I agree with you “that most consumers would not have much of an opinion if asked about it (Parts Churn).” However, if they were to study the data I have and the data provided in the post, I think they would have a strong opinion against it. If they had a relative that was killed by a Takata airbag inflator, they would have an extreme, negative opinion about Parts Churn.
The information and conclusions I have presented are well supported by facts. If you believe my logic is faulty or weak, I would be interested in specifically where you think the logic of my argument is lacking.
You worte: “That you cannot think of a good business reason for it does not mean that they don't have one.” That is a misstatement of my position. I wrote that “[t]here is no plausible, legitimate business rationale for Parts Churn.” And, there is certainly no plausible legitimate reason for all cars to be made using Parts Churn. I would very much appreciate if you could supply a legitimate business rationale for all cars to be constructed using Parts Churn.
Once I did write to Ford about Parts Churn. I received no reply. I have also written to the DOJ. They promptly acknowledge receipt and state they appreciate the information but also state that there will be no further communication from them on the matter.
The courts often rule against the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in regard cases based on Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. When courts rule against a Sherman 1 case, they cite the fact that you put forward, specifically, that parallel actions and even consciously parallel activity is not sufficient to establish conduct which is subject to legal action. This is where “plus factors” come into play.
If you will, please, please, please, please give me one plausible, legitimate business rationale for all cars to be made using Parts Churn. Any attempt to construe my argument as being against all Parts Churn is not legitimate. It is the exclusive use of Parts Churn that violates the Sherman Act.
I agree with you that the DOJ and FTC will not bring a case against the automobile industry. They already have bailed them out once.
But to not bring a case is still a mistake because they will eventually have to bail them out again unless entities such as Uber and Lift make them mostly irrelevant.