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.
Of course they are... but ford dealer to ford dealer pricing, the subject of
this thread, not ford versus the world, is not following free market
principles as some claimed. I only pointed that out.
Never said they 'should' do anything in this thread. See this is the
disconnect. I write A you read B. I stated that dealer pricing is not
being driven by the ideal free market as claimed. Having been unable to
show me wrong in that, you and others have decided to insert all kinds of
tangents and strawmen like the above.
I feel ford is not maximizing their profit by doing allotments, but that
is the closest I got to should or should not. Maybe they want to 'reward'
dealers at their own expense. Who knows. You might want to stop building
strawmen by putting words in my mouth.
I fully understand that many manufacturers have various plans, schemes,
etc. Your insulting claim that I don't is yet just another irrelevant
You just agreed with me that ideal free market principles are not in play
between independently owned ford dealerships when it comes to the GT500
because of allotments creating an artificial scarcity.
What it comes down to, is the above statement of yours is part of this
giant face saving excerise where you and others have introduced one
irrelevant after the next rather than just state openly that claim that
ford dealership pricing one compared to the other, was like the ideal
free market, wasn't correct.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:18:48 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
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 pissed he can't afford
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.
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.
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
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.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:16:04 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org
(Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
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?
Geez now your arguing semantics of "Ideal Free Market" on one specific
product across and entire product line? Man you really are reaching.
How can one limited product destroy dealer to dealer competition? I
bet some small dealers have decided not to even order any of their
allotted models, I bet some might have even sold them at MSRP. None
of use here know exactly what every single Ford dealership in the
entire US has done or will do. I wonder how many dealerships decided
to keep one of their allotted vehicles for the dealership owner or his
favorite son. I bet at least one. Sure there are those that are out
there doing some profit taking. That is what business in a
capitalistic economy do. It is what you do when you sell your labor
in the open market.
How could anyone understand your point when you've bounced all over
the place with it. Are using broad economic terms to talk about one
specific product model out of entire product line, a specialty model
at that. One created as a marketing gimmick. Never designed to be
massed produced at the level of any of the other cars off of which it
is based. A car that after the pent up early demand passes may not
even generate the sales level to justify continued production levels.
Remember that Cobras were having to be discounted during there last
year to move them off the lot, yet during the early years they were
going at a premium price because of the way they were restricted to
just certain dealers. Was that messing with the "Ideal Free Market"
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?
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. It's fine that you don't like the way that Ford
approached the issue. It's fine that you don't like Capitalism and a
demand economy, it's even cool that you don't like people with more
money then sense, but your arguing a point that nobody else agrees
with. Doesn't that tell you something? When Ford gets charged with
manipulating markets you can come back and crow about how right you
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>
Let me count the number of arguments you made up for me in this post
Never argued they didn't have such a right. One.
That's the scope of the thread. You did it with your first post in the
"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
Seems you were using broad terms for one specific speciality model.
The only bouncing has been from the constant insertion of irrelevant
tangents, which haven't come from me.
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".
never argued it was illegal. 2)
You set that in motion, sir. Why don't you scroll back up through the thread?
Where in the thread did I state that? nowhere. three.
Never said anything of the sort. Four.
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)
Want me to dig it up where you did?
"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."
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.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:48:33 -0600, email@example.com
(Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
Ah now I see. In one scenario the business needs you as a consumer
(when they have unlimited product), in the other you need the business
as a supplier. You aren't happy when you need the business as a
supplier. There are many products in the marketplace where it is pay
our price or go F yourself, especially in the luxury goods segment. I
think the GT500 could easily qualify as being a luxury good right now.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:55:57 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org
(Brent P) wrote:
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 Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:17:48 -0500, email@example.com
(Brent P) wrote:
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
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?
You sure do get your panties in a bunch easily.
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.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.