Libertarian Opinion; Is the Concept of "Price Gouging" a Communist Concept?

[ViperJock]

If people didn't buy it, the price would come down. Gunships have as
Much right as anyone to meet high market demands with higher prices. A true capitalist would never complain of price "gouging." If Ayne Rand could read INGO right now she'd roll over in her grave.

 

[chizzle]

If people didn't buy it, the price would come down. Gunships have as
Much right as anyone to meet high market demands with higher prices. A true capitalist would never complain of price "gouging." If Ayne Rand could read INGO right now she'd roll over in her grave.

Agreed, as long as you meant gun shops instead of gunships

 

[lucky4034]

I don't think anyone is going to dispute whether or not a supplier can jack up prices to take advantage of high demand, however as a consumer I don't have to like it or respect it.

Just as they are free to sell at the price they want... I'm also free to choose where I spend my money.

CTD has decided to squeeze as much margin out of LOYAL panic buyers as they could and in doing so lost this customer. I am not one of the guys panic buying PMAGS, but watching their practices has changed my loyalty (what little I had).

 

[chizzle]

I don't think anyone is going to dispute whether or not a supplier can jack up prices to take advantage of high demand, however as a consumer I don't have to like it or respect it.

Just as they are free to sell at the price they want... I'm also free to choose where I spend my money.

CTD has decided to squeeze as much margin out of LOYAL panic buyers as they could and in doing so lost this customer. I am not one of the guys panic buying PMAGS, but watching their practices has changed my loyalty (what little I had).

I respect your position, but pose this question. Are their any suppliers to whom you are loyal that have mags in stock?

 

[Prometheus]

I respect your position, but pose this question. Are their any suppliers to whom you are loyal that have mags in stock?

Not to my knowledge but plenty of them are allowing backorders at pre-Sandy Hook prices.

There is a reason why cheaper than dirt aka- POS dirt bags who will never see any of my money again - still has some in stock. Not too many people will to pay that ridiculous amount... free markets. Working.

As an aside, in case anyone has been living under a rock, the animosity towards CTD is about a lot more than some "price gouging". They just make a convenient punching bag, since they were already under the bus to begin with.

 

[chizzle]

There is a reason why cheaper than dirt aka- POS dirt bags who will never see any of my money again - still has some in stock. Not too many people will to pay that ridiculous amount...

I don't mean to provoke you or create an argument, I just want to make sure I understand your position. Are you mad at Cheaper Than Dirt because of the prices that they are currently charging, or for some other reason?

 

[Classic]

Panicky buyers are "Self-Gouging". Simple as that. The seller sets the asking price but it is the BUYER that makes the decision. If you are being gouged then you are a willing participant. Without willing buyers there is NO SALE and NO GOUGING. Stop panic buying for a few weeks. Retailers can not sit on high priced inventory forever. It is tiresome hearing all of these poor victims whining.

Most manufacturers do not have excess production capacity sitting around waiting for a pulse in demand, they can't afford to. Panic buyers have depleted the pipeline completely. Manufacturers are not going to spend the money to increase capacity for a temporary pulse in demand either.

It is going to take some time for the supply to catch up and fill the pipeline. I am guessing as much as 3 months or more IF the panic buying doesn't continue to suck up every piece of merchandise produced as it comes of the assembly line.

Manufacturers and retailers are not the bad guys here. It is the panic buyers that are affecting the market and making victims of themselves. Get a grip.

 

[roisigns]

What most folks call price gouging is really just "selling to the highest bidder."

 

[dross]

"Price gouging" is a self-incriminatory term. What it means is, "You own something I want, so you owe me a price I like."

If you walk into my living room and say, "I want your TV. How much will you take for it?"

I tell you it'll cost you 10,000 dollars. Am I price-gouging? It's mine, I don't want to sell it unless I can get that price.

I'd also like to know from where the idiotic and fantastic notion came from that says the price of an item should be linked to what it cost to make it.

If a resource is scarce, there are several ways to ration it. Let's say I have the last ten boxes of 223 left in the city. I can charge the same price and sell the ten boxes to the first guy who asks for them. I can set a policy to sell only one box to a customer, then sell the ammo to the first ten guys who show up. Or, I could triple the price per box and let the people who wanted or needed it the most take it.

None of these methods of distribution are morally superior to the others. The advantage of raising the price is that it prevents someone else from collecting the profit I didn't collect. If I were selling lowers for regular price, I'd feel pretty stupid to watch them selling for three times as much on gunbroker.

Things are worth what they're worth, period. What a thing is worth fluctuates based on demand. Changing the price you charge based on demand is smart and sensible.

Getting mad at "price gouging" makes no sense.

If you buy the item, you've proved it was worth the price to you.
If you don't buy the item and someone else does, who are you mad at? The guy that bought it, proving the price was reasonable?
If you don't buy it and no one else does, who are you mad at? The guy who owns it because he won't give it you on your terms? Why should he, it's his, not yours.

 

[hornadylnl]

"Price gouging" is a self-incriminatory term. What it means is, "You own something I want, so you owe me a price I like."

If you walk into my living room and say, "I want your TV. How much will you take for it?"

I tell you it'll cost you 10,000 dollars. Am I price-gouging? It's mine, I don't want to sell it unless I can get that price.

I'd also like to know from where the idiotic and fantastic notion came from that says the price of an item should be linked to what it cost to make it.

If a resource is scarce, there are several ways to ration it. Let's say I have the last ten boxes of 223 left in the city. I can charge the same price and sell the ten boxes to the first guy who asks for them. I can set a policy to sell only one box to a customer, then sell the ammo to the first ten guys who show up. Or, I could triple the price per box and let the people who wanted or needed it the most take it.

None of these methods of distribution are morally superior to the others. The advantage of raising the price is that it prevents someone else from collecting the profit I didn't collect. If I were selling lowers for regular price, I'd feel pretty stupid to watch them selling for three times as much on gunbroker.

Things are worth what they're worth, period. What a thing is worth fluctuates based on demand. Changing the price you charge based on demand is smart and sensible.

Getting mad at "price gouging" makes no sense.

If you buy the item, you've proved it was worth the price to you.
If you don't buy the item and someone else does, who are you mad at? The guy that bought it, proving the price was reasonable?
If you don't buy it and no one else does, who are you mad at? The guy who owns it because he won't give it you on your terms? Why should he, it's his, not yours.

Issues like this really help sort out who the conservatives really are.

 

[lucky4034]

I respect your position, but pose this question. Are their any suppliers to whom you are loyal that have mags in stock?

No... but there were a couple who were taking backorders at standard price and those companies just earned my loyalty

 

[chizzle]

Issues like this really help sort out who the conservatives really are.

I agree. I think terms like "Price Gouging" are the first step, typically followed by someone unwittingly saying "There ought to be a law!!!". Unfortunately, this just creates a bigger government, and does nothing to help our suppliers cope with the new supply and demand equilibrium.

Again, it's not that I like seeing the higher prices for goods that I need and enjoy, but I think it beats the alternative!

 

[chizzle]

No... but there were a couple who were taking backorders at standard price and those companies just earned my loyalty

I understand your position; I've got some mags on backorder too.

I would argue however, that we're comparing 2 different things:

1) An available Pmag that will ship to your door for let's say $40 (Gunbroker going rate).
2) The promise of a Pmag whenever supply catches up with demand for $15 (could be days / weeks / months / never).

While both promises are talking about the same item, the difference is the "bird in the hand" versus the "two in the bush". Hopefully the wait to get backordered items isn't too long, but if I absolutely, positively must have one today, I'm glad that there is the $40 option and I don't begrudge them for planning ahead and reading market conditions.

 

[dross]

In the late 80s and early 90s, you could buy an average-sized house for less than 100K. In a period of about two years, due to an influx of Californians with lots of equity from their inflated housing market, the price almost doubled.

I know several people who bought a house and sold it for twice as much within a couple of years.

Stinking price gougers.

 

[Rob377]

The housing market (which was distorted by gov't incentives as well), along with the dot-com bubble are actually really good examples of how irrational market behavior leads to mal-investment.

Markets are quite efficient with rational actors. With irrational actors, not so much. Better than any other arrangement to be sure, but let's not confuse mostly efficient markets with perfectly efficient ones.

 

[T-Mann]

It is only "price gouging" when someone is the buyer. Give that same person the opportunity to sell an item (any item) for 2 or 3 times it's original price and I guarantee they jump at the chance.

In 1960 a Corvette cost about $4000 new ($30,000 in 2011 terms). Today, a 1960 Corvette will run you somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000 for a decent example. Is this also "price gouging"? Or is an example of supply and demand at work? If it is an example of supply and demand, why are PMags any different? Right now there are a finite number of both products on the market. As long as there is a buyer for an item at the asking price....

 

[chizzle]

The housing market (which was distorted by gov't incentives as well), along with the dot-com bubble are actually really good examples of how irrational market behavior leads to mal-investment.

Markets are quite efficient with rational actors. With irrational actors, not so much. Better than any other arrangement to be sure, but let's not confuse mostly efficient markets with perfectly efficient ones.

Your comments (combined with the next post talking about Corvettes) also made me think about the value of money over time, and the role that a purposefully devalued currency (due to printing lots of paper money) could play.

 

[dross]

The housing market (which was distorted by gov't incentives as well), along with the dot-com bubble are actually really good examples of how irrational market behavior leads to mal-investment.

Markets are quite efficient with rational actors. With irrational actors, not so much. Better than any other arrangement to be sure, but let's not confuse mostly efficient markets with perfectly efficient ones.

All of that is irrelevant to the final consumer, who still tends to behave rationally.

 

[printcraft]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...plaining_about_price_gouging.html#post3636058

 

[chizzle]

All of that is irrelevant to the final consumer, who still tends to behave rationally.

I think Rob agrees with you, but is just phrasing it slightly different. I think you both are saying the government forces may be irrational, but that the end buyer is making a rational decision to buy something at the current market price.

If I understand you guys correctly, that explains me buying inflated Pmags pretty well. The prospect of government intervention has inflated prices (maybe rational, maybe not) and I made the rational decision to buy one at the new price because even at $40, it is worth the money to me.