Originally posted by: draggoon01
damn, i missed it. can someone jot down the tricks the dealers were pulling?
While it did expose a couple practices that were borderline fraudulent or illegal, if not over the line, most of it was simply about stupid people implicitly trusting a car dealer to give them the best deal possible.
Lea Thompson spent about 50% of the show making a big deal about a salesman telling a young woman that he would treat her like his own daughter, and when
she failed to negotiate a good deal or even read most of the freaking paperwork before signing on the dotted line, portrayed it as though the salesman was defrauding her. Like..."But what about our salesman's promise to treat her like his own daughter? Did she get a good deal? Our expert says no."
Of course she didn't freaking get a good deal. How can you get a good deal when you don't even know what a good deal is?
Buying a car isn't like shopping for jeans at JC Penney. Well, on second thought, it is somewhat like shopping for jeans at JC Penney. If someone is stupid enough to pay $80 for a pair of jeans they can find elsewhere for $40, where is the "fraud"? Where is the "rip-off"?
While I do not defend outright fraud and deception, the problem with 'exposes' like Thompson's is that they always presume the car dealer (or other business) has an obligation to ensure the consumer receives the best possible deal, and when that doesn't happen, its because the car dealer did something wrong, not the consumer.
It is the obligation of nobody but the consumer to protect what is in the consumer's best interest. When the consumer materially fails that obligation, a business is not obligated to step-in and do it for them. The interests of the car dealer and customer are mutually exclusive and adversarial.
Other countries whose societies understand this fundamental premise of trade and business do not produce large numbers of "suckers". They produce negotiators who come to The Great Land of the Sucker (the United States) because few people understand this fundamental premise. In other societies, if you pay too much for something, its not because you were 'ripped-off', its because
you paid too much. There was no coercive process, you parted with your money of free volition.
In the US, there is no expectation or obligation placed on the consumer to protect their own interests. If they pay too much, its because they were a "victim". This victim mentality further precipitates and guarantees future generations of victims who believe it is the responsibility of someone else to make sure they get a good deal, not their own.