Government Motors
The trouble with Washington running a car company
The Edsel was one of the biggest flops in the history of car making. Introduced with great fanfare by Ford in 1958, it had terrible sales and was junked after only three years. But if Congress had been running Ford, the Edsel would still be on the market.
That became clear last week, when Democrats as well as Republicans expressed horror at the notion that bankrupt companies with plummeting sales would need fewer retail sales outlets. At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va)., led the way, asserting, "I honestly don't believe that companies should be allowed to take taxpayer funds for a bailout and then leave it to local dealers and their customers to fend for themselves."
Supporters of free markets can be grateful to Rockefeller for showing one more reason government shouldn't rescue unsuccessful companies. As it happens, taxpayers are less likely to get their money back if the automakers are barred from paring dealerships. Protecting those dealers merely means putting someone else at risk, and that someone has been sleeping in your bed.
The Constitution guarantees West Virginia two senators, and Rockefeller seems to think it also guarantees the state a fixed supply of car sellers. "Chrysler is eliminating 40 percent of its dealerships in my state," he fumed, "and I have heard that GM will eliminate more than 30 percent." This development raises the ghastly prospect that "some consumers in West Virginia will have to travel much farther distances to get their cars serviced under warranty."
Dealers were on hand to join the chorus. "To be arbitrarily closed with no compensation is wasteful and devastating," said Russell Whatley, owner of a Chrysler outlet in Mineral Wells, Texas.
But unwanted events are one of the hazards of operating in a modern economy that is subject not only to changing consumer preferences but occasional downturns. Absent the Obama administration's rash intervention, Chrysler might well have gone out of business—in which case not only these dealers but all the rest would be left in the lurch.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not supposed to be pleasant for anyone. It's supposed to involve painful and expensive sacrifices that are slightly less dire than the consequences of liquidation.
It should come as no surprise that as these corporations find fewer and fewer buyers for their products, they need fewer car lots. Today, Chrysler sells about half as many vehicles in this country as Toyota, but it has more than twice as many dealers.
Does Rockefeller get complaints from Toyota owners about the grueling trips to get service? Chrysler, by the way, admits that the average customer's drive to the dealer will increase—from 6.67 miles to 7.09 miles.
But once senators get the chance to micromanage business decisions, they are reluctant to pass it up. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), proved that meddlesome government is not a Democratic monopoly. She proposed that Chrysler be forced to give its dealers 60 days to unwind their operations instead of less than a month, as the company decided.
Hutchison fondly recalled that when she was selling ads for the high school football program in her teen years, a car dealer provided the school's first sale. Retailers should be accommodated, she insists, because they have "nothing to do with the cost of the company."
But CEO Fritz Henderson, whose job, unlike hers, actually depends on knowledge of his company's cost structure, said the support GM provides to dealers amounts to about $1,000 per vehicle—a figure that would be lower with a downsized network. Cost aside, the companies say an excess of dealers means some can't make enough money to serve customers well, damaging their brands.
While lamenting the fate of the unfortunate dealerships that will be dropped, the senators overlooked another group that will be deeply affected by the closures—the remaining dealers. They can expect to capture more sales, boost their profits, and even provide new jobs in sales and service.
One Detroit-area Chrysler dealer told a local newspaper that he plans to add at least 30 employees to his staff of 85. When that happens, don't expect a Senate hearing for them to express their gratitude.
Now that Washington has intervened to rescue these corporations, it can easily justify reviewing and even reversing their business decisions. But, as the senators proved, having the excuse is not the same as having the competence.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No way! I get to start this thread, awesome... although... there is some pressure... should I go witty, cutting, insightful... tough call.
Anyway, these putzes on the hill are always making the case for term limits and/or legislative duty being doled out like jury duty.
I went with pithy BTW
The Constitution guarantees West Virginia two senators, and Rockefeller seems to think it also guarantees the state a fixed supply of car sellers.
Snark noted, but the notion that Rockefeller et al. give a damn one way or another if their whims are Constitutional in anachronistic.
"is" anachronistic
The only reason I have questioned the dealer closings at all is because no one can explain to me exactly how closing the dealerships has saved Chrysler and GM any money.
The dealers maintain their own P and L's and balance sheets. For all practical purposes, they are effectively commission-only salespeople who get no benefits. What benefit does a company gain from firing commission-only salespeople who get no benefits? I honestly am mystified.
In another sense, the dealers aren't salespeople at all, but the customers of the manufacturers. And their ONLY customers. No one but companies making fleet purchases actually buys a car from GM or Chrysler. The dealer buys the car from GM or Chrysler and you buy the car from the dealer. Looked at this way, it's not even a case of a company firing commission-only salespeople, which would be confusing enough. It's a case of a company without enough sales sending out mail to many of their customers saying, "Fuck you, don't buy our cars any more!" And that REALLY doesn't make any sense to me.
Can someone educate me on this and explain the benefit the manufacturers are actually going to receive from thinning out the dealer base? Because I don't see it.
Fluffy, according to the article, GM spends about $1k in "support costs" for every car on the dealers' lots. It's not a complete answer to your question, but it's something.
I think it really has to do with the state laws regarding dealers, and saving Chrysler and GM from an avalanche of lawsuits.
I don't know the details of the dealer cost structure. I honestly don't know why the manufacturers can't just announce to their dealers, "Here's the deal; we're going to stop overproducing vehicles by the millions and shoveling them out the door. That means you guys are going to have to compete with each other for inventory. If you can make money under the new system, good. If you can't, adios."
Didn't the administration have a huge hand in deciding to close these dealerships? (and which ones) I assume Fluffy's answer lies in the administrations faithful belief in the efficacy of central planning.
GM spends about $1k in "support costs" for every car on the dealers' lots.
Unless GM is subsidizing fixed costs of dealers, I don't see how closing dealers helps.
Perhaps GM is thinking that, by thinning the dealer herd, it can create local monopolies for their products, and increase the price that way? Stupid as a bag of rocks, but it sounds like the kind of blinkered thinking GM would do.
There are costs involved in maintaining a large dealer network. The dealer pays a franchise fee to be given a sales territory then the manufacture provides them with training, sales matrerials, advertising support. Dealers aren't just straight commissioned sales people. I can't just buy an empty lot call myself a dealer and start selling new cars.
below is a link to a blog describing costs associated with dealer support. It sees reasonable but I cannot guarantee it's accuracy.
http://fakeconsultant.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/on-cutting-dealerships-or-we-examine-the-costs-of-selling-cars/
In micromanagement of business by politicians, aren't political considerations likely to play a large role? I wonder, how many of the closed dealerships are owned by Republicians or by Democrats who failed to support Obama early enough during the campaign? Over time, how closely will Obama's political moves in this and other economic areas resemble Illinois' machine politics?
I saw what I think is most likely Government Motors' first national TV ad last night during the basketball game, and I actually felt embarrassed for them.
But not enough to buy one of their cars.
We all knew this was coming. Wait till the economic savants on the hill start getting involved with plant closings. GM and Chrysler CEOs might just as well set up an office in DC and telecommute to Detroit to attempt run their companies.
Maybe we'll have to create a dealership and automotive plant closing commission.
No, no, JsubD-
All they have to do is explain the situation calmly and rationally; it's not like Congress the Board of Directors is going to fall for any of that, "But they owe us a living!" crap.
Fluffy, I think that the cost is in the maintenance/warranty area not the sales area. These dealerships have on-site warranty coverage and they have to certify all of the workers and such so that if someone doesn't buy the repair parts/labor directly from GM/C then they can claim they voided the warranty and no longer honor it. If Russell Whatley from Texas wants to keep buying cars from Chrysler to sell I can't see them telling him no, but he would have to sell them sans-warranty.
That picture is really creepy. The eyeballs are obviously doctored. I think it's a racist statement about our Glorious Leader.
So much for the government not running GM and Chrysler.
One more step toward socialism! Woo Hoo!
There are costs involved in maintaining a large dealer network. The dealer pays a franchise fee to be given a sales territory then the manufacture provides them with training, sales matrerials, advertising support. Dealers aren't just straight commissioned sales people. I can't just buy an empty lot call myself a dealer and start selling new cars.
below is a link to a blog describing costs associated with dealer support. It sees reasonable but I cannot guarantee it's accufffffffffffffffracy.
http://fakeconsultant.wordpres.....ling-cars/
is good