azoomm |
05-31-2010 12:40 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
(Post 378036)
big oil's intent was most likely exactly what you think, however isint it far more likely that gm independantly decided that the car was not at that time viable/profitable and acted in its best interests to recoup losses and limit their liability?
im actually counting on morons pulling that, cant wait for local stations to cut prices
|
Oh, I don't like tinfoil hats. I'm not a fan and don't look good in them :lol: I just find it really curious.
It was only introduced in LA. And then, the reason cited by GM was "lack of consumer interest." Even when EVERY driver that had one wanted to purchase and formed a coilition to stop the destruction of the cars. They offered GM more than retail in one big check for the remaining cars - to be turned down. All the cars were taken to GM's test track and crushed [where they still remain].
Back to the thread topic. I'm sad this happened to BP. It's part of the law of averages and something was BOUND to happen. They are the largest offshore agency in the world - if someone was going to have something happen, it would be them. It's also curious to me that Schlumberger and TransOcean aren't anywhere in the news.....
|