Yes, but nothing you've said here contradicts what I posted. Even if Ford controlled the entire process of extraction, fabrication, and production from start to finish, he still had to "outsource" part of the process to someone (even if the "outsourcing" was to another part of teh Ford empire) who could not afford to buy a new Ford car every few years.
When you look back at it, Ford was absolutely right -- the wages he paid to his assembly line workers had to be enough to allow them to buy a new Ford car every few years. But this did not extend to every step in the production process, or else he would have been out of business very quickly. He couldn't pay the steelworker as much as he paid the assembly line worker, because the steelworker wasn't producing cars -- he was producing steel. So under Ford's philosophy the steelworker had to be paid enough to allow him to buy the steel he produced (not that he needed it, but you get the point). And the people who worked in the iron and coal mines had to paid enough to allow them to buy the iron and coal they produced, etc.
Obviously, things changed as machinery and automation were introduced into the process, which allowed steelworkers and miners to be paid enough to buy cars every few years. But my original point would still hold, in that the machinery used to automate part of the extraction and fabrication processes would have their own internal "chain" similar to the one we've discussed for the auto manufacturing process. And somewhere in that chain there must be a sizeable element that can't afford to purchase the end product. Without this element in place, there's no point in making any cars in the first place.
You still haven't done anything but hand-wave about this. No proof has been presented.