cars cheaper than humvees…

Jeff2161 on July 23, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Velvet fascism at work.

Dhuka on July 23, 2010 at 1:43 PM

It’s even worse. Dealers PAY for every car listed on the GM website. GM instantly lost significant positive cash flow from every dealership dropped. The cost of maintaining the website didn’t change — they just got less income from it.

Dumb beyond measure.

Can anyone cite any way that GM saved money by doing this?

Pythagoras on July 23, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Mr. Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, confirmed that the Auto Team ‘could have left any one component (of the restructuring plan) alone,’ but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President’s mandate for ‘shared sacrifice.’”

How about We the People mandate that the President share in the sacrifice, of his own job?

Except for the military, the President has no power to “mandate” anyone’s “shared sacrifice”. Who does Obama think he is–God?

A car dealership is a lot more than a few salesmen selling cars. Lots of land and building-space is needed to store unsold cars. They need computer connections to manufacturing plants. Most dealerships have repair shops, which need lots of tools and machines, an inventory of spare parts, and qualified mechanics who work there. Car dealerships also support spinoff jobs–truck drivers to deliver the cars to the dealerships, and car shoppers in rural areas might decide to eat lunch at nearby restaurants or fast-food joints, or shop for other items at a nearby mall.

All this infrastructure is closed down based on a President’s “mandate”??? Couldn’t some of these dealerships be sold to competitors, who could retain the infrastructure and re-train the employees to sell and repair different cars? Does Obama have any idea how much work is needed to build a car dealership from scratch?

Steve Z on July 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Now the State has the ability to take over private financial companies that might be a “danger” to the economy thanks to the financial reform bill.

What could go wrong?

forest on July 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Heck, I still laugh at the chronological juxtaposition. You’ve got to admit, had Washington a muscle car on open battlefield to charge the British Red Coats, he would have used it to his advantage.

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Could have used the turnpike instead of crossing the icy river too.

borntoraisehogs on July 23, 2010 at 1:48 PM

This is all so very sad. How many lives have been destroyed and for what? This administration belongs behind bars, as far as I am concerned. What they have done to individuals and families across his country is criminal.

bopbottle on July 23, 2010 at 1:50 PM

sorry – serves them right. Dealers have used (illegal) state franchise laws to destroy competition and prevent economies of scale at the retail level – which has unfairly enriched dealers for decades at the expense of consumers.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. F-them.

rock the casbah on July 23, 2010 at 1:51 PM

According to the latest law, every single business. Easy pickings on small businesses.

maverick muse on July 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Exactomundo!

Gang-of-One on July 23, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Let this sink in: The Federal government closed hundreds of independent businesses.

This is unprecedented and illegal.

faraway on July 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM

The audacity of race and gender politics…

Wyznowski on July 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM

This makes me gag. Most incendiary is the charge by the car czar in charge of this all, is that the dealer closures were needed to impart a ‘sense of sacrifice’ in the nation. That’s so in keeping with the Idiot-in-Chief’s philosophy, isn’t it? Meanwhile, how is he sacrificing?

So the car companies belong to us now. ‘We’ saved $1.1m by closing them. How much did ‘we’ lose on the income taxes and FICA that was being paid by those laid off?

slickwillie2001 on July 23, 2010 at 2:02 PM

‘We’ saved $1.1m by closing them. How much did ‘we’ lose on the income taxes and FICA that was being paid by those laid off?

slickwillie2001 on July 23, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Only about eleventy gazallion doallrs, but we made up for the loss in volume, we did fire about 10,000 people or so, and that adds up quick!

Johnnyreb on July 23, 2010 at 2:04 PM

The question that remains: Since Barry and pals have been able to bestow so much power to the government, what is his next logical step? He/they didn’t work this hard to hand it over to a Repub in 2012..

Look for a “disaster” of some sort….?

Tim Zank on July 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM

OT We have all been wondering what this administration would do to thwart the upcoming midterm election…

Well….here is the likely answer

http://emergingcorruption.com/?p=87

We have work to do people!!

stacy on July 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

GM determined that dealerships with a DPS Score of 100 were….

Huh? What is DPS, and what does the score mean?

Give us a refernce point Ed.

percysunshine on July 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I never thought I’d see the day where I find GM and Reader’s Digest in Bankruptcy…

But it happened, and it’s far from over yet.

I loved GM cars, too…

But no more. Sorry UAW but the chickens have come home to roost…………..

golfmann on July 23, 2010 at 2:54 PM

DPS = Dip S..t

golfmann on July 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM

or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships

So they did
“stick it to da man”
yeeeaaaah

macncheez on July 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Did the SIGTARP, or anyone else, do a comparison of political donations to dealership closures?

hawksruleva on July 23, 2010 at 3:18 PM

As to Poland, yes the Government did specifically urge Jewish reductions, but as to Russia the Government did not. The Nuremburg Report is very clear on this point.

Nazi defense strategy, circa 1947

BobMbx on July 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Why isn’t The Race Card waxing outraged about this?

fossten on July 23, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Obama was purposefully trying to crash the market early on, even before his inauguration so he could blame Bush and claim a recovery from rock bottom.

He would get on TV and say anti-business garbage and drop the market 500 points that day. I wanted to yell at him and say “SHUT UP! STOP TALKING! ARE YOU TRYING TO CRASH THE MARKET?!”

He was.

scotash on July 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM

The fact that we have to “analyze” this is enough to show it was wrong…we shouldn’t even be talking about the gov getting involved with the auto industry, except to expose the lobbying and illegal confiscation of money, and the handing over of that money to the unions.

right2bright on July 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Did Ford close dealerships?

Cindy Munford on July 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Isn’t this just the predictable movement of the Corporatist ideal? Pick the companies (and more importantly, the associated unions) of favor, make them dependents, then manipulate their business practices to bring about, amongst other things, politically-preferred racial outcomes. At a different time and place, it’d have been the Jewish-owned dealerships that got hit the hardest. In post-independence America, white males who haven’t done enough to support The Party take the hit. Purge the undesirables. Same song, different verse.

Blacklake on July 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM

In the book review on Sunday a few weeks ago, I mentioned reading the “Sword of Truth” series for an enjoyable work of fantasy fiction with a Objectivist point of view. The way President Obama is engaging in a scorched earth policy forcing people into misery as a result of ‘shared sacrifice’ reminds me of Emperor Jagang.

In the book Faith of the Fallen one of the followers of Jagang tried to show Jagang’s enemy, Lord Rahl the fallacy of his beliefs. She tried to show him that only if everyone was equally miserable was life fair for all. After all, what’s one life worth… nothing. It took Richard Rahl to show people that success and profit were not evil words, but goals to strive towards. Who’s going to be Obama’s Rahl?

njrob on July 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Why isn’t The Race Card waxing outraged about this?

fossten on July 23, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Just because white owned businesses were harmed almost exclusively doesn’t mean that that was the intent of the most race-blind awsomely awsome president in the history of USA. You people are racist bigots who do not want minorties to have car-dealerships. You are sexists too because you don’t like women.
or something….

/
The Race Card date and time

;-)

macncheez on July 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

sorry – serves them right. Dealers have used (illegal) state franchise laws to destroy competition and prevent economies of scale at the retail level – which has unfairly enriched dealers for decades at the expense of consumers.

rock the casbah on July 23, 2010 at 1:51 PM

So is the correct answer to:

A) Go after franchise law corruption, or

B) Take a wrecking ball to the entire economy.

Notice how much the current administration likes Plan B.

Merovign on July 23, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Also, why is it that everyone (here) knows about the “donor bias” in the closures, but the pundits keep dropping the subject?

Fear of success? Or just too much effort to counter JournoList 2.0?

Let’s face it, I saw the numbers when they came out like the rest of you did, that wasn’t just some weak correlation, it was a statistical sledgehammer. If you had a medical study like that, even sending sex slaves loaded with money bags to the FDA wouldn’t keep that drug on the market.

Merovign on July 23, 2010 at 7:08 PM

As best I can tell from reports, those who show favoritism to the right sex or the right races rarely or never suffer harm. As long as that’s the case, it seems the Americans can reasonably expect the discrimination to continue. Once before, it was men with arms and the authority of a government who put an end to racial discrimination that had been enforced by other men with arms and the authority of lesser governments. For men tend to submit to such men as seem to be able to punish them, while remaining themselves unpunished and protected.

Kralizec on July 24, 2010 at 1:10 AM

What will eventually come out is that these fools didn’t understand that these dealerships were independently owned. They applied some academic principles to the problem of bleeding cash (close under-performing stores); they announced the decision and then it was too late.

Even when they discovered they wouldn’t save any money, they didn’t want to look like fools or worse by announcing that they were going to get rid of “dead wood” dealerships and then reversing.

So they got out the donor lists and demo break-downs and made the closings.

Jason Coleman on July 24, 2010 at 1:27 AM

Also, why is it that everyone (here) knows about the “donor bias” in the closures, but the pundits keep dropping the subject? Fear of success? Or just too much effort to counter JournoList 2.0?

Merovign on July 23, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Accusations come to seem a pointless waste of energy, in those cases in which one cannot foresee accusations leading to punishments. And a rarely-stated purpose of public punishments seems to be sate the anger that moves men to punish privately. Yet when men no longer punish privately, that occult reason for public punishments is lost. Then, fearing neither private punishments nor public, men wrong men more boldly, until they revive those punishments they have not learned to fear.

Kralizec on July 24, 2010 at 2:25 AM

test

Dire Straits on July 24, 2010 at 2:35 AM

All sorts of other good stuff too. The IRS now has the power to deny tax deductions based on “socioeconomic need”; they can deny deductions if some clerk figures you have enough money and don’t need it.

Bishop on July 23, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Whoa…I think I missed a news story somewhere. Can anybody tell me where to read up about this?

Cheesestick on July 24, 2010 at 2:56 AM

This was NOT racist. Racist would have been shutting down Cadillac instead of Pontiac. People in the ‘hood don’t buy Pontiacs.
My family lost Caddy in our dealership of several lines and it has been restored.

seven on July 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM