re: #698 lawhawk

I’m not sure that is completely accurate. She’s questioning the motivations of certain closures, and some do smell fishy, but without more information there’s no way to know.

The fact is that the government is imposing its will on the auto industry in ways never before contemplated, and while closures are warranted, it’s curious how these specific dealerships were chosen.

Someone will always complain about some of the closures, but if there is a political angle to some of the closures, it could spell trouble for the remainder, and there’s nothing that the markets hate more than uncertainty.

Closures have to happen, and no one will be happy. That’s why Congress imposed BRAC with respect to base closures. BRAC chose the closures, and Congress voted up or down on the whole lot. It made sense because of the politically sensitive nature of the closures, and since these closures affect thousands of businesses across the nation - not only dealerships, but the real estate companies, property owners, advertising businesses, newspapers, and all kinds of related industries, perhaps a BRAC style setup is warranted, to take the politics (or the appearance thereof) out of the closures since the government controls the companies.

Can you explain the business sense behind these closures?

I haven’t found a good argument in support of them.

For instance, how does a manufacturer benefit from dealerships that it doesn’t own closing?