My prediction: OBAMA WILL WIN REELECTION and the Democrats will regain control of congress (while retaining the Senate).

I'm normally impressively accurate with my predictions but I have a notorious blind-spot. When I really want a political prediction to come true I tend to overestimate its likelihood.

So with that caveat in mind, here's my most recent prediction: OBAMA WILL WIN REELECTION AND THE DEMOCRATS WILL REGAIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS (and retain the Senate). It won't be as dominating as 2008 but it also won't be a "squeeker-close" election either.

That doesn't mean we Democrats can slack-off because the GOP will have an obscene amount of corporate-sponsored SuperPac money with which to obfuscate/lie in endless ads. Not to mention pernicious GOP-led voter-suppression of Democratic-leaning constituencies coupled with assorted other shady variables unfortunately could make it go the other way. But I really think, in a fair campaign, the GOP has virtually no win this year primarily because of the following factors:

1) Obama's record is objectively pretty good: ending Iraq war, killed Bin Laden, saved GM, economy is improving, etc. (especially compared to GWBush's trajectory). Americans know that it takes time for policies to take effect. I like Rep. Xavier Becerra's line "even Superman needed some track to stop the train."

2) The current crop of GOP candidates (Romney/Gingrich/Santorum) and their donors/puppeteers have become too extreme and far too Right-wing for Americans to stomach. Their bubble-living world is too far removed from the current voting public. It's crazy that the GOP are publicly advocating for the 1% and against regulations in the wake of the Wall Street meltdown on GWBush's watch.

Old School/Previous Republicans had largely similar views (though they were much more willing to compromise) but they had the political savvy to LIE and put forth progressive-sounding platforms that included "Compassionate Conservatism". Being too blatantly anti-progressive puts today's extremist Republicans at odds with the truly progressive majority of the American public (defined using policy positions not self-identifying bogus "branding" at which the GOP is so effective).

3) The Liberal American population has become (and will continue to become) more Liberal (e.g. embracing democratizing technology, not offended by pornography, ever more pro-science/anti-religion, accepting of gays, tolerant of drug use, anti-corporate power etc.).

Also the American population has become more Black and Latino. Over the past few decades, conservative old white Republicans die of old age. Meanwhile Democrat-leaning Blacks & Latinos have been giving birth to more and more American children at higher rates than Republican-leaning whites do. Since the GOP continues to be so blatantly anti-minority (re: immigration, help for the poor which disproportionally affects minorities etc.), the GOP necessarily is giving up an increasingly significant slice of the electorate.

Now Obama has foolishly taken the Latinos for granted (so far abandoning his promise on immigration reform and shockingly increasing deportations compared to GWBush). But luckily for Obama, the GOP is so much worse for Latinos that he can and will get away with it. Nevertheless, I think Obama, in his second term, should create a "path to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants who have been living here for over a decade.

>>>

EVIDENCE FOR MY PREDICTION:

a) Conspicuous absence of "Tea Party" protestors and overall lack of GOP enthusiasm in the public square. Especially compare that with the highly motivated and undeterred OWS movement.

b) Low voter turnout in GOP primaries & caucuses.

c) Anecdotal evidence in my personal life: Fewer and fewer instances of previously Republican-leaning friends protesting against Obama and predicting his defeat.

>>>

CAVEAT: My prediction is based "ceteris paribus" on the forseeable future. If unemployment somehow spikes or if there are some other unpredictable events (terrorism attack etc.) then my prediction should be weighted and evaluated accordingly.

>>>

FINAL NOTE: The only realistic hope the GOP will have is if they nominate Marco Rubio (American-born from Cuban parents) and he is somehow able to moderate the GOP's anti-immigrant stance in the campaign (perhaps with the support of Agri-business and other industries which substantially rely on illegal workers to function).


.

Don't Let Your Side Use Deceptive Arguments

Don't Let Your Side Use Deceptive Arguments

2,000 years ago (heck, maybe only 200 years ago) it was possible for a single human being to know virtually everything there was to know at the time. One could be expert on everything because there simply wasn't so much to know.

Since then there has been an increasing "division of labor" which has enabled accelerated advancements in ever more subjects.

Today it's impossible to know everything (the world has just grown too complex). So humans rely on "Experts/Authorities", "Paradigms" (mental assumptions & models) and "Heuristics" (mental short cuts) to navigate life and solve problems.

But avoiding critical thinking and relying on such experts, assumptions and short-cuts leaves us vulnerable to fallacies.

If a person has survived (and especially if he has thrived) he naturally assumes his paradigms and heuristics are effective. Consequently, when he encounters evidence that is contrary to his predictions he must naturally first assume that evidence is somehow flawed. This is as it should be. It would be untenable for people to immediately abandon their world views whenever they first encounter contrary evidence. Because, after all, that particular piece of evidence could indeed be flawed, fabricated or insignificant compared to the preponderance of evidence at large.

We should all agree, however, that it is therefore continually necessary for all of us to ensure we are using the most effective experts/paradigms/heuristics available. If we repeatedly encounter evidence that is contrary to our paradigms then that should lead us to question their effectiveness and require us to consider other possibilities. If another paradigm is more effective at explaining the world and, most crucially, better at predicting the future then we have a duty to accept it (until an even more accurate system arises). Indeed that is the essence of "The Scientific Method" which has brought humanity such amazing progress.

All of the above is so intuitively obvious and proven and unanimously accepted by literally all reasonable people that this post may seem superfluous.

But now I ask you to take a bit of a (hopefully somewhat original) new leap with me:

Given the above is true, I contend that those who repeatedly make bad predictions or speciously argue claims that are ultimately disproved should necessarily be distrusted. And, perhaps more importantly, the paradigms held by such people should be questioned first and investigated most thoroughly because they are highly likely to be wrong.

In short: If your "side" has a disproportionally large percentage of liars and ineffective prognosticators then you should probably question the "side" itself and whether you want to be on it.

The people who have an honest and accurate view of the world and consequently make better predictions needn't lie nor make deceptive arguments in political debates.

------------------
OK, I tried to make the above as non-partisan as possible so that my Republican friends would be willing to consider it (and its ramifications).

But now I'm gonna get "Liberal/Progressive"...

Somebody should make a website with video clips & pictures of all of the presidential campaign ads with crucial follow-up.

Show what Obama promised in his ads and what he delivered (also noting where he fell short). Then show the crazy "doom" the GOP supporters predicted in their ads if Obama won (e.g. "3am Phone Call", "Kenyan/Muslim" etc.) and how virtually NONE of that happened.

Do the same for GWBush vs. Kerry and also GWBush vs. Gore and also Clinton vs. Dole and also Clinton vs. GBushI.

NOTE: It is practically worthless to fantasize about "counterfactuals" (fictions about how someone thinks history "would have gone" in an alternate timeline where a different choice was made). A counterfactual is utterly unprovable in any direction (for the reality-based delorean-less population).

What would be the result of this glorious website?
I would bet the majority of its visitors would fairly recognize how relatively terrible the GOP is at predicting the future (with results often going entirely opposite of their predictions) and how the Democrats are substantially more effective (albeit too timid when governing and overly optimistic about the efficacy of its policies).


--------

WARNING: ONLY THE BIGGEST POLICY WONKS & ECONOMIC NERDS SHOULD CONTINUE READING...

A very smart and successful friend of mine is an active member of the Republican party in notoriously conservative (and wealthy) Orange County, California. He earnestly believed that "government regulation" is the biggest problem for Americans. He cited an SBA report that absurdly claimed that regulations cost America $1.75 Trillion (out of our $14.5 Trillion economy) and so I actually read the entire report.

That SBA report was embarrassingly specious on the whole. While it validly mentioned $281 Billion for environmental regulations (conceivably higher than it "should" be), $75 Billion for OSHA (which didn't seem crazy high IMHO) and $160 Billion for "Tax Compliance" (which seems to me to be way higher than it "should"), it then laughably added $1.23 Trillion in "economic regulation cost" by magically multiplying the World Bank's Regulatory Quality Index (which itself doesn't even claim to measure the regulatory costs other than "Environmental/OSHA/TaxCompliance") by the size of our economy (i.e. they used their own dubious and complex equation, that includes an artificial variable derived from another dubious & complex equation, and then basically multiplied by $14.5 trillion = WTF?).

That fundamentally flawed SBA report makes no effort to discount "double counting" (q.v. how can it determine the $1.23 trillion of artificially calculated costs doesn't already include Environmental/OSH/TaxCompliance costs?). But those aren't even the most flawed parts of the SBA's conclusion.

Get this: In that SBA report's very first paragraph it writes - "Regulations are needed to provide the rules and structure for societies to properly function. This research, while mindful of this fact, does not consider the benefits of federal regulations…" <<<That's in its own words!

Don't forget: Many, if not most, of those trade tariffs clearly HELP American businesses profit by making their international competition more expensive.
That SBA report speciously cites "Economic Regulations (based on the WB's RQI)" and yet makes NO EFFORT to calculate how much those regulations help American businesses.
It would be like saying Apple is a poorly run company because its Liabilities totaled $40 Billion and ignoring that its assets totaled $116 Billion.
 
In every remotely fair analysis of literally anything one must count the "PROs" and also the "CONs".

If one only measures one without the other then the conclusions must be viewed hyper-skeptically until the flip-side is fairly researched. This is so shockingly obvious that I feel like I'm condescending to you, dear reader. It should be the most basic "given" that having a trial where only the prosecution is heard from and the defense gets no say is fundamentally ridiculous. Even attempting to argue your point without at least citing the counter-arguments must be seen as sophomoric and not worthy of serious attention.

If I'm the first to write this then I hope I get quoted with the following: "Public policy debate should not be like advertising a fashion product. Art & Fashion are subjective so its marketing can't practically be "falsified". Whereas Public Policy Debate requires knowable truths and must actively eject deception."

And, of course, anyone who "knows better" but still deliberately makes deceptive arguments or promotes provably-false information should be ignored in public debate by all reasonable people. There must be a price for such damaging deception and in a free society that price can't be literal censorship because "Shunning" by other authorities can be just as effective.

FINAL NOTE:
Everyone should understand the difference between the following concepts...
• "Lie" = an untruth told by someone who knows the truth
• "Error" = an untruth told by someone who doesn't know the truth
• "Broken Promise" = an unfulfilled action by someone who predicted he would complete it
• "Bad Prediction" = an eventuality that runs contrary to someone's prophecy
Consequently, Obama didn't "lie" when he said the stimulus would drop unemployment to 8%. He simply made a bad prediction (albeit one that is not so terribly far off all things considered). Contrast that with GOP doom predictions if Clinton's tax hikes were enacted (which were followed by massive economic growth) and GWBush's predictions about what would happen if supply-side economics were further enacted (tax cuts for the top and the resulting Great Recession of 2007/8).


------------------

LINKS:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paradigm
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual




.

Liberals Do Not Oppose Capitalism

SUBJECT: Liberals Do Not Oppose Capitalism

FAIR WARNING: I meander into a bunch of different points with this post. I hope to polish it later and repost. (So your feedback in requested and appreciated).

INTRO:

A very well-educated conservative friend of mine sent me a link to a Cato Institute essay by Robert Nozick entitled "Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism" (1998).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

I'm always glad to get a thoughtful invitation to sample my political opposition's sources first hand. Too much "echo chamber" is terrible for a productive debate.

I question the very premise of that essay. I contend that it's unfair to frame this debate as "intellectuals (liberals) opposing capitalism". I'm very liberal by most standards and I run in such left-wing, Hollywood circles that it's virtually a cliche. So I hope that lends me some credence when I strongly state this: I very rarely encounter anyone who is opposed to capitalism full stop. I think that population is microscopic even among self-identified Liberals.

Much more prevalent, by at least an order of magnitude, is the typical liberal who opposes "Unregulated Capitalism" or "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" or "Free Trade". I think that is a massive distinction. You are free to argue that anything other than an extreme Libertarian's definition of capitalism is "not capitalism". But if you do then be prepared to be alienated from the overwhelming majority of Americans. 

You can try to make your case that life would be better overall if we embraced "Unregulated Capitalism" and entirely rejected any social safety net. But you won't win any wide elections admitting that you want to abolish Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, SNAP, Public Education, FDA, EPA etc. 

Heck, as of 01/27/12, Ron Paul can't even win a plurality of the GOP vote in highly conservative sates.

NOTE: I previously made a similar point about the GOP's politically-expedient shifting definition of "Socialism".

http://corpania.blogspot.com/2010/11/republicans-shifting-definition-of.html

That established, I think that Nozick's argument is flawed and falsified by the facts. 

Here is my perspective...

1) Liberals (and especially Liberal Intellectuals) rarely begrudge undeniably productive/innovative icons like Larry Page (founder of Google) or Steven Spielberg for their wealth. There is very little envy and instead there exists substantial appreciation of or pride in their achievements (if not motivating inspiration). The same respect cannot be said of Philip Knight (q.v. Nike's overseas child labor problems) or the average Wall Street banker (primarily because of the bailouts that are seen as "reverse Robin Hood" taking taxes from the underpaid school teachers to subsidize the bankers unmerited bonuses).

Why can Liberals draw such a distinction between Larry page and a Wall Street Banker? If Nozick's argument were perfectly true then there would be no such distinction. However, Nozick may be on to something regarding the very fact that liberals make such distinctions at all. 

2) Nozick makes a layperson psychological assessment of Intellectuals feeling "entitled" to success they have not achieved and resentful of the less-inteligent who become successful. To be sure, if that were the case then that would be difficult to defend assuming we, as we generally claim, aspire to a meritocracy. "Potential" shouldn't be rewarded because what you do with that potential is so much more important. Consequently, it is "Achievement" which should be rewarded (in order to encourage more achievement, not to mention the obvious morality of it).

And so, the bigger issue presents itself: Have we created a truly meritocratic system that best encourages achievement?

If we haven't done so then some people's gains, by definition, are inherently illegitimate (at least compared to the ideal). 

This is summed up with the legendary Chester Karrass book title: "In Business, as in Life, You Don't get What You Deserve. You Get What You Negotiate."

Since we must conclude that not everyone is a master negotiator, some people must be getting more than they deserve and other less than they deserve.

Examples: 

• Is the $150k per year Bentley salesman really providing triple the utility to society compared to the $50k per year Fire Fighter?

• How can it be good that the School Psychologist (Guidance Counselor) with a Masters in Social Work makes less than the Dog Groomer to the Stars?

• Why should the Mutual Fund Manager looking after $1 Billion in investments make over 100x what a US Air Force Pilot makes flying a $1 Billion Stealth Bomber?

http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-should-wall-street-trader-make-more.html

One idealistic solution is to turn everyone into a better negotiator. This would be tantamount to making everyone a better poker player until the skill differential reduced to virtually nothing and the game became purely one of luck. Though with negotiation skills more equally distributed, the person's actual benefit to society should be better represented in her compensation. But how much effort work would that take and wouldn't that energy be better used in "growing the pie"?

SIDE NOTE FOR YOU: For your own good you should know the essentials of negotiation (which is much more than mere brinksmanship).

Here's a starting point > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation

My quick negotiating tips: 

i) Research (what others pay for a similar thing and what your negotiating opponent normally prices it at)

ii) Sell (get your opponent excited about making the deal, initially go for "win-win".)

iii) Know your range (best case / worst case) before you meet.

iv) Give away as little leverage as possible: Try to get them to make the first offer but if that's impossible, always lowball when buying or ask big when selling and then demand either acceptance or a counter-offer. 

v) Don't negotiate against yourself: (don't compulsively fill the silence, make them fill the silence).

But who wants the whole world haggling all the time on literally everything?

Arguably, capitalism particularly thrived with the advent of the "standard price" (as opposed to the inefficient, slow & tailored-the-customer Bazaar pricing).

A more effective solution, IMHO, is to evolve our economy to become ever more meritocratic. This requires us to recalibrate & redirect incentives and few systems are equipped to handle that better than the Federal Government.

----------------------

CRUCIAL SIDE NOTE FOR ME:

I am in the process of formulating a grand theory that is not yet ready for its own post. 

In short: Because economics shapes policy by what it measures, I think there should be a new measure of productivity/prosperity beyond GDP (Gross Domestic Product and its outdated Agricultural/Industrial/Service sectors troika) that specifically excludes "non-productive" sectors (like War, which actually benefits no one, and "zero-sum" businesses like Wall Street & Insurance & SNL's Commercial Parody about ROBOT INSURANCE).

In a less pejorative economic paradigm all businesses could be classified into these 3 groups: 

a) Productive (e.g. Farms, Manufacturers, Creative Pursuits, & Services that tangibly increase happiness >>> that which "grows the pie")

b) Protective (e.g. Police, Military, Security, Lifeguards, & some Healthcare >>> that which"preserves the pie")

c) Partitioning (e.g. Lawyers, Courts, Accounting, Banking, & Insurance >>> that which "divides the pie")

THE BENEFIT OF THIS KIND OF PARADIGM: By concerning ourselves with these different kinds of productivity we can better identify (and thus defend against) the growing problem of being an unproductive society overly reliant on Wall Street instead of actually making things. Ideally, we would be reducing "Protective" and "Partitioning" sectors down to as small as possible while directing resources (human resources & investment) into "Productive" pursuits.

FACT: "From 1990 to 2006, the GDP share of the financial sector in the broad sense increased in the United States from 23% to 31%, or by 8 percentage points." - http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp081119.htm

----------------------

3) Given the following:

a) it is inevitable that China's economy will surpass America's (because they have triple the population and a faster growth rate)

b) America's advantage over the rest of the world in education has slipped with no evidence it will change direction

c) America's advantage over the rest of the world in manufacturing has slipped with little evidence it can change direction

>>> We should take a serious look at our approach to the concept of "Comparative Advantage" and what works best for Americans ("Free Trade" vs. "Fair Trade"). The goal of government must be to protect & enhance the lives of its citizens. Increasing the profitability of nationless corporations should only be pursued insofar as it enhances the lives of the nation's citizens.

4) Let's assume, for a moment, that generally the smartest kids go to Harvard. It should then scare us all that such a shockingly high percentage (30% to 45% depending on the year) go to work on Wall Street. Assuming they do it for the money, wouldn't it be better if we created more lucrative incentives for the smartest to become inventors, innovators, engineers, scientists, researchers?

NOTE: That is related to my old refrain that "Free Market Capitalists" should stop taking credit for American prosperity when it was the inventors, engineers and scientific researchers who actually made life better (in the form of computers, air conditioners, medical cures etc.). Because almost no one would give up their current life of technological advancement if given the choice to go back in time and be Pharaoh of Egypt. Sure you could roll around in gold and have women worship you (which is understandably desirable) but one infected cut could kill you. Life keeps getting better because of technological progress.

----------------------

ALSO NOTE: This is all substantially related to my still inchoate concept of "Productive Wealth".

http://corpania.blogspot.com/2006/12/corpanias-theory-of-productive-wealth.html

Corpania's Guide to Buying a New Car

Many of you know that I'm an "aspiring polymath". And I do indeed have substantial knowledge on myriad subjects. Case in point...

BACKGROUND: Over a decade ago, for 4 weeks, I was a car salesman in the legendary 'major leagues' of car sales: Cerritos Auto Square (which is the largest collection of big car dealerships in the world). I had one week of amazingly eye-opening training and then went on to become the second highest seller (by units) and the second lowest (by profit) out of the over two dozen salesmen. I was moving a lot of cars by giving customers really good deals (which massively hurt my personal commission).  

The dealership allowed its finance guys to slimely "repack" a few of my deals (e.g. They advertized 1.9% financing and I sold a car for a decent price that enabled a fair commision for me. But then they rearranged the terms with the customer that didn't actually lower the customer's monthly payment but, on paper, did lower the agreed-upon sale price (and thus my commission) while simultaneously and equivalently increasing the loan rate thus increasing their paper-profit on financing alone (in short: they increasied the finance guy's commision at my expense). I hated it all around and so I quit. But I learned a lot about negotiations and, of course, car sales. I have since kept-up a bit reading how that industry has evolved up to now.

So here's some nerdy advice for buying new cars...

First determine which car your want.

Then research to lock the lowest price and then lock the best financing terms.

ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHICH CAR YOU WANT...

(if not check out tips for finding the right car for you: http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/10-steps-to-finding-the-right-car-for-you.html )

AND ASSUMING YOU HAVE A LOT OF TIME & ENERGY TO HUNT FOR THE BEST DEAL...

1) Find out the dealer invoice price on the exact car you want (it's ideal if that car is "in stock" at a local dealership). Go to Kelley's Blue Book - http://www.kbb.com/ and http://Edmunds.com AND THEN CHECK THE CURRENT INCENTIVES: http://www.edmunds.com/car-incentives/

NOTE: Print everything out and bring them with you to establish your credibility & savvy with the salesman. 

2) Try to get lucky by searching for your desired car on the local dealerships' individual websites. Often their "internet deals" (that are designed to attract customers) are better than anything you could negotiate on your own. You might as well also check http://Cars.com , http://CarsDirect.com and their competitors.

3) On one of the last days of the month (when they're trying to hit their goals/bonuses), go to a big local dealership (it can't hurt to check their Better Business Bureau rating on http://www.bbb.org/us/ ). Test drive the car to determine if you indeed want it or not. If they have different options on your test drive car then be sure to use your iPhone/Android Smartphone to check the web for the invoice price on that one with those options. NOTE FOR SoCal RESIDENTS: Cerritos Auto Square is really the biggest collection of large car dealerships in the world. Theoretically you can get the best deal there because of the volume. But be forewarned, they also have the biggest shark salesmen.

4) After the test drive, the salesman will likely invite you to sit down inside to discuss the deal. When he asks "How much do you want to spend on this car?" then you reply with a price that is no more than $500 over "dealer invoice" price (or, more importantly, the effective dealer price considering their current incentives - whichever price is lower) for that exact car (regardless of their higher sticker price or MSRP or even Edmond's "True Market Value"-> remember that dealerships get numerous additional hidden incentives/bonuses from the manufacturer to sell you the car, like for every 29 they order sometimes they can get a 30th car delivered for free).

This "$500 over lowest effective dealer invoice price" reasonable lowball offer might mean a $100 commission for the salesman personally (not to mention get him closer to his own bonus goals) so it is totally fair. You can offer even less (e.g. only $100 over lowest invoice, but then the salesman might make a mere $20 so his pride could get in the way). Consequently, determine whatever your first lowball offer is, make it to the salesman, then close your mouth and wait for his response (don't negotiate against yourself).

5) If he says "You can do better than that." then you can playfully reply with industry jargon "Just make this deal quick so I can give you a perfect score on the CSI and you can get another 'up'. Otherwise I'll go elsewhere." 

NOTE: They do care about the "Customer Satisfaction Index" surveys. And an "up" is like an "at bat" in baseball. A car salesman is lucky to get 3 "ups" per day and often actually sells fewer than 10 cars per month. 

> Or you can simply and politely say "Ok, if you don't want my business then I have to say good-bye. Thank you for your time." and then ACTUALLY LEAVE the dealership. It is very unlikely that he will let you leave without at least running your offer by the sales manager. If he does let you leave then call ahead to other dealerships to check if they have your desired car in stock and try to buy from them. 

6) More likely, one or more dealerships will come back with a counter-offer that is somewhere between their list price and your lowball offer. Unless the car is in crazy demand you should be able to get it for no more than $500 over invoice price (or effective price considering current factory to dealer incentives whichever is lower). Stick to your guns, this is a hard negotiation and as the buyer you have the leverage (especially in this economy). 

NOTE: The more flexible you are on color and features the lower the profit you can offer the dealership. But, in any event, only buy the car you are actually happy with since saving an extra $100 or so won't likely bring you continued happiness on a car you don't like.

7) If every dealership lets you leave then remember that one of them will likely call you back later with a better offer. If they don't call you back and you do return then you should be aware that they will think they have real negotiating leverage on you (which will likely hurt your deal).

8) Before you actually test drive any car, get your FICO scores (e.g. from MyFico.com)  to see how good your credit rating is. Anything over 700 should easily entitle you to the best possible loan terms. Between 700 and 600 there can be substantial variance. Below 600 gets pretty damn bad. Below 550 means scary onerous interest rates. 

9) It's good to check with your bank (and others) beforehand to see what interest rate they would give you to buy a new car. Dealership financing is a big profit center for them. They regularly find banks to finance your loan at a low interest rate and then sell it to you for a higher interest rate and pocket that difference as profit (often more than the profit difference between what they paid the manufacturer and what you ostensibly paid them). 

NOTE: Even if you get a great deal on the price you can still get burned on the financing (e.g. Depending on the loan amount, accepting an 8% interest rate when you were entitled to 4% could easily mean unnecessarily giving up thousands of dollars of your money in extra profit to the dealership over a 5-year loan).

10) Be sure to double-check whatever interest rate the dealership offers you with your own "loan calculator". Here's a good one...

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/auto/auto-loan-calculator.aspx

NOTE: If their monthly payment offer is higher than what the calculator says it should be then they just tried to trick you by raising the sale price when they finalized the interest rate. SO ALWAYS CHECK THE MATH!  

P.S. There are additional special considerations if you're:

a) trading in your old car

b) leasing

c) buying a very high-end brand

d) considering dealer add-ons or extended warranties

So do plenty of research.

My friends should always feel free to hit me up for personal advice (on any topic, really).

NOTE: For even nerdier tips check out these websites... 

• http://www.carinfo.com/carbuyingtips.html
• http://www.fightingchance.com/
• http://www.carbuyingtips.com/
• http://www.insidercarsecrets.com/financing.html 

GOOD LUCK AND GOOD KARMA TO YOU.

.