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

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Look, your head is full of concrete on this matter so let's just agree
> to disagree and move on.

In other words, you finally figured it out...

You won't admit your wrong..............so just get on with life.
"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Michael
Johnson, PE wrote:
> > Look, your head is full of concrete on this matter so let's just agree
> > to disagree and move on.
>
> In other words, you finally figured it out...
>

(Brent P) wrote:

> 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.

I dont believe YOUR logic...the cars are allocated to those dealers which
have done well in sales. they are a limited edition.

And it ISNT a sales contest for those particular models.
The dealer has to pay interest on those cars so they have made a
financial decision about cost-benefit on holding them vs selling to the
highest bidder.

Which brings to mind, really, how they are sold. It's like a silent
auction where the holder waits for a sale, while the car actually serves
to bring in lookers and potential buyers. Perhaps increased GT and
lesser version sales makes up for the interest they're paying on the lot-
queens?

Funny that yours and my logic on the OTHER thread on costs and common
parts is the same yet I'm the idiot on here.

Here's something else to think about that is a little similar. Say you
live in a housing development that has many similar houses. But you have
done many upgrades and remodeling. so you decide to put it on the
market.

Your Realtor balks at your asking price, saying that none on the other
houses in the plat sell for that... do you hold out or listen to the
realtor?

I held out on the time I did that, and the house sold in two hours,
before she even got the sign up, two offers and we had to take the
first... I was so mad at the realtor I asked her to pay the points. She
did.

My son had the same thing recently, but he went with the realtor who was
also his friend... the house sold to the first looker.. probably could
have gotten 10,000 more for it.

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

think about you selling an exceptional used car.. do you lower your
price because it's higher than the book, and the looker insists on it?


--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

In article >, razz wrote:
> You won't admit your wrong..............so just get on with life.

ok smart guy... you splain how independently owned ford dealers aren't
supposed to compete with one another.

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 it ISNT a sales contest for those particular models.

So it's a sale of rare artworks? It's another production car. It's only
special in your head because you bought the marketing line.

> The dealer has to pay interest on those cars so they have made a
> financial decision about cost-benefit on holding them vs selling to the
> highest bidder.

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

> Funny that yours and my logic on the OTHER thread on costs and common
> parts is the same yet I'm the idiot on here.

I didn't call you an idiot... I called the 'well buy a BMW' tangent idiotic.

> Here's something else to think about that is a little similar. Say you
> live in a housing development that has many similar houses. But you have
> done many upgrades and remodeling. so you decide to put it on the
> market.

Apples and oranges. Another useless tangent since none of the cars in the
discussion have been modified beyond their factory equipment.

> 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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

For all we know it could end up like this marketing excerise of the
1970s:

http://www.texasgrabber.com/Drag-N-Fly.html

A whole 400 were made... at it wasn't even just another production ford
but a low volume custom sold at only one dealership!

> think about you selling an exceptional used car.. do you lower your
> price because it's higher than the book, and the looker insists on it?

Again... apples and ornages.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> Look, your head is full of concrete on this matter so let's just agree
>> to disagree and move on.
>
> In other words, you finally figured it out...

Yeah, I did....... the part about your head being full of concrete.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
<snip>
>
> 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.
>
<snip>

I see the "allotment scheme" as a step in the right direction. It more
evenly distributes the vehicles between dealers. The previous "SVT
dealership" arrangement really was the more restrictive marketing mechanism.
If you weren't an SVT dealer, you didn't sell a Cobra, period.

As far as the scarcity issue, I'm not seeing it. If they are scarce in your
area, it only means someone wanted one bad enough to pay the asking price.
I've seen several in area showrooms, they're still there. As more ship, the
supply goes up and the dealers sweat a little more. Who's gonna blink
first,... which dealer will get stuck with the hot potato.

By MY end the '03 &'04 Cobra could be had for $10k _below_ list. If Ford
produces anywhere near the 5-7k units they have alluded to, it will all
balance out perfectly. Ford could sell every unit, _without_ having to
discount heavily. It's good business, IMO. The "monkey-wrench" in the works
are the folks who just need to be the first to have one, and will pay
through the nose to do so.

Here in the Boston area, the salt will be flying soon and most of the area
buyers for these cars will lose interest. Come springtime, I'm checking out
the Challenger, the clock is ticking for the Ford dealers and they are well
aware of it.
--
John C. (toying with the dealers)
'03 Cobra Convt.

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.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:17:48 -0500,
(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

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".

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.

Another way of looking at it is "commodities" versus "specialty
items". It can be pretty hard to manipulate a commodities market, not
that people don't try. But a specialty market is ripe for
manipulation. Why do you suppose you don't see gvt agencies buying GT
500's and about the only place you see Hummers in routine law
enforcement is on TV?


>> 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.
>

You sure do get your panties in a bunch easily.

>> 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.

Of course. Most people look out for their own selfish motives. We
see it in this thread where people complain about the cost of a GT500
because it's more then THEY wish to pay and they are looking for an
angle to get the price down.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:28:31 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>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?
>

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.

>> 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.
>