Price gouging or entrepreneurship

[Rye Miles #13621]

6 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

What they paid isn't relevant.  What they will have to pay to replace it is.  A business that focuses on what they paid rather than replacement cost will not stay in business long. 

A local sporting goods/gun store in this area (They have 4 stores in Ohio) recently raised their price on primers from $7.99 for 100 (Yes 100) to $9.99/100 in less than a week. They told me they were anticipating what their replacement cost would be. $2.00 on $7.99 is a 40% increase! Gimme a break! Oh yea and you could only buy ONE sleeve of a hundred. Hmmmm.........

[watab kid]

ive always looked at an entrepreneur as one that saw folks wanting something that did not exist [or thinking of a better way] and developing and providing at a reasonable-affordable cost , thus creating a new market , 

 

i think those that see a need in a shortage and take advantage by price gouging as opportunists or 'carpetbaggers' , there has never been a lot of love for a carpetbagger in my family linage - think they fell just shy of a horse thief and just short of the rope - but ill tie the noose if yall got the inklin 

 

edited to add ive been helpin out those in real need with what i can at as-purchased prices or free 

[Pat Riot]

14 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

One thing about Joe's LGS, he has it on the shelves all the time!

Because he’s price gouging and people walk without buying his overpriced ammo. 

[Snakejaw_Joe]

IMO price gouging is charging unreachable prices on necessities during a time of societal distress.

 

I consider firearms to be necessities, and support their classification as 'essential'.

I consider $249 for a box of 22LR rounds to be unreachable.

I consider a global pandemic to be a time of societal distress.

 

Yes, that is 100% price gouging .

 

If any one of those factors didn't apply... for example, If this was just a regular Monday and some company just decided to post a box of ammo for $249... Sure, free market, see who bites (nobody will). Or if firearms weren't considered essential... sure, who needs it? Let the rich enjoy their luxuries. or if $249 for a box was within the BOUNDS of reachable... like maybe 50% more or something... Then sure, its a pain, but we can afford that.

 

But no. That is gouging.

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

Okay...then I'd like to know what they paid for it, and also I'd also like to know the replacement cost of the item, and how they determined the replacement cost. Do they have a contracted replacement price, that would be guaranteed for a specific length of time, or do they use some sort of inflated estimate of the replacement cost, based on recent trends, and projections, and inquiries? Would they remark the price, after a certain length of time, to adjust to the new replacement cost?  

I know some businesses are paying retail for the products, because, according to one business I recently talked to, they can't get anything out of their normal wholesaler at all. 

All this, right now, seems to be very fluid, as far as prices they are asking for their products. 

A challenge, for sure, for the business to have a gain, and stay in business. Also, another factor, among many, working against them, is...we presume this shortage is not going to last indefinitely, and we also clearly remember what we paid for things like this, not all that long ago. 

Yep...supply and demand.

Never-the-less, many will not pay that price, and will strive to wait it out, and hope for the supply to increase, and prices to come down. They are asking $249.89 for this item, right now. That's over a dollar a round for .22 cartridges...not counting the sales tax!!!!!!! 

Land-a-Goshen!

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

On 3/14/2021 at 8:15 PM, DocWard said:

 

These are actually both poor analogies and easily distinguishable from the current situation.

 

1965 Mustangs haven't been made since... Bear with me... 1965. In the intervening years, crashes, rust, neglect and collectors have created an increasingly limited number of Mustangs in the market. It is to be expected that with the popularity of the vehicle, maintenance, restoration, etc... the price will rise accordingly. Even then, the vagaries of the market causes prices to fluctuate as popularity and tastes shift, along with the availability of vehicles.

 

In regard to liquidations, the asking price is typically being set, not by the merchant, but by a liquidator who purchased the product, and more, at a fraction of its worth, meaning the liquidator is likely making a profit, even at the lower price.

 

 

I taught this stuff for years, and it's pretty rare to see an example of 'price gouging' not working in the public's favor in the real world.

 

Everything you said about a 65 Mustang could just as well be said about ammo and primers today.  Increases in demand, popularity, vagaries in the market are causing prices to fluctuate.

 

In this case, semantically what you're saying boils down to 'when people charge me prices I don't like it's price gouging, but when I get a deal at below market, that's just fine.'

 

On 3/14/2021 at 11:20 PM, watab kid said:

ive always looked at an entrepreneur as one that saw folks wanting something that did not exist [or thinking of a better way] and developing and providing at a reasonable-affordable cost , thus creating a new market , 

 

i think those that see a need in a shortage and take advantage by price gouging as opportunists or 'carpetbaggers' , there has never been a lot of love for a carpetbagger in my family linage - think they fell just shy of a horse thief and just short of the rope - but ill tie the noose if yall got the inklin 

 

edited to add ive been helpin out those in real need with what i can at as-purchased prices or free 

Here's a textbook example of what you call 'Carpetbaggers'.  A hurricane hits the Gulf Coast.  Shortages occur for a lot of things, chainsaws, generators, ice, water, whatever.  A 'carpetbagger' in Georgia fills his truck up with these items and brings them to the affected area.  When he gets there he charges a premium (in your view he gouges) and people buy all his stuff.  Is that a bad thing?  People who needed that stuff now have it.  He made a profit.  Both parties are happy.

Enter Uncle Sam, 'oh goodness, he's price gouging, we have to stop that.'  Now he can't charge the price he wants so he stays home in Georgia.  The people who would have bought his supplies now go without, he doesn't make a profit.  Is that a good thing?  

 

22 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

Because he’s price gouging and people walk without buying his overpriced ammo. 

 

Sorry Pat, I have a lot of respect for you, and I'm not trying to insult or irritate you, but that statement is just incorrect and not supported by any economic theory.  Price is going up because demand has increased significantly while supply has fallen.  Your LGS is not a price maker, they are a price taker.  If they're charging more than market prices customers will do exactly what you said, walk without buying and the store will either have to lower prices, or not sell anything. 

 

That's not happening.  LGS's are selling all they want to at these prices because they are the market clearing equilibrium price right now. 

 

22 hours ago, Snakejaw_Joe said:

IMO price gouging is charging unreachable prices on necessities during a time of societal distress.

 

I consider firearms to be necessities, and support their classification as 'essential'.

I consider $249 for a box of 22LR rounds to be unreachable.

I consider a global pandemic to be a time of societal distress.

 

Yes, that is 100% price gouging .

 

If any one of those factors didn't apply... for example, If this was just a regular Monday and some company just decided to post a box of ammo for $249... Sure, free market, see who bites (nobody will). Or if firearms weren't considered essential... sure, who needs it? Let the rich enjoy their luxuries. or if $249 for a box was within the BOUNDS of reachable... like maybe 50% more or something... Then sure, its a pain, but we can afford that.

 

But no. That is gouging.

Please define 'unreachable'.  You are aware that what is 'unreachable' for you may not be unreachable for someone else, and therefore your definition of 'gouging' will vary from person to person.   It's a strange word that has a different definition depending upon who is using it.

 

Are you under the impression that your fellow citizens owe you necessities during times of societal distress?

 

7 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

Okay...then I'd like to know what they paid for it, and also I'd also like to know the replacement cost of the item, and how they determined the replacement cost. Do they have a contracted replacement price, that would be guaranteed for a specific length of time, or do they use some sort of inflated estimate of the replacement cost, based on recent trends, and projections, and inquiries? Would they remark the price, after a certain length of time, to adjust to the new replacement cost?  

I know some businesses are paying retail for the products, because, according to one business I recently talked to, they can't get anything out of their normal wholesaler at all. 

All this, right now, seems to be very fluid, as far as prices they are asking for their products. 

A challenge, for sure, for the business to have a gain, and stay in business. Also, another factor, among many, working against them, is...we presume this shortage is not going to last indefinitely, and we also clearly remember what we paid for things like this, not all that long ago. 

Yep...supply and demand.

Never-the-less, many will not pay that price, and will strive to wait it out, and hope for the supply to increase, and prices to come down. They are asking $249.89 for this item, right now. That's over a dollar a round for .22 cartridges...not counting the sales tax!!!!!!! 

Land-a-Goshen!

 

What business is it of yours what someone else paid for their property?

 

From an economic perspective there is no shortage of either ammo or primers.  Both are available right now in stores, or on sites like Gunbroker.  A shortage occurs when there is not enough of a product to meet demand at the market price. 

 

If it were not for these 'price gougers' there would be no ammo or primers available at all.  If prices were kept artificially low during this time of increased demand you would see every bullet/primer bought and hoarded at those low prices and nobody would be offering them for resale unless they could charge a higher price and make a profit. 

 

The solution isn't to enforce price controls, it's to either reduce demand, or increase supply.  No other approach will provide what everyone wants, which is lower prices.   Producers are running full tilt right now, but aren't willing to expand their production facilities because they have been burned by demand spikes in the past.   Demand is sky high because people are afraid of where things are going in this country and they're afraid that their access to guns and ammo may be taken away in the future.   

 

Sellers are reacting rationally and charging what the market will bear. 

[Pat Riot]

23 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Sorry Pat, I have a lot of respect for you, and I'm not trying to insult or irritate you, but that statement is just incorrect and not supported by any economic theory.  Price is going up because demand has increased significantly while supply has fallen.  Your LGS is not a price maker, they are a price taker.  If they're charging more than market prices customers will do exactly what you said, walk without buying and the store will either have to lower prices, or not sell anything. 

Thank you but the laughing smilie face was meant to indicate a joke. 
 

We’re good. Not insulted. 

[Snakejaw_Joe]

1 minute ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

 

Please define 'unreachable'.  You are aware that what is 'unreachable' for you may not be unreachable for someone else, and therefore your definition of 'gouging' will vary from person to person.   It's a strange word that has a different definition depending upon who is using it.

 

Are you under the impression that your fellow citizens owe you necessities during times of societal distress?

 

 

yes, the perception of gouging will vary from person to person, as will any other concept in our regulatory handbook. What is 'excessive' in 'excessive force'? The person getting attacked will have a different perception than the person doing the attacking. How 'indecent' do you have to be for 'indecent exposure'? Some folks are cool with people walking around tits out, others are not. These terms are definable by the majority of people, so what the majority of people deem indecent is how we define the term.

 

For an idea of what the majority looks like... the majority of Americans make $31k a year (US Census 2019) before taxes. After taxes, that's roughly $26,350 a year to take home. Average rent in America for a one bedroom apartment in 2020 not including utilities was $997.68 (rentable annual rent report) which comes out to $11,972 a year. The average household spends $7,729 a year on food, and the average household size is 2.5 which means the average american spends $3,091 on food a year. We won't consider vehicle/transportation costs, utility costs etc as these fluctuate too much. So at a base level, the average American has $11,287 to play with annually. This class of people is what determines 'unreachable', and a 2500% price increase on an essential ware is what we are evaluating.

 

To address your second comment: the entire point of having a society is so we can rely on each other. If coming together didn't help us, we would travel in nomadic packs like wolves and kill each other for resources. We all owe each other respect, every day (love thy neighbor), and marking up a product 2500% during a time of societal distress is at the bare minimum anti-social and unethical. I am here to help my fellow citizen, with the expectation that they do the same for me. That's not to say I'll give it away, but I would be like, hey, people are struggling right now, and so am I, I'll mark this up 100-500% to cover my extra headache in sourcing, and my neighbor can have his/her essential ware. 'The rising tide lifts all boats'.

 

Unless we say every word is meaningless and we decide not to draw any lines in the sand, lines will be blurry and debatable, and this is why we have lawyers. I'm not a lawyer for the record, but I am married to one!! lol

[Captain Bill Burt]

29 minutes ago, Snakejaw_Joe said:

 

yes, the perception of gouging will vary from person to person, as will any other concept in our regulatory handbook. What is 'excessive' in 'excessive force'? The person getting attacked will have a different perception than the person doing the attacking. How 'indecent' do you have to be for 'indecent exposure'? Some folks are cool with people walking around tits out, others are not. These terms are definable by the majority of people, so what the majority of people deem indecent is how we define the term.

 

For an idea of what the majority looks like... the majority of Americans make $31k a year (US Census 2019) before taxes. After taxes, that's roughly $26,350 a year to take home. Average rent in America for a one bedroom apartment in 2020 not including utilities was $997.68 (rentable annual rent report) which comes out to $11,972 a year. The average household spends $7,729 a year on food, and the average household size is 2.5 which means the average american spends $3,091 on food a year. We won't consider vehicle/transportation costs, utility costs etc as these fluctuate too much. So at a base level, the average American has $11,287 to play with annually. This class of people is what determines 'unreachable', and a 2500% price increase on an essential ware is what we are evaluating.

 

To address your second comment: the entire point of having a society is so we can rely on each other. If coming together didn't help us, we would travel in nomadic packs like wolves and kill each other for resources. We all owe each other respect, every day (love thy neighbor), and marking up a product 2500% during a time of societal distress is at the bare minimum anti-social and unethical. I am here to help my fellow citizen, with the expectation that they do the same for me. That's not to say I'll give it away, but I would be like, hey, people are struggling right now, and so am I, I'll mark this up 100-500% to cover my extra headache in sourcing, and my neighbor can have his/her essential ware. 'The rising tide lifts all boats'.

 

Unless we say every word is meaningless and we decide not to draw any lines in the sand, lines will be blurry and debatable, and this is why we have lawyers. I'm not a lawyer for the record, but I am married to one!! lol

Capitalism is based on the concept that each person is out to maximize their own satisfaction.  Adam Smith said that when that occurs, an 'invisible hand' leads us to mutually benefit.  This is based on the concept that people freely enter into market transactions and only exchange money for goods and services if both parties prefer what the other party has.  I buy an Iphone because I would rather have that than the money.  Apple sells me the Iphone because they would rather have the money.  Both parties end up better off.  This is the invisible hand at work.   Apple did not make that Iphone because they love me and want to make me happy, and I didn't give them my money because I love them and want them to be happy.  Self gratification was the only motivation.

 

I think there are three fundamental mistakes in your position. 

 

The first is the idea that average income and average disposable income should or does have some relationship to what people can ethically charge for their goods and services.  This idea is the antithesis of free markets and capitalism and more importantly, it's antithetical to personal liberty.   

 

The second is the idea that because something is defined as a necessity, the people producing it have some duty to charge a price that other's call 'fair'.   The underlying assumption is that you have a 'right' to someone else's work product.  I don't believe that 'right' is mentioned anywhere in our founding documents. Taken to it's logical conclusion no rational person would want to produce goods and services that are deemed essential, as they would then be subject to some outside entity restricting their ability to make a living. For example, I can produce pacemakers, which many deem 'essential' and my ability to charge what I want will be restricted and with it my standard of living and ability to provide for my family, or I can produce luxury yachts and charge whatever I want and have whatever standard of living my skills allow.  Hmmm, I think in that hypothetical scenario I'll build yachts so my kids can go to college, rather than pacemakers so I can have whatever standard of living my 'betters' think is acceptable.

 

The third mistake is the idea that people are simply 'marking up a product'.  I'm sorry, but supply and demand do not work that way.  Unless a producer has market power, for example a monopoly, or oligopoly, they can't simply 'mark up a product' and expect it to sell.  If the Exxon on the corner decides to 'mark up' premium gas to $10 a gallon, I will buy from the BP across the street.  If the two collude and set prices, THEN they are breaking the law.  The same applies to ammo sales.  The demand curve has shifted to the right, strongly.  The supply curve hasn't moved.  The inevitable result is higher prices.  This is due to market forces, not individual sellers unilaterally gouging.   Unless you think that thousands and thousands of LGSs are colluding on prices?  

 

[DocWard]

3 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I taught this stuff for years, and it's pretty rare to see an example of 'price gouging' not working in the public's favor in the real world.

 

Everything you said about a 65 Mustang could just as well be said about ammo and primers today.  Increases in demand, popularity, vagaries in the market are causing prices to fluctuate.

 

In this case, semantically what you're saying boils down to 'when people charge me prices I don't like it's price gouging, but when I get a deal at below market, that's just fine.'  

I get that you taught this for years. Perhaps if you had taught logic, you would have recognized the fallacious aspects of your above commentary. From the “argument from authority” aspect to the straw man. 
 

Among other facets of my critique of your analogy you pointedly ignore is the simple fact that they aren’t making 65 Mustangs anymore, not to mention the decreasing number available, in toto. I won’t even get into 1965 dollars vs 2021 dollars. As you later point out, quite accurately, I might add, manufacturers are producing large amounts, of ammunition, balancing the need with the issues associated with adding capacity.

 

As to your second point, “semantically,” I said no such thing. Your comment is a straw man to the extent that you incorrectly paraphrased my point so that you could attack it. In fact, all I was pointing out was that your description of how liquidations work was somewhat in error, without any specific assertion regarding gouging intended beyond that.

 

The interesting thing is, I generally agree with your point of view, with some quibbles. When I mentioned capitalism and gouging not being mutually exclusive in my initial post, I had hoped it would be clear I was referencing seeking inordinate profit (as opposed to your “replacement cost” assertion).  At any point does seeking profit at the expense of all else become simply mercenary in your analysis? It does in mine.

 

To the extent this is difficult to read or follow, I composed the message on my phone, something I am not used to.

[Captain Bill Burt]

15 minutes ago, DocWard said:

I get that you taught this for years. Perhaps if you had taught logic, you would have recognized the fallacious aspects of your above commentary. From the “argument from authority” aspect to the straw man. 
 

The one facet of my critique of your analogy you pointedly ignore is the simple fact that they aren’t making 65 Mustangs anymore, not to mention the decreasing number available, in toto. As you later point out, quite accurately, I might add, manufacturers are producing large amounts, of ammunition, balancing the need with the issues associated with adding capacity.

 

As to your second point, “semantically,” I said no such thing. Your comment is a straw man to the extent that you incorrectly paraphrased my point so that you could attack it. In fact, all I was pointing out was that your description of how liquidations work was somewhat in error, without any specific assertion regarding gouging intended beyond that.

 

The interesting thing is, I generally agree with your point of view, with some quibbles. When I mentioned capitalism and gouging not being mutually exclusive in my initial post, I had hoped it would be clear I was referencing seeking inordinate profit (as opposed to your “replacement cost” assertion).  At any point does seeking profit at the expense of all else become simply mercenary in your analysis? It does in mine.

 

To the extent this is difficult to read or follow, I composed the message on my phone, something I am not used to.

Thank you.  It has been some time since I've been accused of making an illogical argument.

 

I apologize if you view me 'arguing from authority' as being in some way fallacious.  I do have a degree in the subject, and was employed with the title 'Economist' so I hope it's understandable that I might think I know something about the subject. 

 

I'm certainly not 'pointedly ignoring' your comment about Mustangs.  I didn't address it because it doesn't matter.  Scarcity is one thing that can affect prices, the underlying causes of the scarcity aren't relevant in this case.   The principle of ownership of private property with all attendant rights applies equally in both cases.

 

Ammo is scarce/pricey because the demand curve shifted to the right, while supply has not shifted, only quantity supplied has changed.  Prices have jumped sharply because the supply of ammo is pretty inelastic (it takes a while to build a factory) and the demand for ammo is also pretty inelastic (there aren't a whole lot of substitutes out there).   Basic microeconomics predicts sharp price increases and increases in quantity supplied until marginal cost equals the new marginal revenue. 

 

 

65 Mustangs are scarce because the demand curve shifted to the right, while supply has shifted to the left, and will continue to shift to the left.  What's the difference?  The difference is that the demand curve for 65 Mustangs is likely pretty elastic, so instead of a sharp increase you've seen a slow gradual increase.

 

We have a scarce resource, and those who have a supply of that resource are charging what the market will bear, the equilibrium price and quantity driven by the slopes and positions of the supply and demand curves.

 

It's all mercenary in my view.  Just different business models, some focused on short term profits and some on long term.

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

When a gunstore or Walmart receives ammo or components it should be offered to their customers at whatever price they decide. Maybe limit the amount per customer at times like this. But when a manager holds it back and gets it all to a buddy and they sell it on the side at these inflated prices, that is not normal supply vs demand. And this is happening.

 

That's different then someone camping out to be first in line and getting one box of primers, ammo etc. and reselling for what he can get. 

[DocWard]

31 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Thank you.  It has been some time since I've been accused of making an illogical argument.

 

I apologize if you view me 'arguing from authority' as being in some way fallacious.  I do have a degree in the subject, and was employed with the title 'Economist' so I hope it's understandable that I might think I know something about the subject. 

 

I'm certainly not 'pointedly ignoring' your comment about Mustangs.  I didn't address it because it doesn't matter.  Scarcity is one thing that can affect prices, the underlying causes of the scarcity aren't relevant in this case.   The principle of ownership of private property with all attendant rights applies equally in both cases.

 

Ammo is scarce/pricey because the demand curve shifted to the right, while supply has not shifted, only quantity supplied has changed.  Prices have jumped sharply because the supply of ammo is pretty inelastic (it takes a while to build a factory) and the demand for ammo is also pretty inelastic (there aren't a whole lot of substitutes out there).   Basic microeconomics predicts sharp price increases and increases in quantity supplied until marginal cost equals the new marginal revenue. 

 

 

65 Mustangs are scarce because the demand curve shifted to the right, while supply has shifted to the left, and will continue to shift to the left.  What's the difference?  The difference is that the demand curve for 65 Mustangs is likely pretty elastic, so instead of a sharp increase you've seen a slow gradual increase.

 

We have a scarce resource, and those who have a supply of that resource are charging what the market will bear, the equilibrium price and quantity driven by the slopes and positions of the supply and demand curves.

 

It's all mercenary in my view.  Just different business models, some focused on short term profits and some on long term.

I’ll concede the argument from authority fallacy, but stand by the straw man, does that sound fair?

 

Again, with some quibbles, I tend to if not completely agree, recognize the thrust and rationale of your argument. It is too much of a headache to read and reply via phone, so I will leave it at that, other than to say “mercenary” as I understand it, means eschewing ethics in search of profit. While this may not be a consideration in abstract modeling, I believe it should  be in application.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

The only reason why sellers are getting away with these outrageous prices is because there are people willing to pay it. Just look at all the Gunbroker auctions for ammo and see just how high everything is being bid up to. If you refuse to pay over $1.00/rd for .22LR ammo then tough, because somebody else will. The gun situation is the same. I've been wanting one of the new Colt Pythons but I refuse to pay over the $1499 MSRP for it. They're selling for double that on Gunbroker every week.

 

I was in a LGS last week and an employee was putting out 100-packs of Mini-Mags on the shelf... cases of it. I asked about the price, and he said $40/ea. I told him the only reason why I even shoot .22s anymore is because they're supposed to be cheap.

 

I went back there yesterday and the Mini-Mags were all gone.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I don't think it has to do with economics really, and certainly not with government price controls. "Price gouging" to me is just an epithet of criticism. It's like pornography: hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

 

I don't think the question is doing anything about it, so I think to some extent Capt Bill Burt's analysis, while mostly accurate, is, at least to me, beside the point. 

 

I just rebuke the practice, that's all. Maybe partly because I'm buying ammo at normal retail prices from time to time throughout this period.

 

Why didn't Costco and supermarkets jack up toilet paper prices when there was a huge shortage and high demand? Same with other commodities...

Because of maintaing customer relationships, that's why. So perhaps the long-range view is the economic argument against the practice.

[Cypress Sun]

 

Boy I sure do hate it when logic and education rule sway over emotions and isms.

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

Oh I figure if someone has the freedom to put something up for sale to the general public, and me being the general public, that it becomes my business to find out if the price they are asking is reasonable. If the price they are asking seems exorbitant, I want to know why that is. 

Over a dollar apiece for .22 cartridges, raises a lot of red flags for me.   

And....after all...it is my money, and also my time, that I am spending. I spend the finite precious moments of my existence, working to earn money. It is my business to find out if what I am spending the finite moments of my time on, is reasonable.

They put the item on the shelves, it becomes my business.

If they choose not to tell me what kind of mark up they are getting, either because it is a secret, or they are leery of making that public, or if they may have something to hide, or if they think it is none of my business, then that is their right. 

But, if the price that is stated, seems to be very much out of character, and it is offered for sale to the public, I believe it becomes my business to ask some questions. I do that at a truck dealership, when looking at houses, or property, when hiring a contractor. I understand reasonable markups. I understand supply and demand. I understand replacement costs. I understand the free enterprise system. 

I also understand human nature.  

They have the freedom to pay whatever they wish for an item. 

I have the freedom to want to know if the price they are asking is reasonable, so that does make it my business...in my opinion.

If that offends them, or anyone, then that is just tough sss...tuff.

Customer repeat business is based on trust, which begets loyalty. Trust is never given. Trust is only able to be earned. It takes time, and transparency, and honesty...not once in a while, but every single time. Trust is hard to earn, and easy to lose. 

Any business can freely put a price on anything they wish. No arguments about that from me. Supply and demand causes the prices to fluctuate. 

It is my business to convince myself that what I am spending is reasonable, considering the situation. 

   

[watab kid]

i couldnt figure how to quote - 

 

to me the carpetbagger charges outrageous rate , so yes - bad thing , if folks are in need you might load your car up and ask what you paid plus amount it took to get it there and a reasonable profit if so inclined , you were fortunate that event didnt put you in harms way but it does not in my world allow for "gouging" ...taking advantage of anothers suffering is not in my nature , just me 

 

im not telling others how to live their lives but i was willing to give my honest opinion in this one , if - i say if , there was someone needing ammo ill share mine for replacement cost .....i would hope the replacement venue was treating us both fair , 

this is all going to go away one day , will you buy from those that overcharged as we see some doing or will you go to those vendors that have tried to treat you right ? just asking , 

 

to those that justify - please remember one day you might be on the other side looking in , and ...i guess we all have to look in the mirror every morning and be satisfied with what we see , thats all ill say - gouge all you want , im not buying that 

[Snakejaw_Joe]

There are a lot of rational arguments on this thread, and all are valid. The funny thing about 'rationale', it comes from the brain, and all our brains are different. We calculate and process the world differently, and our pre-loaded formulas lead us to different conclusions. In court, even though both sides may be presenting rational arguments, the case is ultimately decided by how the jury feels. We can all justify what we've done rationally, but it's whether or not the jury thinks its 'right' that decides the outcome.

 

In any case, I appreciate that we are a diverse group with different opinions. It'd be way too quiet if we sat across a campfire and just agreed on everything. All entertainment is built on some level of conflict. And to be clear, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion here, just airing mine out.

 

21 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

The second is the idea that because something is defined as a necessity, the people producing it have some duty to charge a price that other's call 'fair'.   The underlying assumption is that you have a 'right' to someone else's work product.  I don't believe that 'right' is mentioned anywhere in our founding documents. Taken to it's logical conclusion no rational person would want to produce goods and services that are deemed essential, as they would then be subject to some outside entity restricting their ability to make a living. For example, I can produce pacemakers, which many deem 'essential' and my ability to charge what I want will be restricted and with it my standard of living and ability to provide for my family, or I can produce luxury yachts and charge whatever I want and have whatever standard of living my skills allow.  Hmmm, I think in that hypothetical scenario I'll build yachts so my kids can go to college, rather than pacemakers so I can have whatever standard of living my 'betters' think is acceptable.

 

I have a brief example for you. I was recently given a job opportunity developing prosthetic limbs for amputees. The pay was incredible, the market vast and the competition scarce.  In 10 years, I would have made enough so that my children wouldn't have had to work a day in their lives. A capitalist dream.

 

So I did my due diligence. Turns out a lot of prosthetics aren't covered by insurance (this is a complex subject so I'll leave it there). It also turns out that a lot of amputees can't work, and their disability insurance plans are bare bones. The insurance plans that did cover only covered the raw features, and they risked premium rate hikes. It also turns out that a large group of amputees are combat veterans.

 

Since the market was so free and competition was scarce, the company offered no discount for veterans. They didn't have to, and people who needed prosthetics had no choice. Either go broke getting your limb back, or accept you'll never have one. Looking at their business model, most of what they charged was pure profit. This included consideration of r&d expense, materials, labor, regulatory compliance etc. That's when I withdrew my candidacy. It is unacceptable that these men and women destroyed their lives to protect ours and now are cast aside because 'the market dictates I can profit off of them'. 

 

Now, should the company be required by law to help people? No, I don't believe in over regulation. But should we as a society set expectations on the overly capable to be a part of society? That's where I believe the pressure should come from. In my opinion, it is wrong to profit off of someone else's suffering, especially when that person has suffered for my gain and benefit. 

 

Now bullets are very different from prosthetics, and while a necessity, don't have the same consequence. I'm not suffering due to a lack of bullets. I have three thousand primers left in reserve and am ok. If a brother needs a box I give it to them, until I reach my minimum. So I see where y'all are coming from. But still... all this was to say that society relies on the goodness of people to work symbiotically. While legal, and justifiable on a calculator, I think it's wrong, and I wouldn't do it.

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

Does capitalism always produce the best outcomes?  Clearly not, market failures can, and do, occur.  This is an example of one.  There are many others. 

 

Winston Churchill said "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

I think Churchill was right.  Democracy is a pretty stupid way to run a government given that intelligence is not additive.  However, it's better than any other form that has been tried.  The same can be said of capitalism.  It's pretty flawed, people get hurt, people do without basic necessities.  However, it's a whole lot better than any other method of allocating resources that's been tried. 

 

I think combat veterans not being able to afford prosthetics is a shame.  But what is the alternative?  Force people to work in the industry?  You could put a price ceiling on their products, of course economics teaches us that a price ceiling that actually works (ie keeps prices below equilibrium) will always result in shortages.  Now it's not a matter of them not being able to afford the prosthetics, there just won't be any available for sale at that price. 

 

You bring up an interesting point Joe.  Unfortunately many will not like the true solution.  The military is a public good, one that we all pay for through taxes, like highways, police, etc.   The failure here is not on the part of the people selling the prosthetics, it's on the part of the politicians who determine what military personnel are paid.  This is a great example of what happens when the market is taken out of the picture and so called 'experts' decide what prices should be.

[Krazy Kajun]

Mary Ann.

 

Kajun

[Snakejaw_Joe]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think combat veterans not being able to afford prosthetics is a shame.  But what is the alternative?  Force people to work in the industry?  You could put a price ceiling on their products, of course economics teaches us that a price ceiling that actually works (ie keeps prices below equilibrium) will always result in shortages.  Now it's not a matter of them not being able to afford the prosthetics, there just won't be any available for sale at that price. 

 

You bring up an interesting point Joe.  Unfortunately many will not like the true solution.  The military is a public good, one that we all pay for through taxes, like highways, police, etc.   The failure here is not on the part of the people selling the prosthetics, it's on the part of the politicians who determine what military personnel are paid.  This is a great example of what happens when the market is taken out of the picture and so called 'experts' decide what prices should be.

 

We agree on that. A lot of the things that tick me off are things that just haven't been improved yet. Change takes time, democracy and capitalism itself have evolved through the centuries to adapt to societal needs. I'm a patient man and mostly focus on long term gain. We have the longest running democracy in the world, and I believe it will continue to improve. I wouldn't live anywhere else.

 

I spent 3 years in Los Angeles lobbying on behalf of the people to some of the most corrupt people in power. At times it seemed to be futile, and our opponents had huge financial backing. But I can tell you, after mobilizing the community and sticking with it, I ended up successfully changing one law, and helping write regulations on another. Complacency is our enemy, and that's how I live. We can always do better. We really do have the power to improve our democracy, in small ways that eventually amount to big changes.

 

This is why I hold people who have the power to influence at a very high standard. Including our business owners, small and large.

[Mister Badly]

There are national labs across the US which do research in many different fields. The DOD could fund prosthetic development in partnership with a private company or non profit with an agreement on pricing for combat wounded veterans. They work with cutting edge technologies and manufacturing techniques. Companies that make large profits tend to try to kill competition by lobbying elected officials though. 

[Rye Miles #13621]

1 hour ago, Krazy Kajun said:

Mary Ann.

 

Kajun

Ginger!

[Snakejaw_Joe]

20 minutes ago, Mister Badly said:

There are national labs across the US which do research in many different fields. The DOD could fund prosthetic development in partnership with a private company or non profit with an agreement on pricing for combat wounded veterans. They work with cutting edge technologies and manufacturing techniques. Companies that make large profits tend to try to kill competition by lobbying elected officials though. 

 

I would get behind that! If I had the resources I would start it myself. Hopefully in time someone will.

[Captain Bill Burt]

1 hour ago, Krazy Kajun said:

Mary Ann.

 

Kajun

 

38 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Ginger!

Both!

[Cypress Sun]

1 hour ago, Krazy Kajun said:

Mary Ann.

 

Kajun

 

40 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Ginger!

 

2 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

 

Both!

 

Neither

 

Mrs. Howell

 

Now that's Economics 1001.

[Ramblin Gambler]

On 3/14/2021 at 5:38 AM, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Looks like it’s time for Cheaper than Dirt to change its name! 
Cheaper than no one??

 

I wonder what it would cost to buy the domain dirtbags.com and redirect it to cheaperthandirt.com

 

 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

On 3/14/2021 at 7:38 PM, Rye Miles #13621 said:

A local sporting goods/gun store in this area (They have 4 stores in Ohio) recently raised their price on primers from $7.99 for 100 (Yes 100) to $9.99/100 in less than a week. They told me they were anticipating what their replacement cost would be. $2.00 on $7.99 is a 40% increase! Gimme a break! Oh yea and you could only buy ONE sleeve of a hundred. Hmmmm.........

 

"anticipating what their replacement cost would be" on an item already on the shelf that they've already paid for? 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

3 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

delete double tap

 

[Sixgun Sheridan]

50 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

 

"anticipating what their replacement cost would be" on an item already on the shelf that they've already paid for? 

 

A lot of gun dealers did that. When the COVID mess first started the LGS kept re-stickering the ammo on their shelves daily. I bought a few boxes of .300 Blackout for $11.99, went back the next day, and it was $14.99. A few days later it was $19.99. This was all the same batch, not new product.

[Ozark Huckleberry]

49 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

 

"anticipating what their replacement cost would be" on an item already on the shelf that they've already paid for? 

Yep.  
 

Where are they supposed to get the money to buy new stock to sell if they don’t anticipate the replacement cost? Out of their own pocket?  If the business does’t have the money to buy new stock at the price it is going to be, the business is not going to be able to afford to have anything on the shelves. 

[Rye Miles #13621]

3 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

Yep.  
 

Where are they supposed to get the money to buy new stock to sell if they don’t anticipate the replacement cost? Out of their own pocket?  If the business does’t have the money to buy new stock at the price it is going to be, the business is not going to be able to afford to have anything on the shelves. 

I can't believe that primers went up $20.00 for 1000 in a week!! I call it gouging!

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

At some point hopefully prices on guns, ammo and components will bottom out at the new normal. As costs decrease for retailers will they be dropping their current prices based on next weeks reduced "replacement cost"? I'm guessing that all of a sudden replacement cost will not be a factor.

[Ozark Huckleberry]

22 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I can't believe that primers went up $20.00 for 1000 in a week!! I call it gouging!

Maybe it is, maybe not — don’t know enough to say. Was the dealer getting factory pricing or paying a supply house? Had he already been given pricing info for an order? 
 

As a comparison, closed auction info:

 

From Gunbroker:

Jan 3
-- 1000 Winchester small pistol primers: $180
-- 1000 CCI small pistol magnum: $191
-- 1000 Federal small pistol: $185

Jan 6
-- 1000 Winchester small pistol: $250
-- 1000 Federal small pistol: $250

Jan 7
-- 1000 CCI small pistol: $299
-- 1000 Federal small pistol: $305