Shedding dealers, what it means.

In the news here, have been drastic cuts in the number of dealerships for Chrysler and General Motors products. In the long run it should mean very little. In the short run it will mean that the auto companies should be able to reduce the amount of incentives per car they make to get them sold. Some incidental expenses incurred from doing business with smaller dealers can also be eliminated, and corporate job cuts will be possible without destroying the system. The remaining dealers will make more money next year, because there should be less unsold product on the lots at the end of the model year, and there will be fewer dealers offering deep discounts to compete with. For the consumer in the short run, after a quick sell off by those losing their dealerships, car prices will be higher and it will be less convenient to get warranty service done and more difficult to get problems with service resolved. In the long run the number of dealerships will grow again, assuming the corporations survive. These dealership trimmings in other industries have caused bad feelings, both among the lost dealers and the end consumers. It's a risky strategy, a gamble that by changing the way the corporations relate to their dealers, they will off-set the bad will caused by the short term shortage of dealers. It's not a strategy anyone who ever owned a small business would attempt.

My advice is that if you have a GM or Chrysler car you like, hold on to it. Strongly consider finding an independent repair shop to do your work rather than relying on dealers for the next few years. If you need to buy a new car consider that longer warranties will mean little if you can't get your car scheduled for service in a fashion convenient for you rather than convenient for the dealer.

Laugh of the morning.

In this morning's paper our local movie critic gives a so-so review to Angels & Demons the new "The Da Vinci Code" sequel. http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/movies/articles/2009/05/14/20090514angels0515.html (you'll probably have to sign in to read the whole thing.) The first five paragraphs:

>Catholics concerned that they might be offended by "Angels & Demons" are correct - they will be.
>Not their faith. Their intelligence and taste in movies.
>The thriller based on the book Dan Brown wrote before "The Da Vinci Code" is fast-paced, full of action and utterly implausible.
>So, you say? Isn't "Star Trek?"
>Sure. But it takes place in space.

The italics on the last two words are in the original. Why in the world is it better to have a movie insulting your intelligence, if it's set in space? His review isn't that scathing, but he does give the movie one less star than he gave Star Trek. In the end the reviewer says it doesn't matter what he thinks of it, because A & D will make lots of money anyway, since Brown has lots of fans. (Just like Star Trek.)