If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Greedy *******s.....
In article >, Hawk wrote:
Ya think you could post in 80 columns? > "Brent P" wrote in message: >> Does a fixed allotment create scaricty? Yes or no. > No...because the number of cars Ford ultimately builds has no correlation to how > they are spread around to the various dealers. If they plan to build 7000 > GT500's, the scarcity is determined by how many people want to buy one. If nobody > wanted one...they could build 100 and they wouldn't be considered scarce from a > buyers perspective. So if they sent one to chicago and 6999 to europe that wouldn't create scarcity in the USA? The fixed allotments do create scaricity because they can never be 100% accurate with regard to where the buyers are. Unless of course you see it as easy for buyers to purchase vehicles on the other side of the nation. Nor are all the vehicles entering the market at once. Above you need to assume that all 7000 are on the market at once and that buyers and sellers have no geographic restrictions. > Again we are back to standard market forces... No, because of the assumptions needed above are not practical. Now, if instead of allotments to dealers, dealers could take orders for vehicles for future delivery, then that would simulate the conditions you've outlined fairly well. The entire production would hit the market at the same time on paper. Virtually as it were. The order books would be open until X value were reached or whatever limiting factor ford used and having the cars sent to where they are ordered, then yes you'd have standard market forces as you described them. Allotments could easily have buffalo dealers stuck with the cars all winter and dealers in LA with buyers but no cars. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Greedy *******s.....
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Greedy *******s.....
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Greedy *******s.....
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Greedy *******s.....
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Greedy *******s.....
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Greedy *******s.....
In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:31:35 -0600, > (Brent P) wrote: > >>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! >> >> > > No, it wasn't your point. But thanks for suddenly changing your tune. I think I know what my point has been. Why don't you scroll on back and see where everyone got their panties in a bunch.... it's me calling the GT500 not a free market. Everything else has been something that someone else hung on me. I grow tired of clairifying it. go play on the freeway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|