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

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:32:09 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>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.
>

Don't bet the farm on it if this thread is any indication.

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Your point is irrelevant because we aren't dealing with a market
> (specialty vehicles) that was EVER intended to be "free".

That is my point! congradulations you grasped it!


> 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.

I never stated I wanted anything in this thread. Nice try though.

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

So far everyone, including yourself has agreed with me that GT500s are
not sold in anything like a free market supply and demand. The only
problem is the introduction of irrelevant tangents via assigning me
viewpoints I never stated.

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Don't bet the farm on it if this thread is any indication.

If ford were making the mark up, you might have a point.

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> And you lost the argument even in that narrow scope.

You just agreed with my view a few posts ago. So has everyone else, in
the narrow view sooner or later.

Of course that's lost in the sea of argument assignment...

I challenge anyone to show claims of 'ford had no right' or any of the
others were ever posted by me in this thread.... hell any other for that
manner. You'll quickly find they weren't and are but a fabrication or the
result of poor reading comprehension or someone skimming and making up
everything else as they read.

"ZombyWoof" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ford has always dicked around with a model over & above the GT. We've
> had Cobra's, Mach I's, etc. The GT500 is just one in a long line of
> limited production upgraded Mustangs going all the way back to the
> original Shelbys. There are those who think the current versions are
> going to be worth the first generations are in a couple of decades.
> More power to them if they are right.

Someone should tell those folks to invest that $25,000.00 "market
adjustment". They'll be way ahead of the game 35 years down the road, and
there would be a blown 5.4L in my driveway by now.

--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

ZombyWoof wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:44:11 -0500, tony > wrote
> something wonderfully witty:
> <snip>
>>
>>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...
>>
> Ain't Capitalism grand, especially if your the one with the product
> people want to buy?
> --
>
> You can run, but you'll only die tired.
>
> ZombyWoof

If I was a Ford dealer with some Shelbys in the inventory, I would be
selling them to maximize my profit and riding the "gotta have one NOW"
craze... It's not like they are making a ton of money pushing Focus'
through the lot... :-)

Comes down to this.. The Shelby is NOT what you would call a Grocery-Getter
or a commuter vehicle.. It IS a non-essential luxury item... (Although I
DID try, unsuccessfully, to convince the wife it WAS essential.. :-) )

If the car isn't worth more than sicker to you, do not buy it.. simple...
If you want the car badly enough, and cannot wait for the hysteria to die
down, then you will pay the asking price..

The Dealers are doing nothing that is unethical, immoral, or illegal..

This whole thread appeared to be one guy frustrated that the car wasn't
priced to his satisfaction at a particular dealer and he need to vent about
it...

If you look hard enough, you WILL find them priced at or near sticker.. Just
gotta look.. At least, it held true for a friend that bought one in
Hamburg, PA... (Lucky *******.. )

Tony

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:37:40 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>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.
>>
> Look if your going to complain about insulting while being the first
> to start it, you really don't have a leg to stand on in yet another
> argument. Unless of course you just like starting arguments.

I didn't start it.... that's what back at you means.... are you stupid?

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:

> Jezz don't push his button about winning & losing or he'll go Ape
> ****. I think he is expecting a Trophy in the mail or something if he
> gets anyone to agree with his point.

I already pointed out where you and others have. Problem is, that's
embrassing or something to you so you make up new, absurd points and
assign them to me. AC there already stated that the GT500 isn't a free
market situation in plain, straightforward language, hence agreement.

> He's already strutting around
> claiming himself victor on an internet discussion which is usually a
> clear cut sign that a person has lost an internet debate.

I didn't delcare myself anything. When are you going to stop lying?
That's the only reason the thread has continued. Each time you post you
have some new fabrication to assign to me. My guess is you either enjoy
the attention or wish to mask the error of your initial post. The later
is likely due to your choice of posts to respond to.

> The whole issue is moot since most people who weighed in on this were
> only trying to show him the folly of his argument as opposed to
> winning anything. ICANN quit handing out prizes years ago.

Why don't you list what you think my argument(s) is(are)? How about you
quote the relevant segments of text that show that? You're going to have a
difficult time at it, because what you call my 'argument' is nothing more
than something fabricated out of fat air. Claims that of 'ford having no
right', 'hating capitialism', and other such things only exist in your
mind.

If we talk about my real argument, that the allocation marketing scheme
of the GT500 results conditions that are not ideal free market supply and
demand, I can always quote your agreement with that again.

In article >, tony wrote:
> The Dealers are doing nothing that is unethical, immoral, or illegal..

Nobody said they were.

> This whole thread appeared to be one guy frustrated that the car wasn't
> priced to his satisfaction at a particular dealer and he need to vent about
> it...

That would be the OP.