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

Mark Henry wrote:

> Henry,

> Was the price clearly marked on the vehicle - as in on the window
> sticker?

Indeed it was, and it was the only price displayed. It was $43K
and change.

> If so, get your financing lined up at your bank then walk in
> and ask for the sales manager. Tell him that you'll take the GT500 for
> the price they're advertising it for.

I considered that, but I doubt I could find a judge to agree
with it. They'd probably say something about MSRP not being an
advertised sale price.



--


http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org

>
> 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.
>

The others won the dabate long ago. You are just too dense to realise it.

In article >, Hairy wrote:
>>
>> 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.

> The others won the dabate long ago. You are just too dense to realise it.

How's that? with irrelevant tangents with made up views they assigned
me? Because not one has shown that ideal free market competition existing
between retailers. In fact if you pay attention each one conceeded that
allotment eliminates the competition between retailers and then went to
some irrelevant tangent such as ford having a right to do it and about
dealers having a right to maximize profit and whole host of other
tangents that well I never disagreed with them on despite their attempt
to make it seem that way.

Thing is, if you paid attention you would have noticed I never argued
that ford and the dealers didn't have a right to do it, only stated they
did it. So try to pay attention and don't fall for such nonsense next time.

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:18:48 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>> ZombyWoof wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> 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?
>> Brent is trying to apply the function of a general free market to a
>> specific participant in a free market. Ford is free to operate as they
>> see fit, within the law, and can allot, ration or otherwise control
>> distribution of their products among the dealer network as they see fit.
>> They are in competition with GM, Toyota, Mercedes, DC etc. in the
>> overall free market across their product line and this includes the
>> GT500. He thinks, internally, Ford should also operate as a microcosm
>> of the larger free market and by the same rules. He doesn't understand
>> that no manufacturer operates this way because they have differing
>> marketing strategies for their products. It is this or he is just one
>> of those people that will never reverse themselves on a stated opinion
>> even when they know they're wrong.
>>
> I understand all of that, and even get that he is even using the wrong
> term to apply his thesis on the subject. In a Demand & Capitalistic
> economy Ford is 100% free to do whatever they want in the marketing of
> their vehicles. They are trying to capitalize on a pent up demand on
> one specialized vehicle with limited access in a hope of creating more
> sales opportunities throughout the brand, nothing new. I suspect many
> of the dealers with GT500 in inventories have priced then at a point
> where they will sell them, but are more interested in keeping them on
> the floor as a sales draw to get people into the showroom in an effort
> to down sell them into a GT or base model. Which ever has the higher
> price margin for them.
>
> It is all a game and has absolutely nothing to do with the
> restrictions on free trade. I think he's just ****ed he can't afford
> one.

Here's my take on the dealer's strategy, and all dealers with a high
demand product for that matter. There are just so many people that will
pay $65k for a GT500 so the dealers let them step to the plate and buy
first. Then they wade through those that will pay $60k, $55k, $50k,
$45k etc. This takes time and Fords initial production run of GT500s
lets them all enact this strategy at the same time, probably by design.
After the crazies with more money than sense have their cars in the
garage the only way for the dealers and Ford to keep demand up is to
reduce the price. Over time, the price will fall and MSRP, or below,
will become the norm. Nearly every dealer uses this strategy for high
demand specialty vehicles and to a lesser extent on every vehicle they
sell. After a few years they will redesign the car or come out with a
new model to start the cycle all over again. Since it is the norm in
the auto industry, my guess is this is a proven way to maximize profits
for the automakers AND the dealers.

This entire process is based on supply, demand and the desire to make a
profit which transpires in a free market system. To me, the entire auto
industry is very homogeneous in the way they operate. There is really
little difference between them. The system we have now is the result of
100 years of refinement. The interesting thing about the system is that
dealers can compete against each other but, as a block, they compete
against other automaker brands/dealers. This is why any comparison to
Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Walmart etc. is useless. I can go into
any Best Buy within 200 miles of my house and know the price of a Sony
TV is X dollars. I can go to every Ford dealer within 200 miles and get
a price for an F150 and get a unique price from each one.

Brent seems to think its not a free market unless every dealer and
automaker relationship operates the same as between the end consumer and
the manufacturer. He is missing the point that they are just one
component that when combined with all the other automakers and dealers
constitute the free market of which the consumer is really the most
important part. IMO, this is THE major flaw in his argument.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> Brent seems to think its not a free market unless every dealer and
> automaker relationship operates the same as between the end consumer and
> the manufacturer. He is missing the point that they are just one
> component that when combined with all the other automakers and dealers
> constitute the free market of which the consumer is really the most
> important part. IMO, this is THE major flaw in his argument.

You try again to say I am wrong by expanding the scope and then deciding
what my view on that expanded scope is. Oddly you continually choose a
view for me that you can easily knock down.

All best buy stores are owned by best buy. Meanwhile no ford dealer is
owned by ford. Ford dealers are independent businesses, but the allotment
schemes means that they don't compete with each other in the sense of a
free market on the model with small allotments.

You keep agreeing with that, as you did on this post I am replying to,
but then you tack on some tangent where you make up a view for me and
then knock it down. I never stated anything even close to what you made
up above. So, I'll repeat it again.

My point is simple, the independently owned dealerships are not competing
with each other in an ideal free market manner because of the allotment
scheme. As you stated in your post, you can get 15 different prices from
15 different ford dealers and pit one off on the other on an F150 because
they are competing with each other for your business. But with the GT500
are they competing for it? Or is it, pay our price or go f yourself?

Brent, I have come to one conclusion. You are a bitter person and a
complete idiot on this matter. I feel sorry for people that have to
work with you or for you based on the attitude you show here. Respond
if you wish but I'm done with you in this thread. Good day.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Brent, I have come to one conclusion. You are a bitter person and a
> complete idiot on this matter. I feel sorry for people that have to
> work with you or for you based on the attitude you show here. Respond
> if you wish but I'm done with you in this thread. Good day.

So now you again resort to being insulting. I think I've showed a great
amount of patience considering you and others have been rather insulting
and continually made false claims that I was arguing absurd things about
ford not having a right to do allotments.

Your last post was fine except for the last paragraph. Again you showed
that we were in agreement that (small) allotments destroy the dealer to
dealer competition and is not an ideal free market type situation where
retailers compete. I agreed with it up to the last paragraph where you
had to toss in that crapola. Then once again, I had to repeat myself
and make it clear what I have stated. You might want to examine why you
need to be insulting and make up things so you have something to knock
down.

I've come to a conclusion about you. You understand my point, you accept
it and agree with it because you've repeated it back to me with different
words multiple times. But you need to 'win' the thread. To 'win' the
thread you make some arguement up for me and then knock it down. Then
you throw in some insults as icing.

I'm sorry I just didn't roll over and let you get away with that crap. My
only error here was thinking that it was misunderstanding and that if I
just restated myself you'd see the agreement.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:

> Insulting? What was with the moron comment in a previous post?

Did I fling something back at you? Awww... poor baby.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:

> Fully explain in 250 words or less how Ford as a US Corporation has no
> "right" to market any of its products as it sees fit?

Fully explain in 250 words or less how the aliens known as the greys
control all US corporations and the US government in an effort to
transform the atmosphere of planet earth to better suit their form of life.

You can make up arguments for me, I'll make them up for you.

<rest snipped, unread, since it's likely more of the same>

Henry wrote:

>
> Last year I put my name on a waiting list for a GT500
> with an out of town dealer. I was number nine on the list.
> I figured if I could get a brand new reliable Mustang with
> 500 hp for around 45K I might go for it. After several inquiries
> and many months, I finally received an email stating that the
> price is $65,000. I replied that I wasn't interested.
> So yesterday, I stop in at the local Ford dealer - not
> the one with the waiting list - to pick up an e brake cable
> for my Ranger. Holy ****, there's a GT500 on the showroom
> floor! I didn't think they were going to get any, so I never
> asked. I looked it over closely, and there are only two
> things I don't like - the white color and the stripes. But
> I do like the fact that the only price displayed on the car
> is the MSRP of $43K in the window. This dealer is known for
> its fair pricing, so when the sales guy walked over I asked
> him if they are selling the car for the price on the window
> sticker. He smiles and says "no". "How much is it", I ask.
> He disappears for a minute, comes back, and says "seventy
> thousand". I laughed and told him I'd wait for the price
> to reach a sane number. No way is it worth that. Ford
> should at least have used an aluminum block to keep some
> weight off the nose. Are people actually paying that much for
> them? Any guesses on what they'll sell for next year?
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.htm
> http://911research.wtc7.net
> http://www.st911.org

The bottom line to this whole thread, at least for me, is..

In order for a dealer to sell a car 30k over sticker, someone has to be
willing to BUY the car at 30k over sticker. If no one buys the car at 30k
over sticker, then the dealer will have no choice but lower his price to a
point where there are people willing to pay.. or keep the car in his
showroom, which I doubt, is any dealer's objective.

MSRP are 'suggested' prices... Every dealer has the option to ignore the
suggestion... And that pricing decision is based on YOU the public....

If I could buy something for, let's say.. 35K then find someone that is
willing to pay me 70k for it, you better believe that is what I'd sell it
to them for...

Once the eager buyers with more money than sense wash through the system,
the prices will level of to where the next level of consumer is willing to
pay...