Karma Strikes low life A&^%$%

[Sedalia Dave]

Seller Blocked By Amazon Seemingly Can’t Unload His 17,000 Bottles Of Hand Sanitizer

 

If I said what I thought I would get a time out. 

[Smuteye John SASS#24774]

I'm having that discussion on another board.

 

Some folks can't see the difference between capitalism and free market and profiteering and just taking advantage of people.

[Cat Brules]

The guy did nothing wrong.

Amazon and eBay unfairly removed him as a seller.

I think he’d likely be able to sue both and deconstruct their unfair agreement structure.

 

Just do not buy from them if you don’t like their prices!

 

 Cat Brules

[Alpo]

I think I understand what you are saying, but I believe that you are wrong.

 

It is his property. He has every right to charge whatever he wants for his stuff. If he wants to sell a $1.25 bottle of hand sanitizer for $75, that's fine. Let him build a booth in his front yard, and put a sign on it. "Hand sanitizer - $75 a bottle"

 

But he could not come to my flea market and sell it for that. Because it's my flea market. I get to decide who sells what.

 

eBay can decide that so and so cannot sell a widget, for any reason they want to. Because it's a crappy widget. Because it's made in Czechoslovakia. Because the widget seller is gouging the customers. It doesn't matter why eBay decides not to allow that customer to sell his widget on their site. It is their site.

 

And it is Amazon's site. And they can kick any seller off, for any reason, or for no reason.. Because it is their site.

 

You appear to be saying that his right to charge exorbitant amounts of money for his product trumps Amazon's right to say who can sell stuff on their site.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

And if he happens to get stuck with unsold inventory, that’s business.

[Cat Brules]

I'm zipping through this with no proofing and little thought, because I’m in the hospital right now and can’t move well.  Hopefully it is not difficult to follow.

 

Alpo I understand your argument.  However, I don’t believe that Amazon or eBay has the legal right to decide who gets to play and who must go home, based upon the sellers’ prices.  By the same token, either of those behemoth outfits could just as well kick someone out whose prices are “too low“.  Such organizations simply do not have the right to rule with an arbitrary iron hand, something which is none of their business.  Another way to look at it is that they are “setting prices,” something that they are not entitled by law to do.  So, arbitrarily withdrawing their platform for selling, based simply on the price being charged is an injury to the seller.  Everything about the seller in this instance is legitimate, whether they or others like it or not.

 

ESPECIALLY when you’re running an operation like Amazon or eBay, you give up the right to make decisions that haven’t been properly pre-stated and do not apply to all sellers, based on your personal and biased beliefs.  On top of that, they have absolutely NO business to “set prices,” which is what they’re doing in this case.

 

What they’ve done here, is intentionally change or create rules in the middle of this seller’s efforts to make a buck (thereby bankrupting him) while their multi-billion-dollar-highnesses maintain virtual monopolies of their business models.  The hypocrisy of this is stunning.  I call this intentional and malicious illegal behavior that leaves the seller with no recourse.  Both these skunks should pay large fines and compensate the seller for his losses, at their price.

 

If they don’t want this seller to sell on their platform, they should make a deal with the seller to buy his inventory at his price and make it a condition that he not come back.  However that doesn’t mean that he would have to except their deal either.

 

Cat Brules

[Ozark Huckleberry]

In the abstract, I would totally agree that letting Smith's 'invisible hand' establish market equilibrium is the best approach. But the presence of the emergency, combined with speculators' behavior, distorts the market and bends the curve.

 

One function of government is to protect its people. Sometimes that's from outside forces, sometimes it's from each other. A few things to consider, when it comes to speculation and price-gouging.

- Under the pressure of an emergency, people can be stupid when it comes to preparations. Recognizing that is a fact does nothing to mitigate the damage that can result.

Not preventing price-gouging would tacitly encourage such behavior in the face of emergencies, with resulting shortages as speculators snapped up supplies they thought might turn a profit (or as one of the Colvin brothers said, would make his family financially comfortable -- aka 'rich'). Speculators draining supplies would create shortages, which then lend credence to the idea that there is a crisis, which further propels panic behavior. The reasonable place to stop this downward spiral is to prevent speculative behavior in the face of an emergency situation.

After it is over, the media can be reasonably expected to discover and publicize the 'get rich quick' stories of successful speculators, practically guaranteeing others would emulate that behavior at the next hint of a crisis.

- Speculators can do real damage.

Thanks to the efforts of the Colvins, there is a swath of Kentucky and Tennessee which suffered from reduced access to hand sanitizer, increasing the vulnerability of the people living there to Covid-19 at a critical time in the progression of the contagion. Speculators buying up supplies takes those supplies away from places where they are needed, at the time they are most needed, and tying them up in their marketing process.

Yes, there are other, better alternatives to hand sanitizer. But its convenience makes it more likely to be used.

- Profiteering feeds the 'capitalism only benefits the rich' narrative of socialists.

If you really want the demo-socialists to gain traction politically, then by all means, don't do anything to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens from greed in the face of an emergency.

 

Most states' anti-profiteering laws provide a margin for a bump in profits in the face of emergent demand -- sometimes as much as 25%. So speculators are not prohibited from buying and selling -- just from exploitation-level price hikes.

 

Isn't suffering from the situation bad enough, without having to deal with people like the Colvins on top of it?

[Linn Keller, SASS 27332, BOLD 103]

9 hours ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

I'm having that discussion on another board.

 

Some folks can't see the difference between capitalism and free market and profiteering and just taking advantage of people.

Kind of like the fellow at Sams Club, scalping toilet paper out of the bed of his pickup truck for a small phenomenal fee.

I think someone called the cops on him, and that was actually a mercy, otherwise someone might have bent a pipe over his head and relieved him of his plunder!

[Matthew Duncan]

8 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

The guy did nothing wrong.

Amazon and eBay unfairly removed him as a seller.

I think he’d likely be able to sue both and deconstruct their unfair agreement structure.

 

Just do not buy from them if you don’t like their prices!

 

 Cat Brules

 

I agree.  

 

I person who bought before the panic, risked his own money on a gamble, with the hopes of turning a profit.  

 

If I put a $1 widget on sale and they sale like hotcakes for $10.  Idiot buyers I would think.  If you think the $10 is price gouging, then like Cat said, do not buy!

[Matthew Duncan]

8 hours ago, Alpo said:

...But he could not come to my flea market and sell it for that. Because it's my flea market. I get to decide who sells what...

 

I want to rent a table or space at your flea market.  You hand me a list of rules before I agree to rent.  I read the rules, sign the agreement and fork over my money.  On the day of your flea market you discover I'm selling #12 Widgets for $ and you are totally against #12 Widgets for $!  There is nothing in our signed agreement that states I can not sell #12 Widgets for $.  So you arbitrarily remove my ability to sell my #12 Widgets at my price?  And there shouldn't be any legal repercussions from my end because it's "your house your rules?"

[Captain Bill Burt]

7 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

I'm zipping through this with no proofing and little thought, because I’m in the hospital right now and can’t move well.  Hopefully it is not difficult to follow.

 

Alpo I understand your argument.  However, I don’t believe that Amazon or eBay has the legal right to decide who gets to play and who must go home, based upon the sellers’ prices.  By the same token, either of those behemoth outfits could just as well kick someone out whose prices are “too low“.  Such organizations simply do not have the right to rule with an arbitrary iron hand, something which is none of their business.  Another way to look at it is that they are “setting prices,” something that they are not entitled by law to do.  So, arbitrarily withdrawing their platform for selling, based simply on the price being charged is an injury to the seller.  Everything about the seller in this instance is legitimate, whether they or others like it or not.

 

ESPECIALLY when you’re running an operation like Amazon or eBay, you give up the right to make decisions that haven’t been properly pre-stated and do not apply to all sellers, based on your personal and biased beliefs.  On top of that, they have absolutely NO business to “set prices,” which is what they’re doing in this case.

 

What they’ve done here, is intentionally change or create rules in the middle of this seller’s efforts to make a buck (thereby bankrupting him) while their multi-billion-dollar-highnesses maintain virtual monopolies of their business models.  The hypocrisy of this is stunning.  I call this intentional and malicious illegal behavior that leaves the seller with no recourse.  Both these skunks should pay large fines and compensate the seller for his losses, at their price.

 

If they don’t want this seller to sell on their platform, they should make a deal with the seller to buy his inventory at his price and make it a condition that he not come back.  However that doesn’t mean that he would have to except their deal either.

 

Cat Brules

LOL.  Ebay and Amazon reserve the right to kick you off their platform for any reason they want to.  They may not like the color of your hair and kick you off.  Here's part of the user agreement sellers sign.

 

If we believe you are abusing eBay and/or our Services in any way, we may, in our sole discretion and without limiting other remedies, limit, suspend, or terminate your user account(s) and access to our Services, delay or remove hosted content, remove any special status associated with your account(s), remove, not display, and/or demote listings, reduce or eliminate any discounts, and take technical and/or legal steps to prevent you from using our Services.

[Cat Brules]

33 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

LOL.  Ebay and Amazon reserve the right to kick you off their platform for any reason they want to.  They may not like the color of your hair and kick you off.  Here's part of the user agreement sellers sign.

 

If we believe you are abusing eBay and/or our Services in any way, we may, in our sole discretion and without limiting other remedies, limit, suspend, or terminate your user account(s) and access to our Services, delay or remove hosted content, remove any special status associated with your account(s), remove, not display, and/or demote listings, reduce or eliminate any discounts, and take technical and/or legal steps to prevent you from using our Services.

 

Hey look, Bill, LOL all you want, Captain Superior.  Just because Jeff Bezos SAYS or MAKES this blanket, “I-can-screw-you” clause, does not give Amazon the privilege or right to arbitrarily cause harm to one of their customers, who followed all the rules.  And then, have this sleazy gang of Nazi, SA, Kristallnacht thugs appear out of the mist at their home/place of business, destroy their livelihood and home, then drag them into the street and beat them (virtually) to death!!

 

That is what figuratively happened in this case.....an intentional, egregious assault on the financial stability of this entrepreneur, using the Banana Republic (on steroids) financial power of the not-so-mini private government entity called Amazon.  
 

This episode, spotlighting the abuse of this government-like, powerful private entity, that woke up one morning with a case of heartburn, and decided to destroy one of its customers because they exhibited some of the same characteristics of Amazon, but without the financial resources to fight back, cannot be tolerated. 

 

If you think otherwise, fine.  Justice however, often has a way of prevailing, in one form or another, 

 

Cat Brules

 

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

14 minutes ago, Cat Brules said:

 

Hey look, Bill, LOL all you want, Captain Superior.  Just because Jeff Bezos SAYS or MAKES this blanket, “I-can-screw-you” clause, does not give Amazon the privilege or right to arbitrarily cause harm to one of their customers, who followed all the rules.  And then, have this sleazy gang of Nazi, SA, Kristallnacht thugs appear out of the mist at their home/place of business, destroy their livelihood and home, then drag them into the street and beat them (virtually) to death!!

 

That is what figuratively happened in this case.....an intentional, egregious assault on the financial stability of this entrepreneur, using the Banana Republic (on steroids) financial power of the not-so-mini private government entity called Amazon.  
 

This episode, spotlighting the abuse of this government-like, powerful private entity, that woke up one morning with a case of heartburn, and decided to destroy one of its customers because they exhibited some of the same characteristics of Amazon, but without the financial resources to fight back, cannot be tolerated. 

 

If you think otherwise, fine.  Justice however, often has a way of prevailing, in one form or another, 

 

Cat Brules

 

 

I don't think there's any reason to start name calling CB, but if that's your approach to debate go for it. It's been my experience that when someone's argument is purely speculative with no facts to back it up, name calling is one of their first tactics. 

 

It's not the fact that Jeff says something that gives Amazon or Ebay that right, it's the fact that the seller signed the contract.  The fact that price gouging is illegal in many states seems to imply that this guy did NOT 'follow all the rules' as you stated. If I were Bezos I would point to the signed contract, and the state laws.  Pretty easy defense.

 

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/coronavirus-emergency-declarations-trigger-anti-pricing-gouging-laws

 

I look forward to the lawsuit where this dirtbag sues because he couldn't sell hand sanitizer for $75 a bottle. 

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

I just read that they donated the whole lot...

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Some states have price gouging laws.

 

Here's a link to CA's.

https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/pricegougingduringdisasters#3C

[Utah Bob #35998]

I have been in many disaster areas over the years and seen many price gouging examples. From repairmen to chainsaw and generator sales to bottled water. Those people are scum in my book not simply businessmen. They are praying on there fellow man’s tragedy.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

I get the idea of a free-market system. However in the eyes of most people this guy is a dick, regardless of whether it was his right to do it or not. It's because of capitalists like him that a lot of people are starting to have a more favorable view of socialism.

[DocWard]

2 hours ago, Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 said:

I just read that they donated the whole lot...

 

Yes, it appears he did. My guess is, he saw no way to realistically make a profit, didn't like the idea of prosecution and decided by donating a chunk of it to the Attorney General's office, along with a church, he would avoid that.

 

The thing is, had he sold it for, say, a dollar more per bottle / container than he bought it for, plus shipping, he would have made a profit in excess of $15,000 if he sold it all, accounting for gas and storage. That probably wouldn't have caused him to run afoul of Amazon, either.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Thanks, @Utah Bob #35998. I just spewed coffee all over by monitor.

 

 

 

[Alpo]

And since he donated it, he can take it all off of taxes, which will probably end up saving him some tax money, which is the same thing as making some money.

[Utah Bob #35998]

6 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Thanks, @Utah Bob #35998. I just spewed coffee all over by monitor.

 

 

 

Then my work here is through.

[Sedalia Dave]

4 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Then my work here is through.

 

Wait a darn minute. The background in that photo is awfully familiar.   

[Sixgun Sheridan]

40 minutes ago, Alpo said:

And since he donated it, he can take it all off of taxes, which will probably end up saving him some tax money, which is the same thing as making some money.

 

Considering how much he paid for all that I doubt he'll get enough back from his taxes to make up for it. He's mostly just trying to avoid spending even more money on lawyer's fees.

[Blackwater 53393]

If he has a business license, he can probably take the cost of his investment “off the top” when he files his tax return. 

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

The Tennessee AG got involved. We do have price gouging laws here. 

[Cat Brules]

On 3/16/2020 at 7:47 AM, Captain Bill Burt said:

I don't think there's any reason to start name calling CB, but if that's your approach to debate go for it. It's been my experience that when someone's argument is purely speculative with no facts to back it up, name calling is one of their first tactics. 

 

It's not the fact that Jeff says something that gives Amazon or Ebay that right, it's the fact that the seller signed the contract.  The fact that price gouging is illegal in many states seems to imply that this guy did NOT 'follow all the rules' as you stated. If I were Bezos I would point to the signed contract, and the state laws.  Pretty easy defense.

 

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/coronavirus-emergency-declarations-trigger-anti-pricing-gouging-laws

 

I look forward to the lawsuit where this dirtbag sues because he couldn't sell hand sanitizer for $75 a bottle. 

 

What name-calling are you talking about?

I didn’t call you any names.

I did (and do) object to your disdainful (disrespectful), superior attitude with your  “laughing” reference to my comments.  Don’t do that.  You may call that “name calling,” if you wish; I just have to call it being oversensitive on your part at being called out for your disrespectful comments to me, for my perspective on the conversation.

 

I did compare Amazon’s behavior to that of a rogue government some 85-90 years ago, for their egregious financially-ruining attack on one of their own customers.  I don’t, and I doubt anyone believes, that Amazon’s ceo is a Nazi.  However, it’s easy for me to compare Amazon’s behavior to the early-on behavior of a rogue state, but in a non-physical, manner.   The result was similar, but only destroyed their customer’s financial enterprise in a non-violent manner.  My comments had no reference, and still do not, to you personally,  I suggest you argue the point and not the person.

 

Cat Brules

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

6 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

 

What name-calling are you talking about?

I didn’t call you any names.

I did (and do) object to your disdainful (disrespectful), superior attitude with your  “laughing” reference to my comments.  Don’t do that.  You may call that “name calling,” if you wish; I just have to call it being oversensitive on your part at being called out for your disrespectful comments to me, for my perspective on the conversation.

 

I did compare Amazon’s behavior to that of a rogue government some 85-90 years ago, for their egregious financially-ruining attack on one of their own customers.  I don’t, and I doubt anyone believes, that Amazon’s ceo is a Nazi.  However, it’s easy for me to compare Amazon’s behavior to the early-on behavior of a rogue state, but in a non-physical, manner.   The result was similar, but only destroyed their customer’s financial enterprise in a non-violent manner.  My comments had no reference, and still do not, to you personally,  I suggest you argue the point and not the person.

 

Cat Brules

 

LOL.  Don't do that?

 

And if I do? 

 

Like I just did to this comment? 

 

What then? Double secret probation Dean Wormer?

 

I'll use whatever emoticons the site offers.  In your case the laughing emoticon seems apropos.  Don't worry, I'm not laughing with you, I'm definitely laughing AT you. 

Dude was a sleaze trying to gouge folks and breaking the law while he was was at it.  He got shut down and had to give his stuff away.  Serves him right. 

[McCandless]

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV...

Just a question.  Since a State of Emergency exists on the Federal and all State levels.  Plus, multiple price-gouging laws in effect.  Would the venue, (Amazon, Ebay, etc.) be held complicit with the price gouger by the price gougee?  In our state we are encouraged to report price gouging for possible prosecution. 

[Utah Bob #35998]

12 hours ago, McCandless said:

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV...

Just a question.  Since a State of Emergency exists on the Federal and all State levels.  Plus, multiple price-gouging laws in effect.  Would the venue, (Amazon, Ebay, etc.) be held complicit with the price gouger by the price gougee?  In our state we are encouraged to report price gouging for possible prosecution. 

Only if they were aware and failed to take action per their guidelines. It would appear that they took appropriate action.

[Jed Cooper]

I heard a news story about this. Seems that some of the price gouging laws go into effect after a national emergency is declared. Not sure if the timing when amazon pulled the plug but it would make a difference in some states. If Amazon reserves the right to control their sellers then it would be within their right to do so. Apply this to any potential Corona Virus vaccine....would it be ok for the Pharmacy to sell only to the highest bidder ?

 

Jed