2008 November 08 Saturday
GMAC Puts High Bar For Car Credit Applicants

The General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) has raised its lending standards for auto loans. As a result at least 40% of the population of the state of California have credit scores too low to qualify for an auto loan from GMAC.

GMAC said it will now only lend money to buyers with credit scores better than 700, near the top. It's also financing a smaller portion of the car's value, requiring buyers to make bigger down-payments.

"Scores under 700, that's at least 40% of the population of this state," California New Car Dealers' president Welch told CNNMoney.

What I would like to know: the credit rating distribution of the population of each American state and the trends for credit rating distribution per state. What will credit ratings look like 10, 20, 30 years from now? I'm expecting a decline in average credit ratings for demographic reasons. Whites who have higher average credit scores are a declining percentage of the population. Whereas blacks and Hispanics who have lower average credit scores are rising fractions of the US population. What does this portend for future car sales?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 November 08 01:45 PM  Economics Transportation

Big BIll said at November 8, 2008 2:43 PM:

I think it means smaller and cheaper cars and more scooters.

I live in an illegal alien infested area and they are starting to downsize.

The construction jobs they took from us are all gone, and they are losing their king cab pickups.

Fewer of them descend on our public parks and blast mariachi music and drug dealer songs, too. Good deal.

No donkeys like they have back home (yet) but who knows what the future holds.

I look forward to the change since I think everyone would be a lot safer if they were riding home drunk on a donkey instead of a pickup.

averros said at November 8, 2008 3:31 PM:

What that means is that GM sees drastically lower sales, and, therefore, has huge losses - so it can go and get money for free from the socialists in powers.

clayton said at November 8, 2008 5:57 PM:

repeating that oft repeated line is so boring. They are pigs at a trough that they have paid to feed on. Another law for you, another law for them!
It's not socialism, it's capital, It's power and guess what, you have neither

averros said at November 8, 2008 7:32 PM:

> repeating that oft repeated line is so boring.

Oh, does it make this statement any less true? (I bet you heard that 2x2=4 even more often.)

You're confusing capitalism (which is a system built on strong property rights and voluntary exchange) with the current system of soft fascism (which involves property rights violation on a truly massive scale by the government politicans and their "capitalist" cronies).

By the way, "nazi" is an abbreviation from "national socialism" - fascism is a socialist movement, at its core.

Clayton said at November 9, 2008 5:09 PM:

>Oh, does it make this statement any less true? (I bet you heard that 2x2=4 even more often.)

Since it is a lie, and has never been true. It's not socialism it's fascism or the possible creation of a new monarchy.

>By the way, "nazi" is an abbreviation from "national socialism" - fascism is a socialist movement, at its core.

Nazism, hmm yeah that was pretty socialist, maybe they forgot that when they attacked Russia, a socialist state, and sided with Mussolini's Italy a fascist state. Or when they supported franco and his assault on the communist's and socialist in the spanish civil war. If they had named themselves the happy go luckies, would you then equate people who behave in a happy go lucky fashion, as mass murdering tyrants? The same is true for when conservatives do not behave conservatively and progressives behave like backwards apes. Choosing a name for your party, does not necessarily reflect your parties true values. I love it when people call Nazi's liberals. Because Nazis really were all about diversity. Really they were, they just confused umfassen und umbringen. it's a common mistake.

from wikipedia
Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist ideology that advocates itself as being a third position alternative to both capitalism and communism.[1][2] It seeks to form a mass movement of militants who are willing to engage in violence against their political opponents and groups or individuals that the movement deems to be enemies.[3] Fascist movements threaten or utilize revolution against governments in order to allow the movement to gain power.[4] Fascists wish to solve existing economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.[5][6][7][8][9]

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism (including collectivism and populism based on nationalist values); Third Position (including class collaboration, corporatism, economic planning, mixed economy, national socialism, national syndicalism, protectionism,); totalitarianism (including dictatorship, indoctrination, major social interventionism, and statism); and militarism.[10][11] Fascism opposes communism, liberalism and conservatism.[12][6][5][13][14][15][16][17]

When the government is acting in the interest of these corporations over the interest of you and me. This is not socialism it is corporatism. Just as bad if not worse, since we are now going to be saddled with the burden of their mistakes. This is not socialism, if the government took over the companies and began running them, then that would be socialism. a bailout with out recourse is a middle finger to everybody who doesn't donate millions to campaign causes.

You really should use the right terms to describe something. Since we use a mixed economy
# ^ How the U.S. Economy Works article says "The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles. Indeed, some of the most enduring debates of American economic history focus on the relative roles of the public and private sectors. The American free enterprise system emphasizes private ownership. Private businesses produce most goods and services, and almost two-thirds of the nation's total economic output goes to individuals for personal use (the remaining one-third is bought by government and business). The consumer role is so great, in fact, that the nation is sometimes characterized as having a 'consumer economy'."

I personally believe that if we need to cut spending, temporarily raise taxes back to 2000 levels, pay off the debt and then lower taxes on people like me, not millionaires. If we paid off our debt, we could lower taxes by a full 1/3. What an amazing concept.

Randall Parker said at November 9, 2008 5:30 PM:


Regards raising taxes and cutting spending and paying off all the debt: I am surprised that we totally agree. I thought we were further apart.


How can you create a libertarian utopia when the bulk of humanity disagrees with your values and beliefs? Have you considered the possibility that libertarianism isn't compatible with human nature for most humans?

Clayton said at November 10, 2008 8:52 PM:


We are probably a lot closer in opinion on many issues. And miles apart on others. I come from a left leaning background of smaller government. I also think the end results that we want are probably pretty similar, it is the manner in which we arrive at a place were you and I can choose our own pathway to success, and not have anybody interfering with it, governmental or mercantile.

I do tend to typically disagree with you on race issues. for two reasons. Averages are not laws like gravity. I would hate to see possible advances in medicine or tech or what ever out of fear for racial reasons. Let the cream rise to the top, don't suppress it (affirmative action is such a complicated issue I am not gonna touch it here, and I am not referencing it here either). All I have to say is blood transfusions and peanuts and black holes. In my line of work I am constantly seeing new data on how environment (in this case food) can play with genes. fish consumption and murder rates, inversely proportional.

I do agree with you on immigration. But I also think that NAFTA is not only bad for our trade deficits it's been shown to hurt the natives of other part of the world. We need policies that strengthen our borders and stop supporting businesses with our tax dollars that can't compete by any other way than getting a government handout, or having brutal working conditions outside our border. I do believe in do no harm, along with swift retribution. Get rid of jails, bring on the whips and canning. Punishment needs to be unusual, and it should hurt. yada yada yada.

Bob Badour said at November 11, 2008 11:08 AM:


You kinda lost me toward the end there. NAFTA involves exactly 3 countries. What parts of the world has it hurt? From what I have seen, it has been mutually beneficial to Canada and the US by lowering the costs of resolving trade disputes between the two countries.

You seem to be saying that caning a criminal is better than physically removing that criminal from civil society. How does caning reduce the opportunity to victimize the rest of us? How does caning reduce the criminal's fecundity?

Randall Parker said at November 11, 2008 5:59 PM:


I also take exception to your caning proposal. I think high impulsivity people and people who derive great pleasure for hurting others aren't going to be deterred by caning.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright