In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>> Absence of a gun to your head is not the definition of a free market.

> You're free NOT to pay the asking price.

That price isn't being set by free market conditions.

>>> The reason the prices are silly right now is there are a few people
>>> willing to pay what I consider and outrageous price for the few
>>> available cars.

>> Didn't I just finish writing that?

> So, why blame the dealer for high prices? It is just as much the fault
> of the buyer.

That's why I called the buyers who paid it morons and idiots. Try to pay
attention.

>>> Once the dealers wade through these buyers and the cars
>>> aren't moving at the current prices they will have to lower the price to
>>> get off the inventory.

>> Maybe.

> If Ford makes enough GT500s this will happen.

Doesn't look like they are going to.

>>> And there will ultimately be a limited number of GT500s.

>> There will ultimately be a limited number of Foci, just as there are a
>> limited number of Tempos and Pintos.

> You seem to think their is a difference in selling a vintage GT500
> verses a 2007 model. Market forces are the same for both cars. If you
> have a problem with a 2007 GT500 selling for $60k then you should have a
> problem with a vintage one selling for $100k.

Market forces are entirely different for a product that is in production
vs. one declared collectable. Any auction house should be able to explain
the difference. And yes, I don't think the vintage ones are worth a 100K.
And once the baby boomers start dying off they won't be any more.

>>> A vintage
>>> GT500 falls under the same supply and demand forces as a 2007 GT500.

>> No it doesn't by the very fact the 2007 GT500 is in production. There
>> will never be another '67 GT500, only less.

> They both fall under the same principle of supply and demand. In a few
> months there will never be another 2007 GT500, only less.

In a year's time you can say that. But there is a free market of vintage
cars because they trade hands privately and nobody is controlling supply.
Let's say Bob and Frank have identical '67 GT500s. Bob needs money bad,
Frank doesn't. Frank is asking a $110K, Bob needs the money sooner and
undercuts Frank, you buy Bob's car for $102K. That doesn't happen in the
new car game when a dealer just has one or two of a car that has any kind
of demand for it and won't get any more. They, like Frank, can just sit
and wait until someone will pay what they ask. They don't have to move
the cars, they can just let them sit and wait for the payoff.

>>> You and I are no different from Ford. We all will take the
>>> highest price for whatever item we are selling.

>> I would weigh permantly ****ing off customers and getting customers to
>> look at vehicles from other manufacturers into the equation. I would
>> consider those long term losses to be more important than the short term
>> gain. But hey, I am not chairman of Ford as it loses billions every
>> quarter. The short term thinking seems to be working out well for them
>> don't you think?

> EVERY dealer does what Ford is doing when they have a super hot limited
> production vehicle. It is what every business does when they have a
> chance to maximize profits. I do it every chance I get.

So you screw over every ignorant customer that walks in your door? Where
do you draw the line on maximizing profits? Where's the line? Or is there
even a line?

> Every time you
> accept a raise you do it too. Ford loosing money right now isn't a
> result of overcharging for their vehicles. They need desirable
> products, IMO. Most people (in fact, nearly all of them) in this
> country could care less what Ford gets for a GT500. They only care
> about what Ford gets from THEM.

My father had a bad chevy once. He didn't get treated well by the chevy
dealer either. That was in 1981. He will never buy a GM car again. Since
1981 no matter what GM makes it doesn't matter, won't even walk into the
dealership. That's what I am getting at.

If you are always seeking to maximize profits now you are going to need a
constant supply of new customers to make up for the ones who later
learned better or felt you were trying to screw them and walked out the
door and bought from someone else. Maximizing profits in the short term
carries a great deal of risk for the long term. Unlike you apparently, I
would consider that.

>>> I don't fault the
>>> dealer for getting the highest price they can command. It is the way
>>> capitalism works.

>> Yes, capitalism in practice is rarely free market. It's about
>> manipulating markets and creating monopolies really.

> It's about beating your competition and making your products desirable.

The beating your competition part is part I was refering to. For example,
microsoft's practices.

>>> I will be ****ed off at Ford if they don't produce
>>> the number of units they have stated.

>> Which is exactly what will happen as people end up buying something else
>> because Ford dealers wanted an extra 20 grand.

> They won't want an extra $20k if the cars are backing up on their lots
> unsold. IMO, this will happen if Ford makes the number of GT500s they
> have stated.

If they don't cancel it for it lack of orders.