From: Rikk Rogers (rkltd@swbell.net)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 19:44:34 PST
Er...
Did I catch that last bit right?
"as easy as Ebay"?
Surly someone can do better than that......
-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
Behalf Of Steve Grammont
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:20 PM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] mv- AUCTIONS
Hello Neil,
>I was merely pointing out that your statement seems to exclude dealers
>from the
>group of people who bought the thing in the first place, when in fact
>they are part of it.
They are a miniscule part of it, agreed. If a dealer makes $500 profit
on the resale of a $5000 vehicle bought from GL for $2500, I might see
about $0.0000000000000000001 "profit" for the sale. The dealer realizes
$500.0000000000000000001. This is fine with me provided the dealer
EARNED that $500. Making $5000 profit off a $2,500 GL purchase is not
something I find defensable.
>I believe in capitalism and supply and demand.
I do too. Nothing I have said runs contrary to that.
>The U.S. has a method (known as the
>patent office) that enables people to have exclusive right and benefit
>from their
>own ideas and make money on them. This is what promotes capitalism. I
>don't get mad
>at the guy who patented something and made millions because he didn't spend
>anything for the original idea. I might wish I had the idea, but I don't
>curse the inventor.
Are you saying dealers invented the vehicles they are reselling? They
obviously did not, so this has no relevance to the dealer. However, your
point is quite valid, even though it supports my line of argument ;-)
Taxpayer moneies funded the R&D and production of these vehicles.
Therefore, it should be the patent holder and/or investor that benefits
from said patent in a free market economy, not an end use middle man. In
the case of ex-MVs, the taxpayer might not always be the patent holder,
but it is always the investor and ultimate funder of the development and
goods produced for Government use. Dealers don't even enter into this
part of the equation, other than being a taxpayer like everybody else.
>The amount of markup a dealer charges is their decision. If they can get
>their money, more power to them. If not, their price drops.
This is fine so long as the supply, i.e. the Gov't, is doing all that it
can to ensure that the price of its items are being sold in proportion to
the market rate. In other words, *all* parts of the system must be
trying to sell for maxium yield, not just the dealer. If the Government
is NOT getting full value, then there is a problem that needs to be
addressed.
>The buyer should have done his/her homework.
If the end user is shut out of the bidding process because either the
system is too complicated for a one off purchase (a huge criticism of
DRMO from what I gather), items being sold only as a lot, or business
making sure they outbid the little guy... then the it doesn't matter what
homework he does. If I know what x was sold for by the Gov't, but if all
the dealers have marked it up times 10 over without doing any work on
them, I only have the choice of buying it or not. That is a
disfunctional Capitalist system, one in which the taxpayer is on the
losing side of the equation.
>The dealer takes the
>risk of purchase, why should it not be rewarded?
It should, but not disproportionally to the amount of risk/work the
dealer puts into it. Because if the dealer is making significantly more
than that, then our Government's designated agents (GL) are not doing
their jobs correctly.
>They buy trucks that don't run, too.
I fully understand this. There is no question about it... dealers have
costs and risks. They can also add value to something purchased directly
from the Gov't. In fact, I would rather buy from a dealer, and take a
reasonable premium hit, than to buy direct from GL. There is no point in
arguing over something we agree upon.
This discussion is around because some suggest that GL should make sure
people can buy the stuff cheap simply because... well... because or that
there is nothing wrong with dealers setting market rate without GL
playing an active role. I was pointing out that Gov't surplus is not
some sort of charity venture for the collector. It is also not a charity
venture so dealers can make a killing on items sold too cheaply simply
because they know the ropes.
I remember when GL took over there were a LOT of cries against it which
basically boiled down to "I've been buying through DRMO for decades and
have tons of contacts which allow me to get an edge on anybody trying to
get into this thing for a one off purchase. GL is going to make this
process too open and therefore drive up the bids. That is bad for me,
the dealer and/or collector, because I have enjoyed this system of
priveldges. I want to shut out competition so that I can buy low and sell
high instead of buy fair and sell reasonable".
Obviously the transition to GL had, and still does have, problems
associated with it. But the concept they are working towards is in the
taxpayer's best interest -> get the maximum value back for the items
purchased by the taxpayer for Gov't use.
>I don't think the problem is really the dealers or any buyer. The problem
>is the process (the government and/or GL). If you want maximum return on a
>truck, then
>take some time to determine what is wrong with a truck, so bidders can bid
>intelligently.
I agree. I would also go further... GL should make the process as
transparent to Joe Citizen as possible. It should be as easy as eBay.
This is something that GL is moving towards, and that is a very good
thing for the taxpayer. They still have work to do, but I am pleased
with the general direction it is taking as a taxpayer.
Steve
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:25:02 PDT