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

Brent P wrote:
>
> Please explain how alloting too little to one area and too much to another
> doesn't create scaricity in the area with too little. Spreading a product
> thinly can create a scaricity.
>

Here's a really simplified explanation of economic scarcity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_scarcity

Scarcity doesn't create demand, nor affect price in the way that you're
trying to imply. In addition, as a luxury item the GT500 doesn't fall
within the pricing model described by the traditional supply-and-demand
theory.

>
> Demand does vary for the GT500 as witnessed by numerous people in this
> newsgroup alone who may buy at ~$40K but certainly not at $65K. But for
> that to happen there has to still be equal or more people left than there
> are cars by the time the price hits $65-70K. This can helped greatly by
> using allotments. This way the cars all won't go to one region where
> there are a ton of people willing to pay $59K but not $65K. The fact
> there the product is in say, NYC, doesn't change the market situation in
> LA unless either product or buyer knows it exists on the other side of
> the nation and buyer and seller can meet up.
>

Allotments arn't based on how many buyers are waiting for a vehicle, nor
by how many are willing to pay above MSRP. Allotments are based on how
many vehicles the dealer has historically been able to move (which, in
and of itself, is affected by them).

mark h

Let me count the number of arguments you made up for me in this post
alone:

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?

Never argued they didn't have such a right. One.

> Geez now your arguing semantics of "Ideal Free Market" on one specific
> product across and entire product line?

That's the scope of the thread. You did it with your first post in the
thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

"You have to remember that it isn't Ford that is setting the
market price, it is the market itself. If that dealer is able to move
the one it has at $70k it will try to move the next one it gets at
$70k."

Seems you were using broad terms for one specific speciality model.

> How could anyone understand your point when you've bounced all over
> the place with it.

The only bouncing has been from the constant insertion of irrelevant
tangents, which haven't come from me.

> Are using broad economic terms to talk about one
> specific product model out of entire product line, a specialty model
> at that.

You set that precident, sir. That was what you did in the post I entered
the thread by responding to. You used the term 'free market' to describe
the sale of "one specific product model out of entire product line, a
specialty model at that".

> as well. If they are indeed screwing with the "Free Market" where is
> the "Free Trade Commission" at in all of this? Where are the class
> action suits by various State's General Attorneys?

never argued it was illegal. 2)

> Nobody is looking to get away with anything. Your base error was
> using an economics term to pick at Ford's marketing ploy because you
> don't like it.

You set that in motion, sir. Why don't you scroll back up through the thread?

> It's fine that you don't like the way that Ford approached the issue.

Where in the thread did I state that? nowhere. three.

> It's fine that you don't like Capitalism and a demand economy,

Never said anything of the sort. Four.

> it's even cool that you don't like people with more
> money then sense,

Where did I say I didn't like them? Nowhere. Five. (yes, I think they are
idiots, but that doesn't mean anything with regard to like or dislike)

> but your arguing a point that nobody else agrees
> with.

Want me to dig it up where you did?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

"So they have one specific item that they are pretty much
able to set their own price on. BFD, horray for the dealers one
instance where the consumer doesn't have them over a barrel."

> Doesn't that tell you something? When Ford gets charged with
> manipulating markets you can come back and crow about how right you
> were.

I never said they were doing anything illegal. Six.

You complain about bouncing, but you make up not 1, not 2, but SIX
spurrious arguments and assign them to me. This is pretty much how every
post has gone. One made up argument after another assigned to me to cloud
the issue. Why do you feel the need to do that? Make up these things
assign them to me and then knock them down? Your idea of usenet fun? Do
you get off on generating responses?

If you actually think that I argued for any of them, all my posts in this
thread are in the google archive. Feel free to quote them and include the
message ID or URL to the archive for the entire post. However, I remember
what I wrote, but I cannot control what you read, nor what tactics you'll
use. I notice you block archiving of your posts so google will delete
them after a few days.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:13:41 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>In article >, Mark Henry wrote:
>>
>>> While it's true that Ford controls both the amount of production (the
>>> total number of vehicles produced in any given period) as well as the
>>> number of vehicles alloted to any specific dealership, this does not in
>>> an of itself create an artificial scarcity of the item. All products are
>>> produced in limited supply and it is the manufacturer's job to match
>>> production rates with consumption (consumption and demand are different).
>>
>>Please explain how alloting too little to one area and too much to another
>>doesn't create scaricity in the area with too little. Spreading a product
>>thinly can create a scaricity.
>>
> Brent, when are you going to accept that is the entire freakin idea
> with luxury goods? Exclusiveness comes with a price. When wants to
> be a label whore, one has to pay for it. If these vehicles weren't
> limited, i.e. scarce, they wouldn't be valued by the consumer the way
> they are. It is all part of a marketing scheme to build brand
> awareness & hype.

Lets see, since I called it a marketing scheme that would indicate I know
full well what it is. You called the price it created the result of the
'market' implying that it was some sort of ideal free market action. I
stated it wasn't so. And then this sort of irrelevancy presented in an
insulting manner began.

It's clear you agree with me that it is a marketing scheme, that it
doesn't function in an ideal free market manner. But you have to 'win'
the thread.

> You think the large majority of people that are
> buying these vehicles are buying them because they are performance
> vehicles?

You think that ford is run by a alien grey named Iggbop? Please. I grow
tired of this nonsense.

> Your confusing buying a product to use with a product that will sit in
> a garage as a joe jerk brags about owning it.

No, you're introducing one irrelevancy after another and assigning all
sorts of arguments I never made to me.

In article >, Mark Henry wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> Please explain how alloting too little to one area and too much to another
>> doesn't create scaricity in the area with too little. Spreading a product
>> thinly can create a scaricity.

> Here's a really simplified explanation of economic scarcity:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_scarcity

The subject matter of the thread is not that all inclusive. This is more
of a case of getting a product to market and captializing on the initial
phase where a manufacturer can get their initial price from the
retailers and/or distributors.

I've watched prototypes of products I've worked on go for huge amounts on
ebay as people just had to have them first. However, the pressure was on
to get the product out the door ASAP in volume to make money while the
getting was good. This was true wether the product was high end or low
end. I would say it was more important on the high end, because things
get 'old' fast in that segment.

I don't think Ford is doing itself any favors with the allotment scheme.
It's doing the dealers a favor sure, but itself, no. People are going to
buy other cars, they are going to look at other manufacturers. No matter
how good your product is you don't want your customers to bother with the
competition. There is always the risk you'll lose them. Best I can figure
Ford isn't serious about anything in this market segment nor gaining or
keeping customers in it or growing their market share of it. If they
were, then instant collectable marketing doesn't seem to be the way to go.

And just so certain people don't get their panties in a bunch, it's
ford's right to do it the way they are doing it. Never stated otherwise.
No, I don't feel they should be forced to do it 'my way', either. If you
think of some other clever twist, no, not that either.

> Scarcity doesn't create demand, nor affect price in the way that you're
> trying to imply.

I didn't state scarcity created demand, but that one could create scarcity
through distribution schemes (so long as some demand existed).

> In addition, as a luxury item the GT500 doesn't fall
> within the pricing model described by the traditional supply-and-demand
> theory.

Of course, been told it was though.

>> Demand does vary for the GT500 as witnessed by numerous people in this
>> newsgroup alone who may buy at ~$40K but certainly not at $65K. But for
>> that to happen there has to still be equal or more people left than there
>> are cars by the time the price hits $65-70K. This can helped greatly by
>> using allotments. This way the cars all won't go to one region where
>> there are a ton of people willing to pay $59K but not $65K. The fact
>> there the product is in say, NYC, doesn't change the market situation in
>> LA unless either product or buyer knows it exists on the other side of
>> the nation and buyer and seller can meet up.

> Allotments arn't based on how many buyers are waiting for a vehicle, nor
> by how many are willing to pay above MSRP. Allotments are based on how
> many vehicles the dealer has historically been able to move (which, in
> and of itself, is affected by them).

Which doesn't change my point, it's only that this allotment scheme is
attempting to be in some way accurate based on past data which may or may
not hold true for the present. However if you read how allotment is done,
you'll note that some of these GT500 will be alloted to low volume
dealers in the middle of nowhere that were not SVT dealers and moved
zero of the previous cobra mustang.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:48:09 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
>
>"A free market is a market where price is determined by unregulated supply and
>demand"
>
>Allotments control supply.
>
>"The law of supply and demand predominates in the ideal free market, influencing
>prices toward an equilibrium that balances the demands for the products against the
>supplies. At these equilibrium prices, the market distributes the products to the
>purchasers according to each purchaser's use (or utility) for each product and within
>the relative limits of each buyer's purchasing power."
>
>Allotments do not distriubte the products to the purchasers in that manner.
>
>Just because ford is making the allotments to the retailers rather than the
>government doesn't change the fact it deviates from the ideal free market when it
>comes to retailers competing with each other for sales.
>
>You can argue all you want about how the car is special, how ford is allowed to do
>it, how ford should do it to reward dealers and all your other justifications and
>reasons to accept the allotment scheme, but it's irrelevant, because in the end,
>allotments short-circuit the ideal free market.
>
>

Your point is irrelevant because we aren't dealing with a market
(specialty vehicles) that was EVER intended to be "free". You want
"free market" then go argue over the price of a rental fleet Taurus.
Otherwise you are living in a dream world that just doesn't, and never
did, exist.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:55:57 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>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.


My god you are dense. No one is trying to "justify" it. You can't
justify paying $70,000 for any vehicle that's mainly used to transport
someone around for kicks even if it were purchased in some elusive
free market with balanced supply and demand. It's still a ludicrous
price to pay for TRANSPORTATION. But we aren't dealing with
transportation, the commodity, we are dealing with something that's no
different from a $10K watch. Only people with more money then needs
speeds that much for a car or watch. You have left the realm where
free market has any meaning of significance.

Besides that, the part of the market that is relatively "free" is
encumbered with all sorts of regulations, tax laws, import
restrictions and on and on that render it less then "free" in the
classic sense. Do you think there is a free market for milk or
sugar?? There isn't. Gvt price controls easily double or triple the
cost of milk and sugar. Same for oranges. If you are going to get
worked up, do it about something where it makes sense.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:18:48 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>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.

hint; anti lock brakes

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:53:34 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>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>
>

The sound of a closed mind more interested in scoring points (in their
fantasy world) then risking exposure to other viewpoints.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:19:55 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>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.
>

Obviously not since early in the thread part of the bitch was that
there were plenty around IF you were willing to pay the asking price.
The fact is, if you are willing to pay the price you could probably go
buy a dozen of them this week. And if you did no one in the general
population of car buyers were even notice the down blip in the supply.

>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.
>

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:04:58 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:19:55 -0600,
>> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>
>>>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, unless you are talking about a fixed allotment of cars in general
>> created by the government. i.e. only one new car per family every ten
>> years, you used your new car allotment eight years ago and now you
>> want to buy a new GT500 and can't for all the money in the world.
>
>You seem incredibly fixated on government needing to be involved... what
>happens with the creation of a monopoly? The free market allows for
>monopolies to be created. It allows for said monopolies to use that power
>to crush any and all new comers. government doesn't need to be involved
>at all for a market that is less than free for an item to exist. In some
>cases only a clever or not so clever marketing scheme.
>
>> I hereby allot you 1 troll doll per month. I'm sitting on a million
>> of the *******s, but I'm only going to allot you one a month. Exactly
>> what are they worth if nobody is buying? Scarcity has absolutely
>> nothing to do with demand. Without demand there is no scarcity
>> regardless of the supply.
>>
>> Nobody in the world can force me to give you more Troll Dolls because
>> I am the sole source of them. You can get something that looks like a
>> Troll Doll, even performance like a Troll Doll, but not a genuine
>> ZombyWoof Troll Doll.
>
>You're going through some interesting backflips. Everyone knows if there
>was no demand there would be no scarcity. But as long as there is some
>demand, allotments can be used to create scarcity. Slowly, you're
>grasping it.
>
>I made a comment within the narrow subject scope of the thread. Stay within
>that scope.
>
>

And you lost the argument even in that narrow scope.