"They were selling them at a loss because with multiple franchises in the same areas price competition between the franchises were not allowing them to be able to sell vehicles above what it was costing GM to make them (well, in reality what was happening was that GM would spend, (for example) 10 billion on R&D for a new vehicle model, then in mfg they spend (for example) 10 thousand per vehicle to manufacture them with a production run of (for example) 100,000 vehicles of that model. Now in order to recover their total expenses they don't just have to charge the dealers $10,000 per vehicle, but in this case they would have to charge $110,000 per vehicle just to recover their costs without making any profits. But of course, dealers in competition with others in the same area are unable to charge that much, thus are unable to move the product... well, once the production run is started, GM has to have those vehicles moving because they have already committed the capital to R&D and for the parts, etc. for manufacturing... so even though they realize they will take a loss overall, they sell the vehicles to the dealers at $20,000 each. In the end they end up taking a loss though, and that's really what this move is all about is limiting the competition so the dealers can charge more and thus can be charged more.
The only reason this isn't considered price fixing is because GM can do what it wants with it's own franchises... competition still exists within the total market between the makes of vehicles, even though competition between multiple vendors of the same make has been eliminated."
Do you even read over what you write? This makes no sense and is not how the car industry operates. Out of 4000 members your the only one I plan on blocking the view of all of your posts so I never see them again.