I actually agree with you for the most part. But this isn't milk and rice and toilet paper. No one HAS to have a bronco. For all intents and purposes this is a luxury item.Capitalism is most effective and beneficial when profit motives are secondary to ethical considerations. A reasonable product/service for a reasonable price is the gold standard in any transaction, and willfully inserting yourself into the process without providing either is just grifting.
IMO capitalism should not be used to justify taking advantage of others, and anyone reserving a high demand, initially production limited vehicle to make a quick buck by gouging less scrupulous consumers is pretty shitty. It's a dangerous thing using supply and demand to rationalize bad behavior.
However, many may disagree and I respect that. The fact still stands that the average Joe is EXTREMELY unlikely to turn a profit on anything other than an FE due to TTL and the only guaranteed winner is the state getting a double dip of those sweet sweet taxes.
I keep reading phrases like "taking advantage of" but how exactly is the buyer taken advantage of?
You mention "gouging less scrupulous" buyers. but I don't think anyone here is implying they are trying to pull one over on someone. The proposed offer seems to be very clear. A buyer would be well aware that the wait for a bronco is now into the next model year. If Joe millionaire suddenly decides he wants a bronco, he isn't going to have a problem paying an extra $5k to get one now. What kind of less scrupulous buyer are you seeing here?
So I ask again, where is this ethically a problem? Who is getting taken advantage of?
True story on states winning by double dipping on taxes!
Sponsored