A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Greedy *******s.....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 28th 06, 06:45 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 272
Default Greedy *******s.....

Brent P wrote:
> 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.


Fact is you are free to purchase what you choose that is available in
the market. You are also free to start your own car company if you want
to compete or supply a product that doesn't currently exist. Whatever
point you are attempting to make here, I'm not seeing the relevance to
the topic at hand.

>>>> 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.


I am but you're rather hard to follow. What exactly is your problem
with the dealer if the buyer is ultimately responsible for high prices?

>>>> 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.


I doubt anyone knows the answer to this right now. Not even Ford.

>>>> 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.


You're having a very hard time understanding the relationship between
supply and demand and their effects on pricing. When those baby boomers
start dying what happens to demand? What happens to supply? Then what
happens to pricing? Get it now? The same thing is happening with the
2007 GT500. High demand for a limited supply means higher prices.
Whether it is GT500s, rare paintings, Nike shoes or gasoline the same
principle applies.

>>>> 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.


What happens if a dealer never lowers the price and the car never sells?
Do you think he will sit on the car for 20 years or maybe forever? If
there is no buyer for the asking price it won't sell, period. The price
will be lowered until a buyer is found. The demand for GT500s will
fluctuate over time and so will the price.

Everything you stated above involves a seller, a buyer and a demand for
the product. Whatever motivates a particular buyer and seller is what
sets the price. If the owner of a vintage GT500 lowers the price of his
car to $50k when the average market value is, say, $100k then guess what
will happen? The demand for HIS car will skyrocket. If enough buyers
find out about it then they will push the price up and send it to near
the market value. The rules of supply and demand applies to ANYTHING
that is sold in a competitive market.

>>>> 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?


Are you going to turn down your next raise? If not then YOU are
maximizing your profits. Why chastise Ford, or any business for that
matter, that is doing the same thing you are? Your position seems a
little hypocritical to me. It is the dealer's right to apply any
marketing strategy they choose to maximize profits. If their methods
cost them buyers then they will see a drop in demand for their products.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of car buyers could care
less if a given dealer sold a GT500 to some idiot for $100k. All they
care about is what Ford is charging THEM.

>> 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.


And by his choice he is ever so slightly effecting the demand for Chevy
products. If this occurs with enough buyers then Chevy will see a drop
in demand. Not buying a product is the consumer's way of letting their
voice be heard.

> 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.


There is one huge fault in your logic here. You are assuming every
buyer is dissatisfied with the transaction. Do you think the guy that
paid $60k for his 2007 GT500 is ****ed off at Ford? I bet he is driving
around with a big grin on his face. I bet most people that buy a new
car will say they paid a fair price. Why would they buy a new vehicle
otherwise? There are too many choices for the consumer in the car/truck
market for someone to feel they were overcharged. Once again, supply
and demand forces will keep prices in check.

>>>> 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.


If you don't like Microsoft then buy an Apple or use Linux. If
Microsoft ****es off enough people then they will loose market share.
In the end, it is the consumer that makes or breaks Microsoft or any
other company.

>>>> 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.


That is one of Ford's options.
Ads
  #22  
Old October 29th 06, 03:17 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Greedy *******s.....

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> If we were talking about Ford Escorts or Taurus's I might agree, but
> this is a limited production specialty vehicle that not a single
> person on earth *needs* to have.


Nobody needs a car of any kind if you want to get down to it and play the
need game. So basically what you're saying is that you find it acceptable
to call a manipulated market a free market if it's a certain kind of
product.

> By definition the whole point of this
> kind of vehicle is that they are scarce and overpriced and intended
> for people with more money then they have a need for.


So, you think a Mustang GT should be $45K ? How much for a V6? Remember
some people see even a base V6 as frivious vehicle. Maybe you should
consider a used geo metro, something sensible you know.

> I suppose you
> can call it market manipulation but it's certainly not the same kind
> of manipulation for greedy and nefarious purposes as the oil price
> game is. Ford isn't trying to manipulate a mid-term congressional
> election outcome they way the oil companies are doing.


Ford (and GM, and others) does attempt to manipulate automotive regulations
however.

  #23  
Old October 29th 06, 03:42 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Greedy *******s.....

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> 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.

>
> Fact is you are free to purchase what you choose that is available in
> the market. You are also free to start your own car company if you want
> to compete or supply a product that doesn't currently exist. Whatever
> point you are attempting to make here, I'm not seeing the relevance to
> the topic at hand.


And there might be life on Mars! Which is about as relevant to the topic
at hand as your 'point' above.

My point, is that this 'it's the free market' defense of dealer market up is
not valid. It's not. It's anything but free market competition. If it
were free market competition the cars wouldn't be going through dealer
allotments. Dealers would actually compete with each other to make sales
rather than just wait for suckers.

>>> 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.


> I am but you're rather hard to follow.


Most everyone else seems to follow it.

> What exactly is your problem
> with the dealer if the buyer is ultimately responsible for high prices?


My 'problem' is that people are calling this situation a result of 'free
market' forces. It's not.

>>> If Ford makes enough GT500s this will happen.


>> Doesn't look like they are going to.


> I doubt anyone knows the answer to this right now. Not even Ford.


"Look like" isn't knowing the answer, it's a projection, a guess.

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


>> 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.


> You're having a very hard time understanding the relationship between
> supply and demand and their effects on pricing.


I understand it very well thank you very much.

> When those baby boomers start dying what happens to demand? What
> happens to supply? Then what happens to pricing? Get it now?


I get it quite well. However that doesn't make 20K profit adders at
dealerships the result of a free market.

> The same thing is happening with the 2007 GT500. High demand for a
> limited supply means higher prices.


Have open ordering at all ford dealerships. Order until hitting the
limiting production part. Guess what will happen? Prices will fall
because people can then go to the dealer down the street that's willing
to sell 150 at MSRP vs 1 at 25K over. The market isn't a free one at
present.

> Whether it is GT500s, rare paintings, Nike shoes or gasoline the same
> principle applies.


But just it applying doesn't mean it's a 'free' market.

> What happens if a dealer never lowers the price and the car never sells?
> Do you think he will sit on the car for 20 years or maybe forever? If
> there is no buyer for the asking price it won't sell, period. The price
> will be lowered until a buyer is found. The demand for GT500s will
> fluctuate over time and so will the price.


The population of morons with more money than sense is well distributed
around the country to ensure that every dealership will be able to find
one or two such people. The cars are on _allotment_ that means there's no
real competition between dealers because a dealer cannot sell more than
his allotment. It changes the dynamic entirely. It's not a free market
situation, it's more like communist style rationing. Such rationing
always in the end results in shortages and in many cases very high prices.

If ford wasn't rationing the production to the dealers, dealers would
sell the car freely. Dealer A would try to make money on volume, dealer B
might try to sell a couple at way over sticker. There would be
competition. Orders could start flooding in and Ford might decide they
should dedicate more mustang production to this higher profit margin
version. Instead ford rations, and we get something that is the result of
central planning.

Grasping the difference now?

>>> 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?


> Are you going to turn down your next raise?


My salary could double and my employer will still be getting a bargin.

> If not then YOU are maximizing your profits.


You seem to like asking questions but not answering them.

> Why chastise Ford, or any business for that matter, that is doing the
> same thing you are?


I am chastising the members of this group who think that this is a free
market situation because they don't have the brains to realize that
rationing isn't free market. And if you ask me, maximizing profit would
be selling this car at MSRP to everyone who will buy it at this price.
Maximum profit isn't at maximum price. It's a clever balance of volume
and price and to the competition. But obviously your mind can't grasp it
any deeper than the simplistic get more per unit now mentality.

> Your position seems a
> little hypocritical to me. It is the dealer's right to apply any
> marketing strategy they choose to maximize profits. If their methods
> cost them buyers then they will see a drop in demand for their products.


Good for them, and if this was a free market situation things would be
different. Instead we are dealing with a rationed product.

> The fact is that the overwhelming majority of car buyers could care
> less if a given dealer sold a GT500 to some idiot for $100k. All they
> care about is what Ford is charging THEM.


The overwhelming majority of car buyers wouldn't give a rats ass about
anything a ford dealer has or what it was priced at.... You seem to enjoy
introducing things that have about as much relevance as what killed the
dinosaurs.

>> 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.


> There is one huge fault in your logic here. You are assuming every
> buyer is dissatisfied with the transaction. Do you think the guy that
> paid $60k for his 2007 GT500 is ****ed off at Ford? I bet he is driving
> around with a big grin on his face. I bet most people that buy a new
> car will say they paid a fair price. Why would they buy a new vehicle
> otherwise? There are too many choices for the consumer in the car/truck
> market for someone to feel they were overcharged. Once again, supply
> and demand forces will keep prices in check.


So it's ok to screw people if they don't know any better in your view.
Glad I had that right. When the buyer wakes up when the interior wears
like a V6 mustang's he's going to think he got screwed.... But if you
understood that then you wouldn't have replied as above.

>>>> 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.


> If you don't like Microsoft then buy an Apple or use Linux. If
> Microsoft ****es off enough people then they will loose market share.
> In the end, it is the consumer that makes or breaks Microsoft or any
> other company.


You don't get it.

Microsoft to PC builder: If you offer Linux we won't sell windows to you
and you'll lose most of your business.

Get it now? Probably not. You probably consider that an ethical business
practice to maximize profit.

  #24  
Old October 29th 06, 06:12 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 272
Default Greedy *******s.....

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> 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.

>> Fact is you are free to purchase what you choose that is available in
>> the market. You are also free to start your own car company if you want
>> to compete or supply a product that doesn't currently exist. Whatever
>> point you are attempting to make here, I'm not seeing the relevance to
>> the topic at hand.

>
> And there might be life on Mars! Which is about as relevant to the topic
> at hand as your 'point' above.
>
> My point, is that this 'it's the free market' defense of dealer market up is
> not valid. It's not. It's anything but free market competition. If it
> were free market competition the cars wouldn't be going through dealer
> allotments. Dealers would actually compete with each other to make sales
> rather than just wait for suckers.


The market price of any Ford vehicle is virtually unaffected by dealer
allotments. The allotment system for popular vehicles is Ford's way of
rewarding certain dealers for their performance and not as a way of
controlling prices. The price is set by what the consumer is willing to
pay.

You are applying the free market definition to a very specific company
and a very narrow circumstance. You are not obliged to buy a GT500.
You have the ability to choose a Corvette, Mercedes, BMW or any other
car you choose as a substitute if you aren't willing to pay a dealer's
price. This is the free market, or supply and demand, forces at play
that really sets the price of a GT500. You need to take off your
blinders and see the entire playing field. Then you might see how
supply and demand, along with the dealer's, and Ford's, right to
maximize profits is determining the price of the GT500. This isn't a
rare case. It happens with nearly every item we purchase.

>>>> 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.

>
>> I am but you're rather hard to follow.

>
> Most everyone else seems to follow it.


Have you read all the posts in this thread?

>> What exactly is your problem
>> with the dealer if the buyer is ultimately responsible for high prices?

>
> My 'problem' is that people are calling this situation a result of 'free
> market' forces. It's not.


See above.

>>>> If Ford makes enough GT500s this will happen.

>
>>> Doesn't look like they are going to.

>
>> I doubt anyone knows the answer to this right now. Not even Ford.

>
> "Look like" isn't knowing the answer, it's a projection, a guess.


And just how do you know enough to even remotely use the term "looks
like"? I know I don't know enough to use it. All I know is what they
have stated.

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

>
>>> 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.

>
>> You're having a very hard time understanding the relationship between
>> supply and demand and their effects on pricing.

>
> I understand it very well thank you very much.


OK. If you say so.

>> When those baby boomers start dying what happens to demand? What
>> happens to supply? Then what happens to pricing? Get it now?

>
> I get it quite well. However that doesn't make 20K profit adders at
> dealerships the result of a free market.


See my first response above. I'm getting tired of explaining it. The
free market extends way beyond Ford and its dealer network.

>> The same thing is happening with the 2007 GT500. High demand for a
>> limited supply means higher prices.

>
> Have open ordering at all ford dealerships. Order until hitting the
> limiting production part. Guess what will happen? Prices will fall
> because people can then go to the dealer down the street that's willing
> to sell 150 at MSRP vs 1 at 25K over. The market isn't a free one at
> present.


And you are free to scour the country looking for a deal on a GT500 too.
What's the difference? The pricing for both vehicles are effected by
free market forces and the dealer's, and Ford's, right to maximize
profits. Just like it is with every other item you buy, such as toothpaste.

>> Whether it is GT500s, rare paintings, Nike shoes or gasoline the same
>> principle applies.

>
> But just it applying doesn't mean it's a 'free' market.


You have a real mental block on this.

>> What happens if a dealer never lowers the price and the car never sells?
>> Do you think he will sit on the car for 20 years or maybe forever? If
>> there is no buyer for the asking price it won't sell, period. The price
>> will be lowered until a buyer is found. The demand for GT500s will
>> fluctuate over time and so will the price.

>
> The population of morons with more money than sense is well distributed
> around the country to ensure that every dealership will be able to find
> one or two such people. The cars are on _allotment_ that means there's no
> real competition between dealers because a dealer cannot sell more than
> his allotment. It changes the dynamic entirely. It's not a free market
> situation, it's more like communist style rationing. Such rationing
> always in the end results in shortages and in many cases very high prices.


It's SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!! Dealers don't have to compete right now
because the demand is far outstripping the supply!!! Allotment has
nothing to do with it. Communist style rationing?!?!? You are way off
the reservation now. Maybe that would be true if the only choice we had
was buying GT500s from Ford.

> If ford wasn't rationing the production to the dealers, dealers would
> sell the car freely. Dealer A would try to make money on volume, dealer B
> might try to sell a couple at way over sticker. There would be
> competition. Orders could start flooding in and Ford might decide they
> should dedicate more mustang production to this higher profit margin
> version. Instead ford rations, and we get something that is the result of
> central planning.
>
> Grasping the difference now?


You need to stop looking at this in a microcosm. The free market goes
way beyond Ford and its network of dealers. You are free to buy what
ever car make and model you choose and there are a multitude to choose
from. That is how the free market, along with Ford's and the dealer's
right to make a profit, is setting the price of the GT500.

Are you grasping the concept now?

>>>> 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?

>
>> Are you going to turn down your next raise?

>
> My salary could double and my employer will still be getting a bargin.


That is YOUR opinion. Others may not agree. Just like you don't agree
with the value dealers put on a GT500. I guess you aren't going to let
your employer reduce your salary if he thinks you are overpaid?

>> If not then YOU are maximizing your profits.

>
> You seem to like asking questions but not answering them.


Sometimes a question is really an answer.

>> Why chastise Ford, or any business for that matter, that is doing the
>> same thing you are?

>
> I am chastising the members of this group who think that this is a free
> market situation because they don't have the brains to realize that
> rationing isn't free market. And if you ask me, maximizing profit would
> be selling this car at MSRP to everyone who will buy it at this price.
> Maximum profit isn't at maximum price. It's a clever balance of volume
> and price and to the competition. But obviously your mind can't grasp it
> any deeper than the simplistic get more per unit now mentality.


As I stated above, you need to see the broad picture to understand the
free market is at play here. Ford has every right to operate in
whatever way they think is best. They also have every right to go
bankrupt if they choose wrong. It happens in a free market. How do you
know they are wrong with their handling of the GT500? I don't have
access to their accounting records. Do you?

>> Your position seems a
>> little hypocritical to me. It is the dealer's right to apply any
>> marketing strategy they choose to maximize profits. If their methods
>> cost them buyers then they will see a drop in demand for their products.

>
> Good for them, and if this was a free market situation things would be
> different. Instead we are dealing with a rationed product.


You do realize there is far more to a free market than just Ford's
internal functions?

>> The fact is that the overwhelming majority of car buyers could care
>> less if a given dealer sold a GT500 to some idiot for $100k. All they
>> care about is what Ford is charging THEM.

>
> The overwhelming majority of car buyers wouldn't give a rats ass about
> anything a ford dealer has or what it was priced at.... You seem to enjoy
> introducing things that have about as much relevance as what killed the
> dinosaurs.


Didn't you say that Ford's way of handling the GT500 would alienate
buyers and their loyal customer base? In case you forgot here's what
you typed previously:

"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?"

Maybe that was someone else.

>>> 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.

>
>> There is one huge fault in your logic here. You are assuming every
>> buyer is dissatisfied with the transaction. Do you think the guy that
>> paid $60k for his 2007 GT500 is ****ed off at Ford? I bet he is driving
>> around with a big grin on his face. I bet most people that buy a new
>> car will say they paid a fair price. Why would they buy a new vehicle
>> otherwise? There are too many choices for the consumer in the car/truck
>> market for someone to feel they were overcharged. Once again, supply
>> and demand forces will keep prices in check.

>
> So it's ok to screw people if they don't know any better in your view.
> Glad I had that right. When the buyer wakes up when the interior wears
> like a V6 mustang's he's going to think he got screwed.... But if you
> understood that then you wouldn't have replied as above.


The buyer has no obligation to educate himself before heading out to a
dealer to purchase a car? Nothing is keeping him from buying a Mercedes
if he is concerned about the wear of the interior of a GT500. Just how
is Ford, or a dealer, "screwing" any buyer of a GT500 when it is their
choice to buy the car? I'm sure the first time a GT500 buyer plants the
accelerator to the floor he will realize just why he paid that price
premium. Last thing on his mind will be, "I wonder how well this
interior will wear?"

>>>>> 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.

>
>> If you don't like Microsoft then buy an Apple or use Linux. If
>> Microsoft ****es off enough people then they will loose market share.
>> In the end, it is the consumer that makes or breaks Microsoft or any
>> other company.

>
> You don't get it.


This, evidently, is where you and I have much in common.

> Microsoft to PC builder: If you offer Linux we won't sell windows to you
> and you'll lose most of your business.


Wouldn't have anything to do with the consumer preferring Windows as an
operating system? Besides Microsoft got their hands slapped for this
little escapade. How does this relate to Ford and their dealers selling
GT500s? I don't see them setting up a sports car monopoly.

> Get it now? Probably not. You probably consider that an ethical business
> practice to maximize profit.


Don't forget to donate that next raise you get to the Red Cross. We
wouldn't want to think you are greedy now, would we?
  #25  
Old October 29th 06, 07:18 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Greedy *******s.....

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> The market price of any Ford vehicle is virtually unaffected by dealer
> allotments.


Rationing affects market price.

> The allotment system for popular vehicles is Ford's way of
> rewarding certain dealers for their performance and not as a way of
> controlling prices. The price is set by what the consumer is willing to
> pay.


Yes, it rewards the dealers by rationing the goods which increases their
price and dealer profit should the dealer do so. If the cars were not
rationed, the dealers that sold at MSRP would drive down the market
price. But since they are rationed, the MSRP selling dealerships run
through their allotments quickly allowing the others to add 20K to the
sticker.

> You are applying the free market definition to a very specific company
> and a very narrow circumstance.


Let's see, you and others are telling me it's the free market and I
should love it. It's not a free market situation. It's a rationing
situation.

> You are not obliged to buy a GT500.


I haven't stated otherwise and I am growing quite tired at this continual
sidetrack of yours. That doesn't change the fact that the additional
profit dealers are tacking on does not come from a free market situation.

> You have the ability to choose a Corvette, Mercedes, BMW or any other
> car you choose as a substitute if you aren't willing to pay a dealer's
> price.


And that's likely what will happen.

> This is the free market, or supply and demand, forces at play
> that really sets the price of a GT500.


But there is no free market between _independently owned_ Ford dealers.

> You need to take off your
> blinders and see the entire playing field.


I see the whole field thank you very much. Could you please stop
constructing this strawman?

> Then you might see how
> supply and demand, along with the dealer's, and Ford's, right to
> maximize profits is determining the price of the GT500. This isn't a
> rare case. It happens with nearly every item we purchase.


Ford isn't maximizing anything but their losses. MSRP is where _FORD_
thinks it will _MAXIMIZE_ it's profits. If Ford thought that maximium
profits were at $65K, that's what MSRP would be.

Then again look who I am discussing this with, someone who thinks highest
unit price is always maximum profit. It's not.

<snip, unread>


  #26  
Old October 29th 06, 08:36 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 272
Default Greedy *******s.....

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> The market price of any Ford vehicle is virtually unaffected by dealer
>> allotments.

>
> Rationing affects market price.


You're all over the map. Rationing? WTH are you talking about? This
isn't 1942.

>> The allotment system for popular vehicles is Ford's way of
>> rewarding certain dealers for their performance and not as a way of
>> controlling prices. The price is set by what the consumer is willing to
>> pay.

>
> Yes, it rewards the dealers by rationing the goods which increases their
> price and dealer profit should the dealer do so. If the cars were not
> rationed, the dealers that sold at MSRP would drive down the market
> price. But since they are rationed, the MSRP selling dealerships run
> through their allotments quickly allowing the others to add 20K to the
> sticker.


And this is how ford chooses to operate... IN A FREE MARKET!!! Ford is
not THE market. It is a competitor in the market place.

>> You are applying the free market definition to a very specific company
>> and a very narrow circumstance.

>
> Let's see, you and others are telling me it's the free market and I
> should love it. It's not a free market situation. It's a rationing
> situation.


Your first clue that you are wrong is in your above statement. We are
all wrong and you are right? Is rationing your new buzz word? What was
wrong with allotment? Do you expect Ford to market the GT500 like it
does an F150?

>> You are not obliged to buy a GT500.

>
> I haven't stated otherwise and I am growing quite tired at this continual
> sidetrack of yours. That doesn't change the fact that the additional
> profit dealers are tacking on does not come from a free market situation.


You say there is no free market and I have thoroughly explained that
there is. What is the side track? You do realize Ford operates in a
free market here and has many competitors for all their makes and
models? You think Toyota doesn't maximize profits too. I know the
owner of three Toyota dealerships personally and I can confirm that he
does. They all do it and it is done in a free market. No one dealer or
automaker is the free market on there own. I just don't see what is so
difficult in grasping this concept.

>> You have the ability to choose a Corvette, Mercedes, BMW or any other
>> car you choose as a substitute if you aren't willing to pay a dealer's
>> price.

>
> And that's likely what will happen.


You realize you are part of the free market at work, don't you?

>> This is the free market, or supply and demand, forces at play
>> that really sets the price of a GT500.

>
> But there is no free market between _independently owned_ Ford dealers.


And Ford and its dealers don't constitute a free market on their own.
They are one part of the overall free market system.

>> You need to take off your
>> blinders and see the entire playing field.

>
> I see the whole field thank you very much. Could you please stop
> constructing this strawman?


Straw man? What are you talking about now? Every time you get boxed
into a corner you play the "straw man" card. The only straw man here is
you claiming Ford and its dealers can, and should, operate as a free
market internally.

>> Then you might see how
>> supply and demand, along with the dealer's, and Ford's, right to
>> maximize profits is determining the price of the GT500. This isn't a
>> rare case. It happens with nearly every item we purchase.

>
> Ford isn't maximizing anything but their losses. MSRP is where _FORD_
> thinks it will _MAXIMIZE_ it's profits. If Ford thought that maximium
> profits were at $65K, that's what MSRP would be.


You are once again assuming to know way more than you actually do.
Neither of us know what combination of sales price and volume will
maximize profits. I doubt Ford even knows it until the dust settles.

Ford has decided to sell X number of cars to the dealers for Y price.
They can compute their profits based on these numbers. The dealers are
now trying to maximize their profits by probing the market place with
prices they think will fly based on the current demand. MSRP means
nothing to a dealer right now for the GT500. It is what Ford has stated
is their belief of the car's market value. This isn't based on the
initial demand but over the entire year's production and anticipated
total demand for the car. You make Ford out to be some evil corporation
ripping off its customers when they are just like every other auto
maker. I guess a reasonable profit is OK as long as it meets your idea
of reasonable?

> Then again look who I am discussing this with, someone who thinks highest
> unit price is always maximum profit. It's not.


There you go again, assuming you know way more than you actually do.
Where in this thread have I stated what you just claimed? I took enough
economics courses in college to know the relationship between price,
product quantity, demand and profit. Plus I have owned two businesses
selling goods and services in a competitive market so I know a little
about their combined effect on profits.

BTW, I was looking forward to your rationalization of how you maximizing
your income shouldn't be considered an act of greed on your part. I
thought it might give me some insight regarding why you think dealers
are greedy for maximizing their profits and you, OTOH, are not when
maximizing your income.
  #27  
Old October 29th 06, 09:43 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Greedy *******s.....

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>> The market price of any Ford vehicle is virtually unaffected by dealer
>>> allotments.

>>
>> Rationing affects market price.

>
> You're all over the map. Rationing? WTH are you talking about? This
> isn't 1942.


Allotments are a form of rationing. Dammit grow a clue.

>>> The allotment system for popular vehicles is Ford's way of
>>> rewarding certain dealers for their performance and not as a way of
>>> controlling prices. The price is set by what the consumer is willing to
>>> pay.

>>
>> Yes, it rewards the dealers by rationing the goods which increases their
>> price and dealer profit should the dealer do so. If the cars were not
>> rationed, the dealers that sold at MSRP would drive down the market
>> price. But since they are rationed, the MSRP selling dealerships run
>> through their allotments quickly allowing the others to add 20K to the
>> sticker.


> And this is how ford chooses to operate... IN A FREE MARKET!!! Ford is
> not THE market. It is a competitor in the market place.


Walmart, Kmart, and Target sell the same products. All these products
have various list prices (MSRPs). In a free market they compete with each
other. Why shouldn't BillyBob's Ford vs. dingleville Ford vs. Shelbyville
AutoMall compete with each other?

>>> You are applying the free market definition to a very specific company
>>> and a very narrow circumstance.


>> Let's see, you and others are telling me it's the free market and I
>> should love it. It's not a free market situation. It's a rationing
>> situation.


> Your first clue that you are wrong is in your above statement. We are
> all wrong and you are right?


We being you and the voices in your head?

> Is rationing your new buzz word? What was wrong with allotment?


Because when I used allotment you couldn't figure it out. So I used a
term closer to the economic model being followed.

> Do you expect Ford to market the GT500 like it does an F150?


If they want to maximize profits.

>>> You are not obliged to buy a GT500.


>> I haven't stated otherwise and I am growing quite tired at this continual
>> sidetrack of yours. That doesn't change the fact that the additional
>> profit dealers are tacking on does not come from a free market situation.


> You say there is no free market and I have thoroughly explained that
> there is.


You haven't shown anything of the sort.

> What is the side track?


The sidetrack is your insulting crap about not knowing I could choose a
non-ford product.

> You do realize Ford operates in a
> free market here and has many competitors for all their makes and
> models?


You're not grasping it and are choosing to be insulting rather than
figure it out. Another example: Circuit City and Best Buy compete
selling Sony TVs. Sure you chould choose to buy one made by Sharp, but
these retailers still compete to sell Sonys.

That's why the GT500 isn't a free market, but one with rationing
(allotment). Billybob Ford isn't competing with Shelbyville AutoMall
because of the rationing.

> You think Toyota doesn't maximize profits too. I know the
> owner of three Toyota dealerships personally and I can confirm that he
> does. They all do it and it is done in a free market. No one dealer or
> automaker is the free market on there own. I just don't see what is so
> difficult in grasping this concept.


Toyota dealers don't compete with each other? If dealers aren't to
compete with each other they should become owned by the manufacturer.

>>> You have the ability to choose a Corvette, Mercedes, BMW or any other
>>> car you choose as a substitute if you aren't willing to pay a dealer's
>>> price.


>> And that's likely what will happen.


> You realize you are part of the free market at work, don't you?


But it isn't your ideal free market setting the price of GT500s, because
BMW and Chevy dealers will be competing with each other to sell the cars
of interest they are selling. Meanwhile, Ford is playing allotments.

>>> This is the free market, or supply and demand, forces at play
>>> that really sets the price of a GT500.


>> But there is no free market between _independently owned_ Ford dealers.


> And Ford and its dealers don't constitute a free market on their own.
> They are one part of the overall free market system.


Dealerships are independently owned businesses. They compete with each
other the same way Walmart and Target compete with each other selling
colgate toothpaste and whole host of other identical products.

Your argument above would only make sense if they were owned by Ford.

>>> You need to take off your
>>> blinders and see the entire playing field.


>> I see the whole field thank you very much. Could you please stop
>> constructing this strawman?


> Straw man? What are you talking about now? Every time you get boxed
> into a corner you play the "straw man" card.


The strawman being that I am not seeing the entire field. You keep
harping on this and knocking it down and I am rather sick of it.

> The only straw man here is
> you claiming Ford and its dealers can, and should, operate as a free
> market internally.


Have I stated that? I stated that they aren't operating as a free market
with the _independently owned_ dealers. The dealerships are not internal
to ford. They are not owned by ford. They are independent businesses and
are free to stop selling fords and/or start selling chevys or Ladas or
toyotas or whatever they want to.

I've seen some interesting dealerships... like a Chevy and Mazda
dealership. Same company sold Chevys and they sold Mazdas on the same
property with the same salesmen. That's just like Best Buy selling Sony
and Sharp TVs in the same isle. Dealers are _RETAILERS_ They are not
owned or operated by the manufacturer. Manufacturers try to control
retailers as I am sure you'll be quick to point out, have little control
over dealer pricing.

Because the supply of product is not following free market principles,
the retailers can charge more for it due to the artifical scaricity
created by not following a free market system but rather using a
rationing system.

>>> Then you might see how
>>> supply and demand, along with the dealer's, and Ford's, right to
>>> maximize profits is determining the price of the GT500. This isn't a
>>> rare case. It happens with nearly every item we purchase.


>> Ford isn't maximizing anything but their losses. MSRP is where _FORD_
>> thinks it will _MAXIMIZE_ it's profits. If Ford thought that maximium
>> profits were at $65K, that's what MSRP would be.


> You are once again assuming to know way more than you actually do.
> Neither of us know what combination of sales price and volume will
> maximize profits. I doubt Ford even knows it until the dust settles.


I didn't assume anything. MSRP is where the manufacture _THINKS_ maximium
profit point is. It's clear you aren't reading what I write at all, but
skimming a few words and inserting what you wished I had written instead.

> Ford has decided to sell X number of cars to the dealers for Y price.
> They can compute their profits based on these numbers. The dealers are
> now trying to maximize their profits by probing the market place with
> prices they think will fly based on the current demand. MSRP means
> nothing to a dealer right now for the GT500. It is what Ford has stated
> is their belief of the car's market value. This isn't based on the
> initial demand but over the entire year's production and anticipated
> total demand for the car.


> You make Ford out to be some evil corporation
> ripping off its customers when they are just like every other auto
> maker.


I haven't done any such thing. Here you go again making up strawmen.

> I guess a reasonable profit is OK as long as it meets your idea
> of reasonable?


Made no such argument. Why don't you go **** yourself? Seriously, I grow
tired of this continual line of **** from you. You just make up one thing
after another to force me to deal with these stupid tangents.

>> Then again look who I am discussing this with, someone who thinks highest
>> unit price is always maximum profit. It's not.


> There you go again, assuming you know way more than you actually do.
> Where in this thread have I stated what you just claimed?


You've stated that clearly several times.

> I took enough
> economics courses in college to know the relationship between price,
> product quantity, demand and profit.


Then act like it.

> Plus I have owned two businesses
> selling goods and services in a competitive market so I know a little
> about their combined effect on profits.


You've sounded like some who feels happy screwing customers so long as they
don't realize it right away because that's maximum profit per unit.

> BTW, I was looking forward to your rationalization of how you maximizing
> your income shouldn't be considered an act of greed on your part. I
> thought it might give me some insight regarding why you think dealers
> are greedy for maximizing their profits and you, OTOH, are not when
> maximizing your income.


I'm sorry, I am not falling for your side distractions and easy to
knock down strawmen. The fact remains, GT500 pricing is _NOT_ the result
of a free market situation of supply. It's a result of rationed supply.

If my 'raise' is too much, free market allows them to hire another
engineer and fire me. There isn't an allotment of engineers to chicago,
they can encourage someone from WI or even China to come in and work for
less. Now if there were an allotment of engineers for the Chicago area,
my price would skyrocket because there would likely be too few of us
here, but too many in Montana. But that wouldn't be a free market, now
would it?

For instance, say that lumber is needed more in one area of the country.
Lumber prices there will increase and product will be diverted to that
area as lumber mills try to maximize their profits by diverting from
other regional markets. This would stablize and bring down prices in the
region of high demand. But lets say lumber mills stayed true to a
distribution scheme and that area got what they were set to get and not
a bit more. Prices would sky rocket for lumber in that area of the
nation. Going higher and higher and not stablizing because product isn't
being sent to try and satisify demand. That's what happens under
allotment/rationing schemes. This ration, not a bit more or less. Lumber
sits unsold in Chicago but meanwhile in New Orleans housing repair costs
skyrocket for a lack of lumber. That's how allotment markets work, sky
high prices where the allotment isn't enough. Sure, lumber dealers in New
Orleans maximize their profit per unit, but are they really maximizing
their overall profit? How about the mills?

Now exactly how is Ford delivering more GT500s to meet demand and
maximize it's profits? It's not. It's sticking to an allotment scheme and
prices are skyrocketing at the retailer. It's the direct opposite of a free
market where Ford would be encouraged to build more and deliver them to
where they are selling. It's system of rewarding dealerships is causing
it to act _NOT_ to maximize it's profits.







  #29  
Old October 29th 06, 09:28 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Greedy *******s.....

In article >, Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article >, Ashton
>> Crusher wrote:
>>
>>> If we were talking about Ford Escorts or Taurus's I might agree, but
>>> this is a limited production specialty vehicle that not a single
>>> person on earth *needs* to have.

>>
>> Nobody needs a car of any kind if you want to get down to it and play
>> the need game. So basically what you're saying is that you find it
>> acceptable to call a manipulated market a free market if it's a
>> certain kind of product.

>
> You might be a democrat.


ooh.. political labels.

> This is EXACTLY the definition of a 'free market'.


I'm glad you don't understand the concept of retailer competition either.

> You DONT need it, you dont buy it! The GT 500 is every bit as much a
> luxury item as a Jag or a 22 foot pleasure boat.


I don't need a car at all. But if I am to buy a car I expect retailers to
_compete_ with each other in a free market situation. How exactly does
the ford allotment scheme encourage retailers to compete with one
another?

> It wouldnt exist AT ALL if it werent for the base model which is sold on
> a competitve basis... but Central Planning/Price control wonks would say
> the BASE model was frivolous and we all should drive fiats and trabants.
> And pay the same price as a base Mustang for them.


Why don't you read the above that you wrote back to yourself. You just
agreed with me. The base model is sold on a cometitive basis, but the
GT500 is sold on an allotment/rationed basis. The former is a free market
situation, the later is central planing rationing out product.

Meanwhile continue to lose yourself in the idiotic tangent.


  #30  
Old October 29th 06, 10:55 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 272
Default Greedy *******s.....

Look, your head is full of concrete on this matter so let's just agree
to disagree and move on.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.