"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

That change would be "cost-effective" only if GM could recover the
costs of doing so; how do you propose they do that?

There are vehicles like Escalades all over the place. If GM can sell
those to people whose biggest load is $100 worth of groceries, 2 kids
and a soccer ball, they can sell anything, anytime. You remember what
P.T. Barnum said, right? :-)



So,what you are saying is that you want "someone" to decide what the
public
should be sold.(other than the public themselves)

Again,Soviet-style economics.

Not "sold". "Told". Anything is better than nothing.




So,you want the gov't to tell the salespeople how they must sell their
products?

Let's put it this way:

If a really good salesperson did a fabulous job of asking you questions, and
made sure you understand EXACTLY what you were getting into, you'd probably
walk away and say (maybe to your wife) "Wow....I wish they were all that
good".

The government is not going to create good salespeople, but I see nothing
wrong with the government asking car makers (or dealers, depending on who's
responsible for local training) to include a bit more in the qualification
process, other than "Duh...do youse have a trade-in and how's you gonna pay
for dis?"