In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:58:14 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
>>
>>> That is the textbook definition of supply & demand.
>>
>>The textbook doesn't have supply being manipulated.
> Supply in a demand economy is always manipulated by the supplier.
Not in a free market. In a free market other suppliers step in.
> Only in a command economy are their external forces (government
> oversight or quotas) placed on the supplier. It is only one of many
> ways that the supplier has to ensure that they price for their
> products stay at a price point. Supply & demand also dictates that
> when there is not enough supply to meet demand another supplier is
> free to enter the marketplace.
Yet, other ford dealers can't enter the marketplace and undercut those
adding 20 grand to price because of ford's allotment set up. Not a free
market.
>>So you're fine with market manipulations. You must enjoy $3.20/gallon
>>gasoline then. After all, there are just so many companies with gasoline
>>and they decide how to sell it, how to distribute it, how much to make,
>>wether to maintain their pipelines or not. We don't need gasoline either,
>>we can use other forms of transporation that aren't as enjoyable just we
>>could use a beat up '92 Tempo instead of a '07 GT500.
> No one is manipulating the market for pony cars.
I didn't say anyone was. Any more than you're saying spacemen are telling
you what to post.
> Your to wrapped
> around the axle about a specific product from a specific manufacturer
> in a demand economy.
Not at all.
> You miss the point of we don't need gasoline as in we could use
> alternative fuels.
I already posted nobody needs gasoline.
> A person who doesn't want to pony
> up the going price for a GT500 could go with a different comparable
> vehicle from a different manufacturer. Its the idiots who just have
> to have that first `07 GT500 who will pay for it regardless of the
> price.
It's quite clear what I am saying is beyond your grasp.
>>Ford can keep playing these games they are free to do so, but as we see
>>here, it's turning off it's most loyal customer base. Part of the reason
>>they are ****ter no doubt.
> Nah you are talking about one spaciality vehicle. The reason they are
> in the ****ter is because they are bringing out an entire line of
> vehicles across all price points that are creating the same level of
> interest as just this one is within a specific group of people. My
> Pops could care less about an `07 GT500.
Their general practices across the board. Each year they lose more of
what would be repeat buyers and they aren't bringing in new ones.
>>Don't try to justify this pricing with free market reasoning when it is
>>anything but a free market situation.
> Actually a true free market has to do about tariffs and such so the
> whole discussion is hogwash.
Free market is not the neo-con definition where everything comes to the
US from china and mexico tariff free.
>>> The market always has a choice to reject any non life essential
>>> product that is placed into it. What makes a market free is its
>>> ability to demand or reject products placed into it. No one is forced
>>> to buy GT500's at any price.
>>And as we see, people are rejecting it and rejecting Ford (at least for
>>the short term) as a result. But don't give me and any of the others who
>>find this practice objectionable a line of crap that it's the free market
>>and we have to love it. It's not free market, it's marketing.
> Of course it is part of marketing. Well sir you can't afford this top
> of the line drool over model, but perhaps I could interest you in this
> look a like base Mustang model. You can't drive the GT500 at its top
> performance levels anyhow so why worry about the fact that your not
> rich or famous enough.
Are you trying to make a lame example of a car salesman or being
insulting?