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

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:47:09 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article <Q9e1h.2170$B44.1855@trndny07>, John C. wrote:
>
>>
>> I see the "allotment scheme" as a step in the right direction. It more
>> evenly distributes the vehicles between dealers.
>
>That's fine so long as we don't pretend that it's a free market like any
>other product that is distributed where ever it's selling.
>

It's a free market. The buyers and sellers determine the price.
Doesn't get more basic then that. You don't like the price then don't
buy it, there are plenty of other cars selling for less.

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

>>Nobody needs a car of any kind if you want to get down to it

> That's just not true. Lots of people need transportation and most
> people (outside these kinds of newsgroups) really don't care all that
> much what they drive, they just need wheels and want something "nice"
> that they can afford. As disposable income rises then "wants" play
> more of a role in addition to "needs".

Horses, boats, trains, buses, bicycles, walking, living closer, lots of
options...

> 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.

> Well duh. Of course there are things that are manipulated markets.
> Every hear of diamonds? Again, something with no real need that
> people buy because they can afford to, not because they "need" them.

Good, then let's not pretend it's an ideal free market.

<snip, unread>

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> How do you know that in the absence of the "manipulated market" for
> the occasional ford specialty car there would even be a ford specialty
> car? If the dealers didn't make a bundle on them would they be
> willing to get their mechanics trained to work on them or to keep
> parts in stock for them? These things don't all exist in a vacuum.

Specialty car? What's that... oooh that's right a marketing term. A
escort hatch back is a specialty car if you think about it the right way.

All you're coming up with is ways you justify the additional profit for
yourself. That doesn't change my objection, which had to with trying to
justify it as being the product of ideal free market forces. You
obviously agree with me there, so there is no point to the rest. Justify
it in your head any way you wish.

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:47:09 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <Q9e1h.2170$B44.1855@trndny07>, John C. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I see the "allotment scheme" as a step in the right direction. It more
>>> evenly distributes the vehicles between dealers.
>>
>>That's fine so long as we don't pretend that it's a free market like any
>>other product that is distributed where ever it's selling.
>>
>
> It's a free market. The buyers and sellers determine the price.
> Doesn't get more basic then that. You don't like the price then don't
> buy it, there are plenty of other cars selling for less.

And in the last two posts you agreed this wasn't do to ideal free market
situation. Of course buyers and sellers determine the price... they do in
the least free of markets as well. How close or far from the ideal it is
determines where that price will be however.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:18:20 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>> The market price of any Ford vehicle is virtually unaffected by dealer
>>> allotments.
>>
>>Rationing affects market price.

> And the Company is 100% "FREE" to do this as a marketing strategy.

Never said they weren't. You folks sure like dragging in tangents and
justifications. None of these tangents or justifications change the
artifical scarcity into an ideal free market.

<more tangents and justifications deleted>

> Now explain to me how the government is collusion with Ford to control
> the supply of GT500's?

Now explain to me how the aliens control George Bush?

It seems you all now understand my point, know it's true but are pulling
anything and everything you can out of your asses to hope to 'win'.
Problem I agree ford is free to do so, I agree we can all choose
something else, etc etc and so forth. But the fact remains, this isn't a
free market model when retailers are not competing with each other.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:

> Exactly what the hell is your point?

I've stated it several times, but if you want to play dumb, simply put
that the current prices are not the result of the ideal free market as
some tried to portray it. Seems everyone grasps that now but has to make
idiotic strawmen like below:

> Should Ford be forced to make as
> many GT500's as they can with no regard to how many they may or may
> not sell at what price point? Should the dealers be forced to sell
> them at MSRP regardless of how much a customer offers for one?

> I really want to know what your point is. You seem to have wandered
> all over the page on this issue without one single person agreeing
> with you.

You are the ones wandering all over the page searching for tangents and
irrelevancies and constructing strawmen like the above to avoid the
simple fact that the 'free market' excuse doesn't hold because the
retailers are not competing with each other due to the allotment scheme.

> You want to be the next Ford CEO?

I couldn't do worse than the last guy.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:45:11 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>In article >, Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>>
>>> I dont believe YOUR logic...the cars are allocated to those dealers which
>>> have done well in sales. they are a limited edition.
>>
>>I see, you fell for the marketing bull****. Now I understand why you two
>>think it's ok... because you bought the instant collectable marketing!
>>It's a car. A production car. It's not a one off boyd custom.
>>It's not the work of Chip Foose. It's a ford that rolled off the
>>assembly line with thousands of similiar fords. The marketeers want to
>>make you think it's _special_ but it's just another new car. Only with the
>>passage of time will it be determined to be special.

> And who says the work of Boyd or Foose is all that special?

It's called making an example... an illustration of a point. grow a
****ing clue already.

> No one
> other then the buyers of those vehicles who place value on them. Same
> for the GT500.

Um the GT500 is a production car, not a one off.

> Their are those who are buying them on spec and hoping
> that over time their value will go up.

People who buy new cars as collector items are well, idiots.

> Their are those who are buying
> them hoping to flip them quick to somebody else with more money then
> sense. Their are also those who will buy them and drove them like
> they stole them, but I bet they are in the minority. Exactly how many
> Prowlers to you see running around on a daily basis? The exact same
> issues and hype surrounded them when they first came out.

Good for the prowler.

None of this changes my point about allotments.

> It isn't a regular production car. It is limited to create both
> demand and interest in both the model & brand. It is part of an
> overall marketing plan.

Doesn't change my point about allotments. Great, they intended to create
artifical scaricity didn't say it wasn't intentional, just said it was!
grow a clue.

>>Didn't say they didn't. Under the allotment scheme they don't have to
>>worry about _free market competition_ from other retailers.

> So what is the issue? What if some dealers under the allotment plan
> allot a GT500 to some of their best customers?

The issue was, certain people in this group who don't understand that
allotment isn't a free market ideal.

To mask that, countless tangents have been introduced. My mere pointing
it out has had me accused of so many different things I've lost track.

> What about the AMG's? Don't they come with a hefty premium? Aren't
> they just modified beyond their factory equipment, yet brand new?

Another irrelvant tangent.

>>> Scarcity and desire dictate the price but that isnt ALL there is to it!

>>I'll explain it to you again.... The allocation is what causes the
>>scarcity. A dealer can sell as many F150s as he wants or can sell. A
>>dealer can only sell as many GT500s as he's been allocated. This
>>fundamentally changes the nature of competition between dealers on the
>>GT500 vs. the F150.

>>The F150 is sold under free market conditions. BillyBob Ford tries to
>>undercut Shelbyville Ford to sell more volume and vice versa. Customers
>>compare to see who offers the better deal. If Billybob Ford is selling
>>the same F150 for $300 more, customers start buying from Shelbyville
>>Ford. Shelbyville Ford makes up for making $300 less per unit by selling
>>far more units.

> But the demand & supply of F150's far outweighs the demand & supply of
> GT500's.

So what? It doesn't change the fact that allocation creates the scarcity.

> Even at MSRP I cannot afford to purchase nor insure one so I
> am not a potential customer. Yet I am a potential customer for a
> F-150.

Well goody for you.

>>Now, on the GT500, shelbyville and Billybob each get 2 units. There are
>>50 people interested in that model at MSRP. What's the point of
>>competing? A condition of articial scarcity now exists because
>>no GT500s will be diverted in from other markets to satisify the demand.

> Again, only 50 customers interested in the 2 GT500's. Thousands
> interested in thousands of F-150's.

Irrelevant to my point.

>If a customer comes in looking
> for a GT500 and is able to be steered into a top of the line Mustang
> GT a sale is still made, profit is still generated and Ford keeps away
> from going belly up for another day.

If someone goes in for a performance car and comes out with a truck
there's a serious problem somewhere.

>>The allocation is _fixed_. Ford could make more, but the allocation
>>scheme is what it is and there are only going to be 4 for the area. Price
>>skyrockets because there is a lack of free market forces to move to
>>satisify demand. Shelbyville ford might think, I can sell 50 of these
>>cars at sticker and make more money... but he can't sell 50 of them
>>because they are allocated. So the price is raised until only 4 people
>>remain interested. Of course there are 2 that went for sticker out in
>>bumbleville but that's because only 2 people in bumbleville were
>>interested....

> Actually Ford didn't have to make the damn car at all. Didn't have to
> allocate any to anyone. Or they could have made 100 of them and put
> them up for direct auction by-passing the entire dealer network
> completely maximizing all profits for themselves. All sorts of
> scenarios exist, however only what has happened is the real case.

They could decide to make toasters tomorrow and end all car production.
But it doesn't change the fact. THe fact is allotment isn't ideal free
market. Allotment creates scarcity and higher prices.

Seems you just want to score usenet points or something replying in this
manner to each one of my posts. Yet, you apparently agree with my point,
allotment creates scarcity.

>>Think about it... has there been any article of a limiting part or a part
>>that was difficult and slow to make on the GT500? Has a disaster taken
>>out the plant that makes the engine? I don't recall one. It's various
>>ford and other vendor production parts put together in one package. It's
>>the allotment scheme that creates the scaricty. It's artifical. There
>>isn't any free market competition between retailers on it.

> Yes there has been one article limiting the production. The overall
> marketing plan. The part you keep forgetting about. The part that
> any company working in a demand economy is free to come up with on
> their own accord without interference from the government.

ANother irelevant tangent. Ford's free to build the cars and then crush
them if it wants to. It's irrelevant to my point, that the marketing plan
isn't one create a free market situation where customers play one
dealership off another, but create artificial scarcity.

>>You accept it because you want to see the car as 'special'. I see it as
>>another production car. I don't go gagga over the shelby name or whatever
>>marketing angle that's being promoted. It's just another production car.
>>Maybe in 30 years time it will be special or maybe just junk like so many
>>other cars.

> And therein lies the overall flaw of your argument. It is the core
> reason why you've been unable to convince anyone else or sway them to
> your side in this debate.

my side? What is is my side in your view?

> Your fundamental logic & premise is flawed.
> Just because it is produced, doesn't make it a "production" car. At
> best it is a "Limited Production" car. Limited being the operative
> word here. It will be made for a short period in small numbers for
> those who think that being exclusive is being something. Everything
> about it's performance capabilities can be reproduced, or exceeded,
> aftermarket, but you won't have an `07 Shelby GT500. If you're a
> label whore that may matter, if your a performance enthusiast it
> won't.

Irrelevant to my point. My point is allotment creates scaricity, that it
is not a free market distribution of product. It seems you all now have
accepted that as fact, so indeed I have brought you all over to my view.
However you all need to save face and introduce creative side tangents
some of them rather insulting like the above with 'label whore' where you
think you can still 'win'.

But in the end, you need to show that allotment of a product brings about
free market competition amung retailers selling that product. When you
can do that, then you win the debate.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:47:09 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>In article <Q9e1h.2170$B44.1855@trndny07>, John C. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I see the "allotment scheme" as a step in the right direction. It more
>>> evenly distributes the vehicles between dealers.
>>
>>That's fine so long as we don't pretend that it's a free market like any
>>other product that is distributed where ever it's selling.
>>
> Or we pretend you know what you are talking about.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Best buy sells a the X400 TV for $400, Circuit city has it for $4500

Who do you buy from?

Now imagine that Best Buy had a manufacturer's allotment of 3 X400 tvs,
and Circuit City had an allotment of 600. Best Buy sold out, who do you
buy from?

Beinging to grasp how allotments are about creating an artifical
scaricity? Not an ideal free market situation by any means.

Corporations in general do not like free markets. They like markets
slanted in their favor. Just because they successfully manipulate a
market doesn't mean it remains 'free'.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:

> How so? There is like a bizzalion of them out there. The ability to
> generate profits by having a staff trained to service them is obvious.
> I suspect that anyone who brings a GT500 into Bubba's Ford is going to
> find that certain parts are not in stock and need to be ordered.
> Additionally your average Billy Bob mechanic may not ever work on one
> in his entire career.

irrelevant to my point....

>>All you're coming up with is ways you justify the additional profit for
>>yourself. That doesn't change my objection, which had to with trying to
>>justify it as being the product of ideal free market forces. You
>>obviously agree with me there, so there is no point to the rest. Justify
>>it in your head any way you wish.

> And you don't generate additional profit for yourself? Do you work
> for minimum wage? So you have an objection, who knows what the basis
> is because you don't even know what a "Free Market" truly is anyway.
> No one has yet to weigh in on this discussion agreeing with you. Is
> your entire life like this?

Irrelevant to my point and increasingly insulting to cover up the fact
you don't get it.

A free market means that retailers compete with each other. Allotments
short circuit that. It's a simple concept that doesn't need people
chiming in. Why I haven't left you to your ignorance myself is a bit of a
mystery even to me.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> Seeing as how he hasn't gotten one person to agree with him it is easy
> to see how.

Does a fixed allotment create scaricty? Yes or no.

No tangents zombie. Just answer yes or no.

If you want to agree with your previous posts, your answer will agree
with me as it does with practically everyone else.