Stop calling it gouging.


PDA






Ragnar Danneskjold
February 3, 2013, 10:11 PM
What's with all the upset people calling raised gun prices "gouging"? That's simple market based pricing. There's nothing bad about it. I'm sorry that it's more than you want to pay. Boo hoo. The United States still ostensibly operates based on a free market economy. The price for anything, including guns, is based on the free agreement between buyer and seller. The seller will charge as much as he can, and the buyer will pay as little as he can. If those two prices meet somewhere, a sale is made. If they don't, no sale. It's pretty simple.

The demand for guns and ammo has gone up. That means everything from the demand for materials to produce them, to the amount of shipping of materials and completed guns, to increased sales staff in stores, and everything in between has gone up to. Those things need to be paid for. And then there is the simple fact that any business exists to make a profit. Produce item for price X and sell item for price Y. The difference between the two prices is how the business owner feeds his family and makes sure he has another truckload of guns coming next week for you to buy. Stop whining that you're on the "negative" end of market forces this time.

Ever bought something on sale? Market forces.
Ever bought something in bulk for a lower price? Market forces.
Ever bought something used for a lower prices? Market forces.
Ever bought something online that was cheaper than in a store? Market forces.
Ever tried selling something yourself? Did you sell it for $10 when you could have sold it for $200? Market forces.

Did you feel bad that you were "gouging" the other side by paying less than you might have elsewhere, or that you got as much as you could for that thing you sold at a yard sale/craigslist/Gunbroker/etc? I bet you didn't. Because you were the one benefiting from the market at that point. So why are you whining now?

When you bought something on sale, or used, or in bulk, etc, you paid a lower price because the value of those items was lower. That's the way the market works. Say a brand new gun costs $500. Would you buy the same gun from me for $500 after I've used it for a few years and shot a few thousand rounds through it? No? Why not? Because you wouldn't see the value as being as high as if it were new. I could try setting the price at $500, but you wouldn't take it until I lowered it to a price you're comfortable with. Remember, the price for something in a free market is where the lowest price the seller is willing to sell for and the highest price the buyer is willing to buy for meet. You wouldn't buy that used gun for $500 and I won't sell it for $100. But I'll keep lowering my price until we find one we agree on. If it's too low for me, I won't sell. If it's too high for you, you won't buy.

So why are PMAGs going for $50-75+? Why have certain ammo calibers doubled in price? Why are certain guns going for a few hundred above the price a few months ago? Is it because that mean old gun store owner is trying to "gouge" you while you're down? Of course not. Stop being childish. It's because people are willing to pay it. If no one paid $75 for a PMAG, the price would drop to $70. If no one paid $70, the price would drop to $65, and so on and so on. Until it got to a price that both the seller and buyer are ok with. No more, no less.

If you've ever bought something on sale, or bought something used for a lower price, etc, you need to stop whining about "gouging" right now. It's hypocritical and ignorant. The price is whatever two people agree on. Right now people are agreeing on prices that are higher than what they agreed on a few months ago. Suck it up and pay..........or don't. That's your choice in a free market too. And believe me, you don't really want the alternative.

If you enjoyed reading about "Stop calling it gouging." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MaterDei
February 3, 2013, 10:13 PM
The free market is free. This market is being influenced by our hyperactive government. There is plenty of reason to be pissed off.

Otherwise, yes, the market sets the price and I'm fine with that.

jcwit
February 3, 2013, 10:25 PM
I call it gouging, I consider it gouging. I do not consider it the free market.


With that said I have no inclination to and have not bought any of the overpriced products. I have no need to and will not need to buy any of said products when and if the prices return to what they were. I have more than I'll use up in whats left in my lifetime, both in firearms and in ammo and reloading components.

Also with said I have years and years of experience in the retail business. Starting back when I was 13 way back in 1956. Never ever did I see in those days business treating their customers as they are today.

But todays folks outlook is entirely different as to how I was brought up. And thats very obvious in todays society, sorta why we have the welfare problem we do. Take a close look at Detroit.

Yup its "GOUGING".

meanmrmustard
February 3, 2013, 10:57 PM
I call it gouging, I consider it gouging. I do not consider it the free market.


With that said I have no inclination to and have not bought any of the overpriced products. I have no need to and will not need to buy any of said products when and if the prices return to what they were. I have more than I'll use up in whats left in my lifetime, both in firearms and in ammo and reloading components.

Also with said I have years and years of experience in the retail business. Starting back when I was 13 way back in 1956. Never ever did I see in those days business treating their customers as they are today.

But todays folks outlook is entirely different as to how I was brought up. And thats very obvious in todays society, sorta why we have the welfare problem we do. Take a close look at Detroit.

Yup its "GOUGING".
Agreed.

The gun shop has to pay to replace the mags to keep them in stock, right?

Then why is one store selling at $50 what was once $20, and another for $100 for the same item? This is rampant, and its gouging pure and simple.

But people who lack the necessary cells for competent thought will pay these prices. Market Forces...and stupidity.

I'll stop calling out "gouging" when it ceases to be.

Grmlin
February 3, 2013, 10:57 PM
It's gouging when a business takes advantage of a situation to raise prices to exorbitant amounts. Granted people are paying for it out of fear they will not be able to get anymore.

browningguy
February 3, 2013, 11:00 PM
That's simple market based pricing. There's nothing bad about it.
Says the man that doesn't have even a basic understanding of economic theory...

mljdeckard
February 3, 2013, 11:00 PM
Oh, I concur with #3.

Merchants are free to charge whatever they can get. and I'm free to cut them off. I suppose we will see in the long run whose is bigger.

ID-shooting
February 3, 2013, 11:01 PM
What makes worse are the suckers. $1500 for a mini? Really?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=700180

Do your home work, the gun would not be banned. Really, wait a month a buy the same gun for $600 at the most.

Honest John
February 3, 2013, 11:02 PM
The free market is a theoretical abstraction based on a large amount of buyers and a large amount of sellers, all acting rationally and with free access to each other and with perfect information.
The first part - acting rationally - is the first casualty of reality, especially in this case.

JustinJ
February 3, 2013, 11:02 PM
It is gouging. Even if you believe its okay to do by definition it absolutely is gouging. Sorry if you dont like the connotation but the word means what it means.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 3, 2013, 11:04 PM
Merchants are free to charge whatever they can get. and I'm free to cut them off. I suppose we will see in the long run whose is bigger.

And that's exactly the way it's supposed to work.

A brand new electronic gadget/TV/game system/etc comes out and sells for $600. Why not $1,000? Because no one would but it. Why not $20? Because the company would lose money. So the initial price is $600. That's the price that they seller knows they can actually sell enough of them to make a profit. Not low enough to lose money and not too high to not sell. So 6 months later the price drops to $500. Why? Because no one wants to pay $600 for something that isn't "new" anymore. A year later after sales have plateaued, it goes on "sale" for $350. Why is that price lower than the original $600? It's the same device right. If it was worth $600 it's worth $600 right? Wrong. People aren't willing to pay that anymore. But they are willing to pay $350. So sales spike a bit. A few years go buy and the company is set to release the next model of whatever gizmo they make. Prices for the old model drop to $150. Why? Because they have excess inventory and want to sell as many off as they can before they become obsolete and essentially worthless.

In each price range, a different type of buyer is OK with that given price. The early adopter is totally fine with the $600. The sensible average buyer knows he can wait a bit and save a few hundred. And the guy on a budget knows he can get it for next to nothing by just buying it when the next new thing is about to be released. So why is the exact same item that does the exact same thing able to be sold for $600, $500, $350, and $150? Because enough people are willing to pay it.



Question: why is it bad when a seller benefits from extra demand but not bad when the buyer benefits from extra supply?

Steel Horse Rider
February 3, 2013, 11:06 PM
I challenge all of you who believe business makes outrageous profits to open your own so you too may become rich. It will be the best education you ever receive and it also may make you think once or twice before opening you mouth to insert your own foot. Too bad a lot of you will never recognise that you are doing a one-legged dance.....

BCCL
February 3, 2013, 11:14 PM
Once again, I'll point out that you ONLY hear consumers whine about "price gouging", when they are asked to pay more than they think they should have to for an item.

You NEVER hear them scream "under pricing" when something they want is on sale.............

avalys
February 3, 2013, 11:15 PM
Personally, I would rather that my LGS had some ammo left in stock at any price, rather than having done the "noble" thing and sold it at the usual price to the first few yahoos that walked in the door on December 15.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 3, 2013, 11:17 PM
You NEVER hear them scream "under pricing" when something they want is on sale.............

Exactly. I bet every single person in this thread would say "YES" if someone offered them $500 apeice for a few 30rd magazines. Or if I offered to sell my magazines for $1. Why is that?

meanmrmustard
February 3, 2013, 11:21 PM
I challenge all of you who believe business makes outrageous profits to open your own so you too may become rich. It will be the best education you ever receive and it also may make you think once or twice before opening you mouth to insert your own foot. Too bad a lot of you will never recognise that you are doing a one-legged dance.....
I guess if we opened a gun shop, charged exponentially more than the replacement cost plus the same percentage of profit pre-December 2012, then we'd be doing the hokey pokey.

My boss started our company 30 years ago from near nothing with very little capital. He practically has to give some stuff away to get potential clients, and pays us well. Now, he's a 60 year old man in an Escalade that's motto still is "customer first, last, and always".

There ended the lesson.

meanmrmustard
February 3, 2013, 11:22 PM
Exactly. I bet every single person in this thread would say "YES" if someone offered them $500 apeice for a few 30rd magazines. Or if I offered to sell my magazines for $1. Why is that?
Because either of your scenarios ends with someone made out to be a rube.

BCCL
February 3, 2013, 11:22 PM
Exactly. I bet every single person in this thread would say "YES" if someone offered them $500 apeice for a few 30rd magazines. Or if I offered to sell my magazines for $1. Why is that?

Because it's a classic example of how deeply the "entitlement" mindset can infect even parts of society where you least expect it..."I want an item in high demand for the lower price of times of lesser demand, and if I don't get what I want it's not fair!!!"

And honestly, your initial post shows a more solid understanding of economics than most college level professors I've sat through.

coolluke01
February 3, 2013, 11:26 PM
If you don't like the price go buy it from someone that is selling it for less. Oh, wait, nobody has any. All this whining about gouging is tiring. Nothing has an intrinsic value! An item is worth whatever someone is willing to pay. Plain and simple.

The shop owners have to replace the product that is sold. There is almost nothing available right now. Empty shelves don't make money. Many shops are buying product at higher prices just so they have something to put on their shelves.

Some people find them selves in a position where they really want/need an item and they are very glad to pay a premium if it means they get the item they are looking for. Shops are simply providing a service for their customers. They have to make a profit.

There is nothing morally superior in selling a product for less than others are. People with "higher calling" make lousy business owners. 50% of all businesses fail in the first 3 years.

I do think businesses need to be careful not to disenfranchise their customers. They have it rough though. They have a very small markup to start with and then add in the crabby old farts, who are still stuck in the 1950's pricing, that make up the majority of their client base. Gun owners are often fundamentalist who see things as black and white. The truth is that there are extenuating circumstances and we need to quit crucifying our own when we don't agree with what they are doing.

I work in a family service business and own my own business. I have learned that the only way I will be successful is if my customers are satisfied and happy with the experience. But, only one guy can be the cheapest. You can't get roped into the race to the bottom. Many gun shops do have a good deal to learn in the area of customer service though.

Glennx39
February 3, 2013, 11:28 PM
They can charge whatever they want it's their right. Also people should've been buying things long before this. Also, WHY DID NO ONE, start buying after the last presidential debate when Obummer said clear as day he wanted a new AWB? That should've been a wake up call to everyone...

pray for the best expect the worst

Coop45
February 3, 2013, 11:31 PM
Have you ever noticed that there are more people buying gasoline when it's expensive and fewer people when prices drop. It's just like the gun market.....fear driven. And there has been lots of fear mongering on this website. Think about it the next time you type sheeple and see how you fit into the puzzle.

Jlr2267
February 3, 2013, 11:34 PM
For anyone who thinks "gouging" is taking place, I will buy your AR's, glock 19's, minis and ammo for Nov. 2012 price (new) + 10% and pay shipping to my FFL.

Please respond in this thread with what you have to sell at this more-than-fair price.

AethelstanAegen
February 3, 2013, 11:36 PM
You've got the economics figured out, Ragnar. I sold my AK rifles in the current market. Why? Because they weren't worth $1000 to me but they were worth that to many buyers on the market. I was happy to sell my rifles (to buy others I did want more and some into savings) and my buyers were very happy to buy. I worked with buyers on price. I could have sold them for more than I did (I lowered my price for the eventual buyers because they were direct and easy to deal with), but I still made a nice profit. Everyone left the deal very happy with how it worked out, which is pretty much the ideal transaction in any market.

Browning
February 3, 2013, 11:37 PM
You can really tell who the buyers and sellers are on this thread.

Ironic how personal circumstances dictate morals.

Constrictor
February 3, 2013, 11:37 PM
In this time of hard to get components, I have a shooting buddy that wanted me to sell him some in my stash. He wanted 4 pound of unique powder, 2 pounds of 2400 powder and 3000 small pistol primers and 1000 large pistol primers.

I had 2 new pounds of 2400 $17.99 no problem
I had 2 new pounds of unique, $15.99 ea and 2 pounds of older unopened Herculese unique powder no price on the cans.
3000 Winchester small pistol $32.00 per thousand.
I had cci large pistol which I bought during the last shortage at $46.95/1000

He tells me fine on the 2400 even though you can't get it for that price anymore
He tells me fine on the 2 new pounds of Alliant unique even though you can't get it for that price anymore.
He doesn't want to pay the same price for the unmarked older unique because he says I surely didn't pay as much as the newer stuff.
He says the large pistol primers are too high and wants me to sell him those for the price you last could buy them for when they were available.

I tell him, just forget the whole deal. I'm not tryin to get rid of anything. I was just trying to help a bro out.

I wasn't trying to make a profit but after thinking about it, why should I sell components I paid less than current value for when its going to cost me so much more to replace it? My only other resort is to make a deal with him I won't sell him the stuff, he just has to replace it when it becomes available again.

coolluke01
February 3, 2013, 11:41 PM
I just bought and sold a few guns in the last few weeks. My feelings where the same for both sides of the deal.
I sold my AR15 and some ammo for 2x what I paid for it. The buyer was tickled pink to find one for sale!
I bought two guns after and paid more than they were sold for a few months ago, but I was happy to pay the extra because they were the only ones available.
Situation doesn't dictate morals in the situation because it's not a moral issue!

AethelstanAegen
February 3, 2013, 11:45 PM
Ironic how personal circumstances dictate morals.

It's not a question of morals. I'd say the real breakdown of this thread is between people who understand economics and those that don't.

If I decide to do a utility function on my life and figure out that these rifles I have are worth more on the market than they are to myself, then I should sell them, which I did. Any buyer must make the same decision, how much is owning this rifle worth to me (we all make this decision every time we purchase something). If we can't find it for that price, we don't buy it or we wait until one can be found for an acceptable price.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are many buyers willing and eager to pay the prices that have gone up because demand is so high it has exhausted supply. Buying those guns for whatever reason is worth that money to these people. Having the gun now, rather than later, will cause a premium in price and those buyers decide it is worth it to them to pay that price.

In my case, I would be an absolute fool not to sell my AKs because the opportunity cost of not doing so has risen significantly. It's simply the way a market economy works. Like it or not, it's the best method of maximizing utility for everyone involved.

coolluke01
February 3, 2013, 11:45 PM
Constrictor, Dealing with friends is hard. You can't get by with making money on friends... But you are right that you should charge replacement cost for the items.

captain awesome
February 3, 2013, 11:45 PM
It is gouging, its taking advantage of the fears of the public, and profiteering off of them. It is not the market, it is the government causing it. A full auto Mac 10 has never been nor will it ever be worth $4,500. But, because of the governments interference, this is what people pay. This is not terribly different.
Would you be fine if there was a limited supply of water, and someone had the monopoly of it and charged you exorbitant prices for you to get a drink, when you knew the water cost them nothing? Gun ownership is just as much of a right as living is, which requires water. These sellers are making it much more difficult to exercise your right to bear arms, and I will continue to be pissed off about it.

oneounceload
February 3, 2013, 11:49 PM
The only ones whining about it being called gouging are the nes who do not have extras to sell, otherwise they would be silent and laughing about what a great deal they made by selling. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar.

Anyone who says this is gouging has NO idea about economics or market forces.

Constrictor
February 3, 2013, 11:50 PM
Constrictor, Dealing with friends is hard. You can't get by with making money on friends... But you are right that you should charge replacement cost for the items.
But is it really making money to charge replacement cost? And if you sell your components to friends for less than replacement cost aren't they actually making money off you?

meanmrmustard
February 3, 2013, 11:51 PM
The only ones whining about it being called gouging are the nes who do not have extras to sel, otherwise they would, be silent and laughing about what a great deal they made by selling. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar.

Anyone who says this is gouging has NO idea about economics or market forces.
Kinda bold aren't we?

Whose actually whining here? I'm not on a thread titled "Can we call it gouging NOW!"

I've plenty of accessories, I don't sell them, and I'm not laughing. I'm a liar now?

AethelstanAegen
February 3, 2013, 11:51 PM
Would you be fine if there was a limited supply of water, and someone had the monopoly of it and charged you exorbitant prices for you to get a drink, when you knew the water cost them nothing? Gun ownership is just as much of a right as living is, which requires water. These sellers are making it much more difficult to exercise your right to bear arms, and I will continue to be pissed off about it.

Not at all the same situation. You can live without a gun but let's for arguments sake say you need a gun to live (which we all know is simply not true). But operating under the premise that you need a gun to survive, do you need an AR-15? No. If you're not willing to pay the prices many others are willing to pay, then you need to find an alternative because there are simply not enough AR-15s in the world for everyone to have one. I sold my AK rifles, every last one, am I dying of thirst? No. I bought other guns that were worth the money to me and I sold the ones (my AKs) that were worth more on the market than they were to me. An AR-15 not worth $1500 to you? Too bad because it is to many other buyers so you'll have to either wait for the supply to catch up or buy a different rifle. You're not entitled to own one of everything. You have to make choices based on what things are worth to you and your needs.

coolluke01
February 3, 2013, 11:52 PM
That's just it. You don't have a right to another's property, no matter how much you think you need it. It's theirs and if you want it then you need to pay for it.

Sellers understand that they have to price things appropriately or no one will by it. That sure isn't the case right now.

The water holder in your case would have to sell it for what the market will bear or he won't sell any.

Browning
February 3, 2013, 11:53 PM
Situation doesn't dictate morals in the situation because it's not a moral issue!
Sure it is.

After civil emergencies it's actually illegal to price gouge and 'price gouger' is used as a disparaging term. You are more than welcome to disagree, but sticking it in and breaking it off in your fellow man to make a huge profit off something that didnt cost you as much and that won't cost you as much to replace is immoral.

Price gougers aren't going to wrestle with their consciences, so that's why the legal system gets involved if it's considered a necessity.

coolluke01
February 3, 2013, 11:54 PM
But is it really making money to charge replacement cost? And if you sell your components to friends for less than replacement cost aren't they actually making money off you?

You are right, and a good friend wouldn't want to take advantage of you either. But as we can see on this thread, many people don't understand economics.

jcwit
February 3, 2013, 11:57 PM
The only ones whining about it being called gouging are the nes who do not have extras to sel, otherwise they would, be silent and laughing about what a great deal they made by selling. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar.



Not true, I call it gouging, but have thought ahead and need none of it.

I have more than I'll ever need, I think, and at my age I'm fairly certain I'm right.

coolluke01
February 3, 2013, 11:57 PM
After civil emergencies it's actually illegal to price gouge and 'price gouger' is used as a disparaging term. You are more than welcome to disagree, but sticking it in and breaking it off in your fellow man to make a huge profit off something that didnt cost you as much and that won't cost you as much to replace is immoral.


This is just one more instance of the fed getting involved in places they don't belong. If you don't want to pay the price from the seller then find someone else who has it and buy it from them.

danweasel
February 3, 2013, 11:57 PM
Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig. It is gouging.

-Dan

AethelstanAegen
February 3, 2013, 11:58 PM
and that won't cost you as much to replace is immoral.

You're making an assumption here. It's not likely perhaps, but it's possible given the political climate that I may never be able to replace my AKs and I think certainly for the near future, it will be impossible for me to replace them for less than I sold them. Part of what buyers right now are paying, is a premium for the products now. They are not willing to wait until later to buy more cheaply, they are thus willing to pay more to have the rifle in hand now. But they can't all pay the same price as before because there are simply not enough rifles to go around, thus the price rises as supply diminishes.

coolluke01
February 3, 2013, 11:59 PM
To call it gouging you have to be able to come up with a set price of what an item is worth. It's impossible to do so. Therefore the price is what the market will bear.

ID-shooting
February 4, 2013, 12:08 AM
The disparage comes from how much "enough" profit for a seller and buyers not doing their homework. Prices that go up, sure, stuff happens. Triple money for a gun that will be back no normal price in a short while is wrong.

The "you are too dumb to understand economics" crowd and the "the gouging must stop" crowd are not talking about the same things.

I do believe the mini-14 buyer posted above was a sucker who fell victim to a gouging predator/opportunist. That was gouging. Paying an inflated price to cover replacement costs is fine.

Browning
February 4, 2013, 12:08 AM
This is just one more instance of the fed getting involved in places they don't belong. If you don't want to pay the price from the seller then find someone else who has it and buy it from them.
Whatever. You tried to claim that there was nothing immoral about it.

Amazing how enough people came together to create a law because they opposed the concept.

At any rate the argument that this is purely about economics and not morals is a bunch of crap. The guy who's making $60's off of PMag's that he paid $10's for is laughing all the way to the bank. You don't think he doesn't know he's doing something wrong?

Sure he does, he/she just doesn't care. Still immoral though and it's still a question of morals no matter who much you argue to the contrary. :Shrug

That's all there is to it.

The price gouging apologists are correct about one thing though, you don't have to buy their stuff...so I haven't.

Jlr2267
February 4, 2013, 12:11 AM
No one here is willing to sell me their AR-15 for $800?

Ya bunch of gougers!

jcwit
February 4, 2013, 12:13 AM
For those not believing its gouging, how bout the food industry work on the same mark-up we're discussing here.

Any one wish to spend $30.00 for a gal. of milk, or $20.00 bucks for a doz eggs.

Remember if your taxes didn't subsidize the farmers milk it would be at a minimum of $8.00 a gal.
Thats why they hurried up and passed the farm bill a week or two ago.

Jlr2267
February 4, 2013, 12:15 AM
For those not beliving its gouging, how bout the food industry work on the same mark-up we're discussing here.

Any one wish to spend $30.00 for a gal. of milk, or $20.00 bucks for a doz eggs.

Drink water, buy chickens...prices come back down

AethelstanAegen
February 4, 2013, 12:16 AM
The guy who's making $60's off of PMag's that he paid $10's for is laughing all the way to the bank. You don't think he doesn't know he's doing something wrong?

People are willing to pay $60 for PMAGs. Regardless of what the future or past price was/will be, that is what the price of a PMAG is on the current market. So whatever you think they're worth, Browning, the market says $60 because that is where the buyers and sellers are willing to meet. Don't like it, don't buy now, I know I won't be because a PMAG will never be worth $60...but hey, that's because I like 100+ year old firearms. To many buyers now, they are worth the $60. If there is a ban, then they have their mags which will be worth $60+, if there's not a ban, then they should have waited on their purchase (as many other buyers like both you and I are doing). If they're happy with their purchase and the seller is happy, what's so immoral there?

AethelstanAegen
February 4, 2013, 12:20 AM
Any one wish to spend $30.00 for a gal. of milk, or $20.00 bucks for a doz eggs.

If people were worried that eggs and milk would be banned, I'm sure the price would skyrocket too. Personally, I'd opt to buy something else. If there's anyone you should be mad at it, it's the legislators trying to ban the rifles which causes the panic. The sellers and the buyers are simply reacting to the market's limited supply and the sudden increase in demand, which causes prices to rise.

I do rather wish that a good fundamental economics course would be required in high school.

Steel Horse Rider
February 4, 2013, 12:30 AM
Browning: You would be wrong on your prediction about identifying buyers and sellers. I only buy in the realm of firearms and then only when I get what I consider a good deal. If stupid people are willing to hand over two or three times actual value then you have a problem with the consumer, not the merchant. I am in the refrigeration business and the government has been jacking up the prices of refrigerant for the past 15 years by regulating the volume allowed to be produced or imported. Last year they shut down the production of R-22 in May and the prices almost doubled overnight. Should I have sold the pallet of R-22 that I had prudently purchased a couple of months before the price spike at pre-spike rates? I had to restock my inventory at the new rates so I increased my prices so I would have the cash in hand to reorder. My business has been around under my control for 20 years and we have high ethical standards. We don't cheat anyone, sell them parts they don't need, and we will be here tomorrow and the coming years because our customers know we will do what is necessary for them to be able to trust their equipment. I think maybe your boss is not sacrificing too much if he is driving an Escalade considering the price of gas and license tags.......

oneounceload
February 4, 2013, 12:37 AM
The main ones whining are those unprepared and caught short, or those who wish they had a lot more to sell. There is NO gouging if someone willingly pays the asking price . It really is sad that those who proclaim to know so much about government and rights have so little knowledge about economics, and how that affects their "rights"

Browning
February 4, 2013, 12:38 AM
People are willing to pay $60 for PMAGs. Regardless of what the future or past price was/will be, that is what the price of a PMAG is on the current market. So whatever you think they're worth, Browning, the market says $60 because that is where the buyers and sellers are willing to meet. Don't like it, don't buy now, I know I won't be because a PMAG will never be worth $60...but hey, that's because I like 100+ year old firearms. To many buyers now, they are worth the $60. If there is a ban, then they have their mags which will be worth $60+, if there's not a ban, then they should have waited on their purchase (as many other buyers like both you and I are doing). If they're happy with their purchase and the seller is happy, what's so immoral there?

Like I said in the beginning, it's ironic how personal circumstances dictate morals.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=698187

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8703061#post8703061

AethelstanAegen
Member

I sold two of my AK's in the last week and a half. I had a lot of luck with my Armslist ads. It attracted local buyers so I didn't have to deal with shipping. The downside is that you would have to come up with a price you think is fair. I did research on what similar guns were selling for. In the end, I included a number of mags and hundreds of round of ammo with rifle. The price I set for the package was what many other sellers were asking for the rifle alone. I was happy because I got a good return on my investment and the buyers were happy since I offered them a total package and was willing to work on the price for them.

So you sold two AK's, one of which was an AMD-65 for $1,100 (twice what they were going for a couple months ago).

You telling me that this has nothing to do with your argument that there's nothing immoral about price gouging?

Umm, yeah...okay.:rolleyes:

coolluke01
February 4, 2013, 12:42 AM
Tell me what that AK is worth? Name a price that is fundamental and non changing. Then we can compare what they are going for now and call it gouging.

Grmlin
February 4, 2013, 12:47 AM
The last items I bought anything major was an order I had in a the time of Newtown. I don't need anything, I'm not selling anything, just replacing some as I shoot. I check prices out of curiosity and have no problem calling it what it is. Is the manufacturer of PMAGS charging their distributers more? I thought I saw something about them telling direct distributors if they were caught inflating prices they would lose their distribution franchise. You call it what you want, I'll call it what I want. That's the great thing about this country, but do not assume because somebody does not agree with you that they know nothing about economics. I agree if you do not like the price don't buy it and look around because it's most likely cheaper somewhere else. Some people are willing to pay the current inflated prices. At least I'll have more cash on hand when or if this stupidity ends, not that I have much disposable cash since going back to college 6 years after retiring.

Browning
February 4, 2013, 12:56 AM
Tell me what that AK is worth? Name a price that is fundamental and non changing. Then we can compare what they are going for now and call it gouging.
Whoever said anything about a price that doesn't change?

C'mon. Regardless of what some of you may think I do understand the laws of supply and demand, I just don't dig on hypocrites.

Making a profit is one thing, sticking it in a breaking it off is another.

AethelstanAegen
February 4, 2013, 12:58 AM
So you sold two AK's, one of which was an AMD-65 for $1,100 (twice what they were going for a couple months ago).

You telling me that this has nothing to do with your argument that there's nothing immoral about price gouging?

And yet I sleep soundly every night. So first off, yes I sold two AKs, which I already pointed out in this thread. Secondly, I lowered the price for a buyer who seemed like a reasonable person. I also paid out of pocket for this to be a transfer through an FFL (although not required by VA law) so that both myself and the buyer would know the deal was on the up and up and that the gun would not end up in the wrong hands. Both of my buyers have since contacted me saying they are very happy with the purchase and I have been able to provide them answers to follow up questions about the platforms etc so they could get the most from the rifles. So I think lumping me in some sort of category of immoral person is pretty petty of you.

A few months ago, it's true the rifle sold for about a third of what I sold it for but it didn't come with hundreds of round of ammo and magazines. Other sellers were selling the AKs alone for more than my asking price with everything included. So I charged a fair price in the current market and the buyers were both happy with their purchase.

So what I don't understand about your moral argument, is how a transaction with both parties very happy with the arrangement is immoral? Does that mean that everything should be sold at the price you're willing to pay? That's both mighty convenient for you and I dare say rather self-centered. Alas the universe does not revolve around you or anyone, so prices are determined by what they are worth to both the buyer and the seller.

Would I have sold my AKs if they were selling before an AWB was possible? No. Why would I? I bought them for that price because they were worth that amount of money to me. After there was a possible AWB, people decided those rifles were worth buying and buying at a price I never would have been willing to pay. So thus, the rifles were now worth more to other people than they were to me. So what's immoral about me selling them off to someone who values them more and will get greater utility from them than I ever did?

That's simple economics and it tends to work quite well. I worked with my buyers to ensure we were both happy with the deal. I also went out of my way to ensure that the rifles went to trustworthy gun owners (even though I could have gotten more for them by just selling them no questions asked). So I'm very glad I sold them because both I, the seller, and the buyers ended up happier for it.

C'mon. Regardless of what some of you may think I do understand the laws of supply and demand, I just don't dig on hypocrites.

Making a profit is one thing, sticking it in a breaking it off is another.

But you so clearly don't understand it at all, I'm afraid. Can you guarantee me that there won't be an AWB this year, next year, in five years? What price should I have sold them for? I couldn't come near to replacing them for the price I sold them and there's no guarantee I'll be able to replace them at all in the future. If a buyer and a seller agree on a price, then there's no gouging....that is simply the agreed upon value of the product. I guess it was so immoral of me to understand that I was able to buy my rifles when I knew prices were low and god forbid I should make any sort of profit apparently.

BK
February 4, 2013, 01:18 AM
Any one wish to spend $30.00 for a gal. of milk, or $20.00 bucks for a doz eggs.
Absolutely I would!!!

If there were otherwise no milk or eggs to be found, nothing that would substitute and no way to pruduce or acquire any, I would be delighted to procure the needed items at whatever cost I could. I'd much rather have access to shelves filled with $30 gallons of milk than to be subjected to empty shelves. The availability of the item while expensive gives me the freedom to decide if I'm going to drink milk or not. If the shelves are bare, I don't enjoy that freedom. I have no choice but to go without.

jcwit
February 4, 2013, 01:21 AM
I'm sure glad few here are not in the retail industry, we'd all be on food stamps.

By Golly they sure got there's tho!

Not that I care.

coolluke01
February 4, 2013, 01:21 AM
I am in the retail industry!

hogshead
February 4, 2013, 01:34 AM
Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. This rapid increase in prices occurs after a demand or supply shock: examples include price increases after hurricanes or other natural disasters. In precise, legal usage, it is the name of a crime that applies in some of the United States during civil emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits. In the Soviet Union, it was simply included under the single definition of speculation.

The term is similar to profiteering but can be distinguished by being short-term and localized, and by a restriction to essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, medicine and equipment needed to preserve life, limb and property



There you go. Needed to preserve life limb and property. You do not need a pmag to do that. It is not gouging it is fools doing what they do best. A fool and his money will soon be separated applies here I think.

X-JaVeN-X
February 4, 2013, 01:35 AM
What's with all the upset people calling raised gun prices "gouging"? That's simple market based pricing. There's nothing bad about it. I'm sorry that it's more than you want to pay. Boo hoo. The United States still ostensibly operates based on a free market economy. The price for anything, including guns, is based on the free agreement between buyer and seller. The seller will charge as much as he can, and the buyer will pay as little as he can. If those two prices meet somewhere, a sale is made. If they don't, no sale. It's pretty simple.

The demand for guns and ammo has gone up. That means everything from the demand for materials to produce them, to the amount of shipping of materials and completed guns, to increased sales staff in stores, and everything in between has gone up to. Those things need to be paid for. And then there is the simple fact that any business exists to make a profit. Produce item for price X and sell item for price Y. The difference between the two prices is how the business owner feeds his family and makes sure he has another truckload of guns coming next week for you to buy. Stop whining that you're on the "negative" end of market forces this time.

Ever bought something on sale? Market forces.
Ever bought something in bulk for a lower price? Market forces.
Ever bought something used for a lower prices? Market forces.
Ever bought something online that was cheaper than in a store? Market forces.
Ever tried selling something yourself? Did you sell it for $10 when you could have sold it for $200? Market forces.

Did you feel bad that you were "gouging" the other side by paying less than you might have elsewhere, or that you got as much as you could for that thing you sold at a yard sale/craigslist/Gunbroker/etc? I bet you didn't. Because you were the one benefiting from the market at that point. So why are you whining now?

When you bought something on sale, or used, or in bulk, etc, you paid a lower price because the value of those items was lower. That's the way the market works. Say a brand new gun costs $500. Would you buy the same gun from me for $500 after I've used it for a few years and shot a few thousand rounds through it? No? Why not? Because you wouldn't see the value as being as high as if it were new. I could try setting the price at $500, but you wouldn't take it until I lowered it to a price you're comfortable with. Remember, the price for something in a free market is where the lowest price the seller is willing to sell for and the highest price the buyer is willing to buy for meet. You wouldn't buy that used gun for $500 and I won't sell it for $100. But I'll keep lowering my price until we find one we agree on. If it's too low for me, I won't sell. If it's too high for you, you won't buy.

So why are PMAGs going for $50-75+? Why have certain ammo calibers doubled in price? Why are certain guns going for a few hundred above the price a few months ago? Is it because that mean old gun store owner is trying to "gouge" you while you're down? Of course not. Stop being childish. It's because people are willing to pay it. If no one paid $75 for a PMAG, the price would drop to $70. If no one paid $70, the price would drop to $65, and so on and so on. Until it got to a price that both the seller and buyer are ok with. No more, no less.

If you've ever bought something on sale, or bought something used for a lower price, etc, you need to stop whining about "gouging" right now. It's hypocritical and ignorant. The price is whatever two people agree on. Right now people are agreeing on prices that are higher than what they agreed on a few months ago. Suck it up and pay..........or don't. That's your choice in a free market too. And believe me, you don't really want the alternative.
Here's the problem with your argument....the free market works both ways. Yes, the market dictates the price, but guess what...that market has two sides...people that think it's not too expensive, and people that think it is too much (the people calling it gouging). They have just as much right to voice their opinion in this "FREE" market as anyone else saying that it's not. You can't have one side without the other. If anyone wants to call it gouging...they have every right to do so as well as every right to not shop there and to voice their opinion about it....you trying to tell them they shouldn't do that is much more offensive to me than someone yelling store xyz is price gouging.

Ignition Override
February 4, 2013, 01:48 AM
Ragnar: to illustrate one of your comments, a good buddy wanted to escape the command economy and little freedom or opportunity in East Germany.

He risked a few shots which were fired at him as he escaped into Czecho. (then Hungary etc), several years Before the Wall came down.

M. understood the benefits of the free market and the wider variety of choices, or at least the vast improvement over a socialist, command economy.

captain awesome
February 4, 2013, 01:56 AM
Any one who doesn't think something wrong as a whole is going on here is a moron. I have no desire to sell any of my stock, I WAS wise enough to buy what I needed before all this happened, and I am pretty comfortable with what I have. So then tell me why I am upset?
If you don't think you need an AR15 specifically to live then fine, but think about it critically here. Guns are a means to defend ourselves, and no one here will dispute that. Sometimes, some people have to defend themselves to live. What do they have to defend themselves with? GUNS. What would be the best gun to defend yourself from multiple assailants? perhaps soldiers? An AR15 or some other similar rifle is most peoples first choice. So we can conclude that yes, in some circumstances, you DO need a gun to live, perhaps even an AR15.
Now with all that in mind, these panic buyers are buying what they feel is necessary to ensure their lives and/or freedom in the future, or at the very least give them a fighting chance. They recognize the need. And mark my words, when people are talking about banning weapons, that is when you need to have them the most. Buying these items at the higher than normal prices at this point in time is done because they feel they must. Willingness has NOTHING to do with it. They feel forced. Jacking up prices in this situation is gouging.
Now, don't tell me I know nothing of economics, I took many economics classes in college, and run my own business. I am not angry with the sellers for following the laws of supply and demand. They may or may not have a choice in how they price their goods depending on how they run their business. I know for a fact that a couple certain manufactures of the highly sought after items have NOT raised their price. It may not COST more to replace those items in their inventory, but there may not be any available to them. Their income effectively ceases once they are sold out. So in that regard, some of them may not have a choice but to charge more and save the extra profits, if they cannot procure more inventory fast enough. It is still gouging, but it is in some circumstances; necessary gouging.
So no, I am not angry with the sellers, who I am really angry with is the antis, and the government for causing this to happen to our fellow second amendment supporters/shooting community. It should never have been an issue in the first place and they are to blame.

Browning
February 4, 2013, 02:05 AM
I am in the retail industry!
So once again...like I said in the beginning, it's ironic how personal circumstances dictate morals.

That's why it's funny that you and AA are arguing that it's oh so moral. You're both lining your pockets.

john wall
February 4, 2013, 02:07 AM
Question: What do a 'gouger' and a 'hoarder' have in common?

Answer: They are names that those who got caught unprepared call those who did not.

bsheets20061
February 4, 2013, 02:09 AM
Personally I don't call it gouging I have been selling due to the current market and I have plenty. I always have told myself not to sell something lower than I could purchase a replacement for if needed so that's what I do.

It is an inflated market but no different than any other instance low stock + greater demand = higher prices

high stock + lesser demand = lower prices

My local ffl dealers have been buying off me to keep stock in their shops they are paying slightly more to keep stock but they also sell out quickly.

the market dictates itself once people stop buying the market will go down on its own, but I don't fault anyone for selling at a price that people will pay.

Alaska444
February 4, 2013, 02:10 AM
The free market is free. This market is being influenced by our hyperactive government. There is plenty of reason to be pissed off.

Otherwise, yes, the market sets the price and I'm fine with that.
Hopefully they will fall again if this stuff blows away. Hopefully that is the way it will go. With these folks in office, I don't trust them as far as the hulk could throw them.

I don't have any yet, but I was considering saving up to get one. That is gone for now with double and triple prices. Supply and demand is the answer.

captain awesome
February 4, 2013, 02:11 AM
On a side note, those people that bought your AK's will no doubt have buyers remorse when the prices drop after an AWB doesn't happen. So they will not be happy for long. More private sellers should consider this before selling. If it doesn't bother them, more power to them. It would bother me though if I were in their shoes.

BP44
February 4, 2013, 02:28 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion if I was to offer up several AR's or hi cap mags for $600 a rifle or $12 a pmag the "complainers" non prepared would jump all over them...... If this hobby,lifestyle, constitutional right is one your interested in don't be a late to the party and demand front row seats:o I welcome new shooters, hunters, and gun owners with open arms but please stop crying about how you are not prepared. We have dealt with these events in the past and learned from them, I ask you do the same.

If your crying about overpriced mags many you should have bought them, if you sniveling about AR/ak prices then maby you should have bought them. And $ is not an excuse for the majority of America, sell of a video game and stop buying Dutch brothers coffee and apply your $ towards your true/new passion. :rolleyes:

coloradokevin
February 4, 2013, 02:39 AM
The current situation is gouging. We're looking at a temporary supply shortage, which is certainly in part being caused by the guys who go into the stores, buy their entire supply, and then repost the items online for a 5x-10x mark-up.

Also, this is hardly a "free market" at the moment. The market is being controlled by the imminent threat of legislation, by a government who is trying to ensure that the market for these products ends up being anything but free.

For my part of it, I won't pay the ridiculously inflated prices that some of these stores are charging. I don't NEED any of this stuff, though I have placed a couple of backorders for things I WANT, at prices that match what the products were selling for in December.

Several local and online stores have started gouging their customers on the basis of this temporary supply shortage. I know quite a few shooters (myself included) who won't be patronizing these stores once things return to normal.

To me, it would be a different situation if a ban is put into place. At that point you're no longer looking at a short-term supply shortage, but a permanent reduction in supply.

Some of you may not like my feelings on this subject, but I'll spend my dollars how, when, and where I choose.

Browning
February 4, 2013, 02:40 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion if I was to offer up several AR's or hi cap mags for $600 a rifle or $12 a pmag the "complainers" non prepared would jump all over them...... If this hobby,lifestyle, constitutional right is one your interested in don't be a late to the party and demand front row seats:o I welcome new shooters, hunters, and gun owners with open arms but please stop crying about how you are not prepared. We have dealt with these events in the past and learned from them, I ask you do the same.

If your crying about overpriced mags many you should have bought them, if you sniveling about AR/ak prices then maby you should have bought them. And $ is not an excuse for the majority of America, sell of a video game and stop buying Dutch brothers coffee and apply your $ towards your true/new passion. :rolleyes:
Actually I have all the AR, AK and pistol mags I'll ever need. I'm betting that I probably have more than you do.

Just don't dig on people that try to rationalize what they're doing as okay when it's not.

Ripping a guy off is ripping him off. Call it what you will or throw in some excuses about economics, how you're providing a service or whatever, but you're not going to sell me on your excuses. :Shrug

If some of the people were more honest about what they were doing I'd have more respect for them, but they aren't so I think them hypocrites.

It's more like some of the sellers in this thread are sniveling about ripping somebody off after the fact and trying to pass it off as helping them out. Really pathetic actually.

BP44
February 4, 2013, 02:49 AM
I'm betting you dont:)

Like I stated before this is a new style, the new "thing" if you will for a bunch of people. I have been collecting, hoarding, and more importantly shooting for a long time. This type of thing is a cycle and it seems to repeat every decade or so.

It's really a simple thing, if gas went up in price because demand increased........... I think you under stand.

If I was to sell a magazine for $25 and I bought it for $7 15yrs ago would that be considered gouging? (Inflation) Same principal, even more so if you "have enough" and don't have a dog in the fight.

And simply put MR. Browning I don't take kindly to you spouting off, as big as you might be in
Texas words carry weight around my area. I don't really care what "you dig on" as a free market is a free market. If I was to sell a half box of milsurp 20rnd mags for $50 I would be called a saint but on the other hand I have kept them clean and in my safe for years. We both know rent isn't free.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 4, 2013, 03:53 AM
Why does an autographed record from Elvis cost more than a few bucks? Why do rare baseball cards sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars? Why would Patton's engraved SAA sell for a lot more than just a regular used SAA?

Because the buyer values it more and is willing to pay more. If you don't understand that basic principle, I don't know what to say.


I encourage anyone to give their answer to this question:
What is the "correct" price of 1 PMAG, and why is that the "correct" price?

Answer that, and you'll be able to demonstrate why them costing $75 today is wrong. Let's hear the answers. I've already explained why any price from $.01 to $1,000,00 and beyond is correct as long as you have someone willing to sell for that much and someone willing to buy. If you feel there are prices within that range that are too much, tell us all what the correct price is and why.

AethelstanAegen
February 4, 2013, 04:44 AM
Well, I can see that some people just don't understand it and I'm not going to waste any more effort trying to explain the simple facts to people. If you want to think I gouged someone, I really don't care. I tried hard to come up with a fair price in the market today (not the market of a few months ago) and to ensure my buyers were happy with the deal.

Maybe the buyers will have buyers remorse because an AWB won't pass and they could have purchased cheaper if they waited. It's not my job to make them do something they won't regret. That's frankly their own responsibility. Before I decided to sell, I thought long and hard about if I would regret selling my rifles. These were the first rifles I've ever sold and I tried to think if I'd be kicking myself if I sold and an AWB was passed and I was never able to replace them. When I thought on it, I realized I didn't use them much and I wouldn't regret not having them if they were banned. I'm sure my buyers had a very different conclusion and decided it was worth it for them to buy now even though supplies were low and the market price was high. That's their decision and as adults, I don't think it's my right or responsibility to babysit them or second guess their choice.

Would I have bought in today's market? Heck no, but I don't assume everyone is like me with the same priorities. Browning, you can judge all you want to...but the simple fact of the matter is that buyers value the rifles at more than they were valued a few months ago (and whatever the reasons the market has substantially changed in a few months). It's easy for you to say they're worth x when you've got them stockpiled already, but to buyers that didn't think ahead, those rifles are worth every penny they're paying.

So I'm going to enjoy my profit, because like any good capitalist, I thought ahead and bought when things were cheap (and an investment of that size is not easy for a grad student to come up with). When the market valued them higher than I did, I sold. That is simply sound financial practice and is not in any way immoral (I didn't force anyone to buy anything). So you guys can keep riding your high horses and feeling all sanctimonious but I'm glad I sold and there is nothing immoral what so ever in meeting a supply demand. I for one will not be embarrassed to have conducted some successful business that will help expand my shooting interests and finance my education.

If nothing else, Ragnar, I'm right there with you. Awesome name by the way (and I had to laugh at the San Frann Arbor having done a summer course there).

BigN
February 4, 2013, 05:28 AM
"Never let a good tragedy go to waste." That's the liberal motto. The gun/ammo sellers (some) are using that to their advantage also by artificially inflating the prices. It's so obvious to all but the blind that there's really no need for this discussion.

docsleepy
February 4, 2013, 06:07 AM
Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics" forever Changed my economic thinking. I finally began to understand free markets. He explains that price controls turn scarcity into shortage. Scarcity, which always exists, means that there is never enough of anything to go around. Not even water. But shortage is when you cannot get it at any price whatsoever. When prices are allowed to fluctuate there will always be product available, if you're willing to pay enough.

He gave several examples of price controls gone awry. Apartments in New York City were price controlled, so their prices were limited, and wealthy people could via multiple apartments knocked the walls out and have a huge home . Meanwhile newt
Married couples, who previously would've been able to purchase an apartment, albeit at a higher price, absolutely found not one in which to live. So they stayed with your parents.

A few years back, in Florida, we had hurricane knocked out my power for a week. The fact that Generator prices could go upwards, brought all kinds of people to the state, bringing generators in the back of their pickup trucks. That made product available. Had price controls been in effect, we would not of had that supply. So thank the increase prices for other supply.

1911Tuner
February 4, 2013, 07:02 AM
Here's my twist on the issue.

If the price is too steep, you have the option of walking away.

A man can put whatever price he chooses on his property. There's no law that says you or I or anybody is forced to pay his price. That's not gouging. That's free enterprise. If you made and sold pencils...and you could sell every pencil you could produce for a nickel...why would you sell your pencils for 4 cents?

On the other hand...a necessity item that inflates 10 times overnight just because the seller knows that people have to have it in order to survive...is price gouging. Food and heating oil fall under the heading. I can see inflating the price a little on a limited supply to prevent a few people from loading up...but there's a reasonable limit.

On a luxury or non-essential item? That isn't gouging. And, by the way...ammunition price inflation doesn't count as gouging, either. In the present climate...if you've gotten caught with your pants down on your ammunition supply...it's your own fault.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 07:06 AM
Actually I have all the AR, AK and pistol mags I'll ever need. I'm betting that I probably have more than you do.

Just don't dig on people that try to rationalize what they're doing as okay when it's not.

Ripping a guy off is ripping him off. Call it what you will or throw in some excuses about economics, how you're providing a service or whatever, but you're not going to sell me on your excuses. :Shrug

If some of the people were more honest about what they were doing I'd have more respect for them, but they aren't so I think them hypocrites.

It's more like some of the sellers in this thread are sniveling about ripping somebody off after the fact and trying to pass it off as helping them out. Really pathetic actually.

Browning, you're exactly right! The only moral and ethical thing for him to do would be to tell those buyers, "Screw you, I'm keeping it!"

Surely it is MUCH more ethical to refuse to sell something to someone than to sell it to them at some price they are WILLING to pay?

Or is the only ethical thing to do to cut away some of your own current, potential, net worth so that the other guy can have a cool new gun cheaper than he otherwise would? (Hopefully that gets the belly laugh it deserves.)

...

These lines of acrimonious griping about the simple function of exchanging goods for valuable consideration are mind-boggling. Aside from the anti-gun legislators the ONLY people any of us have any cause to be mad at are the guys in line next to us who are willing to pay 2x more than we are for the item! Folks who are WILLING TO PAY set the market. Not the manufacturers, not the dealers. The CUSTOMERS. The fundamental misunderstanding that propels folks to blame the SELLERS for what the BUYERS are willing to pay dismays me of our ability to understand any other important concepts of how society naturally works, or should work free of strict government coercion.

When you deal in luxury items like a new or used gun, magazines, nice watches, sports cars, TVs, etc., the only "rule" that has any universal bearing at all is that you get a much value in exchange for that item as you can. There is NO ethical or moral limit on that. If there is someone asking for the opportunity to give you $5,000 for a rifle, you accept the offer! You don't come back with a counter-offer of $1,100 because that's all it's "worth." That behavior would be blindingly self-destructive.

(And for the record, I'm not selling or buying anything and I don't work in retail, wholesale, or manufacturing, so you can take your assumptions about rationalization and stick them back under your hat! ;))

Hokkmike
February 4, 2013, 08:24 AM
gouge (gouj)
n.
1. A chisel with a rounded, troughlike blade.
2.
a. A scooping or digging action, as with such a chisel.
b. A groove or hole scooped with or as if with such a chisel.
3. Informal A large amount, as of money, exacted or extorted.
tr.v. gouged, goug·ing, goug·es
1. To cut or scoop out with or as if with a gouge: "He began to gouge a small pattern in the sand with his cane" (Vladimir Nabokov).
2.
a. To force out the eye of (a person) with one's thumb.
b. To thrust one's thumb into the eye of.
3. Informal To extort from.
4. Slang To swindle.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin gubia, variant of gulbia, of Celtic origin.]
gouger n.

1911Tuner
February 4, 2013, 08:28 AM
Well said, Sam. Bravo!

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 4, 2013, 08:29 AM
Well there you have it. No one is be extorted. They're all giving up their money of their own free will in return for products they wish to have. Not gouging.

Sav .250
February 4, 2013, 08:55 AM
"Market based pricing." You may have a point. It could also be called ," Capitalism at work." I have.You want it. Pay me.

Evil One
February 4, 2013, 08:59 AM
In this market, the prices are controlled by the buyers.
If an item is priced too high, the buyer will not purchase.
The price will come down to what the general population feels is fair.
Currently, the market feels that $1,500-2,000 is the fair range for your average AR15.
It is like selling a house.
If you bought property in an area for what you consider cheap to fair price... and suddenly the property and houses in that area were in high demand... your $100,000 house would bring an easy $300,000 dollars on the market.
Are you going to sell it for the $100,000 that you bought it for... or are you going to sell it for fair market value?


JIm

Browning
February 4, 2013, 09:40 AM
I'm betting you dont:)
Whatever. Unless we're going to start measuring ourselves right here and now cataloging every last mag it doesn't really matter.

Like I stated before this is a new style, the new "thing" if you will for a bunch of people. I have been collecting, hoarding, and more importantly shooting for a long time. This type of thing is a cycle and it seems to repeat every decade or so.

It's really a simple thing, if gas went up in price because demand increased........... I think you under stand.

If I was to sell a magazine for $25 and I bought it for $7 15yrs ago would that be considered gouging? (Inflation) Same principal, even more so if you "have enough" and don't have a dog in the fight.
Still irks me every time it happens.

As far as selling a mag for a mark-up off of what you paid years ago, that's fine. I don't even have an issue with someone who buys mags and then turns around and sells them for a mark-up. Make a small profit off of it, but this price gouging drives prices up and up and up. 6 months from now we might still be feeling the effects of this.

I have alot of ammo, mags and parts, more than enough to last for awhile. However what if it lasts for even longer? What if these are just the prices now thanks to the price gougers? I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 rds. After that goes if the price is still this high I simply couldn't afford to pay out that much. I'm basically sidelined shooting the few rds I've managed to save up for while shooting becomes the sport of a few super-rich individuals with such an interest.

At that point legislation might as well have gone through for all the good they'd do.

And simply put MR. Browning I don't take kindly to you spouting off, as big as you might be in
Texas words carry weight around my area. I don't really care what "you dig on" as a free market is a free market.
Care, don't care...I'm not too worried about it.

Don't read my posts then if they bother you so much.

It's the truth. They're price gougers and they're screwing the sport up.

Besides, what does the fact that I live in Texas have to do with anything?

beatledog7
February 4, 2013, 09:44 AM
Everyone has something to sell. If you have not retired from the workforce, you have something unique: your time, talent, and energy; i.e., your labor. There's a free market for that as well. If you are whining about price gouging, I invite you to consider:

You have planned your education and career path wisely and developed a job skill that is much sought after, and because of that many employers want to hire you. Now it's time for you to go job shopping. To keep the scenario simple, we'll assume the entire compensation package on offer from all potential employers is in terms of dollars and that besides the money, all other aspects of the jobs (location, policies, work environment, the people you'd be working with, long-term viability of the company and your role in it, etc.) are equally attractive to you, and all are non-negotiable.

- You interview with Employer A, who offers to pay you $100k annually. He gives you 72 hours to consider the offer.
- Later that day you interview with Employer B, who offers you $92K. He gives you a 48-hour window to decide.
- In the afternoon you talk with Employer C, and he is so impressed with you that he offers $212K and needs your decision in 72 hours.
- Over the course of the next couple of days, you have a handful of interviews, and the biggest number you get offered is $140K.

You call Employer C and accept the offer, right?

Does employer C have more money than he knows what to do with? Is he just plain stupid? The simple fact is, you don't care. Employer C is the easy choice because he's willing to give you much more.

But wait! You had the opportunity to sell your labor to a number of other employers, all of whom need to hire a person with the skills you have. But you chose to trade your labor for the most money you could get.

You're a gouger!

1911Tuner
February 4, 2013, 09:49 AM
Capitalism at work." I have.You want it. Pay me.

Bingo.

Like that dialogue between Richard Gere and Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman.

"Fifty dollars?? You can't charge fifty dollars for directions!"

"Sure I can, sport. I ain't the one that's lost."

SaxonPig
February 4, 2013, 09:50 AM
Gouging is a part of the free market system.

When a dealer raises prices on items he has already bought at wholesale to reflect rising prices that is gouging. One post spoke of seeing ammo with three price stickers stacked on ammo boxes. Dealer keeps raising retail price on ammo already in inventory. To me that's gouging for extra profit.

Browning
February 4, 2013, 09:51 AM
Browning, you're exactly right! The only moral and ethical thing for him to do would be to tell those buyers, "Screw you, I'm keeping it!"

Surely it is MUCH more ethical to refuse to sell something to someone than to sell it to them at some price they are WILLING to pay?

Or is the only ethical thing to do to cut away some of your own current, potential, net worth so that the other guy can have a cool new gun cheaper than he otherwise would? (Hopefully that gets the belly laugh it deserves.)
Better than being only slightly better than a thief and a con-man.

(And for the record, I'm not selling or buying anything and I don't work in retail, wholesale, or manufacturing, so you can take your assumptions about rationalization and stick them back under your hat! ;))
Kind of funny that my assumptions turned out to be true here though huh?

The price gougers just don't like being called that, that's all this thread's about.

Many times you can tell what a person has at stake by what position they take on an issue. We're just seeing that to be true here as well.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 4, 2013, 09:54 AM
You can also tell a lot about people by their standard of values and honesty. I started the dang thread and I haven't sold a gun or anything firearms related in over 2 years. So much for that theory.

mcdonl
February 4, 2013, 09:58 AM
It is only gouging if prices are elevated by a seller because there are no other options for the buyer.

When ALL of the sellers raise the prices it is just free market pricing.

GoWolfpack
February 4, 2013, 09:59 AM
A few years back, in Florida, we had hurricane knocked out my power for a week. The fact that Generator prices could go upwards, brought all kinds of people to the state, bringing generators in the back of their pickup trucks. That made product available. Had price controls been in effect, we would not of had that supply. So thank the increase prices for other supply.


I thought Florida had strict anti-price gouging laws?

You're right though. An increase in prices increases the incentive for sellers to make products available. When you can sell Pmags for $60 rather than $20 people will work harder to make Pmags available for sale.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 10:01 AM
Better than being only slightly better than a thief and a con-man.A thief takes something that doesn't belong to him. A con-man misrepresents himself or an item he is selling.

So you've misapplied two very prejudicial terms there. (Unless you were just going for a couple of random insults and that's all you could think of.)

This is the FREE exchange of real items fully disclosed, with no coercion and no other strings attached besides one person being happy to give another person money for a rifle that the other person is happy to give him in return. Lots of happy people there.

The unhappy ones seem to be those folks who don't want to pay as much as the folks who are buying right now, and don't want to be patient like all the other folks who aren't buying right now. But that's life and that will always be.

When you yell "gouging" you really need to admit to yourself that there is a jealousy issue at play in your own mind (whether you're currently looking to buy or not). Others have disposable income and/or rifles that you do not, and that makes you feel bad and badly toward them.



Kind of funny that my assumptions turned out to be true here though huh?But they didn't. Your assumptions seem to be heavily biased, but unfounded.

The price gougers just don't like being called that, that's all this thread's about.No one likes being called names. I could call you several fairly apt ones based on the things you've posted in this thread and you would almost certainly not like them. They may or may not be true, but the effect would be the same.

Many times you can tell what a person has at stake by what position they take on an issue. We're just seeing that to be true here as well.Ok. Then (by your own admission...) what's your stake in this, seeing as you're willing to call folks such ugly and spiteful names as gougers, thieves, and con-men?

Browning
February 4, 2013, 10:03 AM
No one likes being called names. I could call you several fairly apt ones based on the things you've posted in this thread and you would almost certainly not like them. They may or may not be true, but the effect would be the same.
More than likely I simply wouldn't care. Have at it. :Shrug

My assumptions did turn out to be true. Might be biased, but true. Two biggest defenders turned out to be selling something.

At any rate I'm done with this thread. No one's going to change their mind.

robMaine
February 4, 2013, 10:04 AM
If someone wants to have high prices then so be it. I just listed some 223 ammo at a fairly high price, just because that was the average I was seeing. However I did say I was open to offers and I didn't "fear monger". That is the difference in my mind, a high price is fine. A high price accompanied by lots of non-sense tryin to get impulse fear buyers is unethical IMHO.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 10:09 AM
More than likely I simply wouldn't care. Have at it. :ShrugWell, that missed the point then. You painted others with a broad brush of ugly, hateful words that were misapplied. Then you claimed that since they didn't want to be called those mis-applied epithets your slurs must be accurate. That's not logical and is a poor way to support your argument.

At any rate I'm done with this thread. No one's going to change their mind.Well...we tried. Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to support your position with more than insults doesn't make your position look stronger.

Gordon_Freeman
February 4, 2013, 10:10 AM
There is no gouging. It is supply and demand and free market capitalism.
I used to think it was gouging until someone explained it to me.

beatledog7
February 4, 2013, 10:11 AM
When a dealer raises prices on items he has already bought at wholesale to reflect rising prices that is gouging. One post spoke of seeing ammo with three price stickers stacked on ammo boxes. Dealer keeps raising retail price on ammo already in inventory. To me that's gouging for extra profit.

That statement presents several flawed concepts:

1. "...to reflect rising prices means that dealer is simply following the trend, not causing it. If he continues to sell that ammo at a price that does not reflect the market price, he will quickly sell out to the first guy who happens upon the deal, or he will have to set a limit, which seems also to be frowned upon by the guys who scream "gouger!"

2. "...ammo with three price stickers stacked on ammo boxes" would be ok with you if you could see that the stickers below were higher numbers, right? You'd be ok if that dealer was adjusting prices down, right?

3. "Dealer keeps raising retail price on ammo already in inventory." Ever ask for a raise from your employer? Ever turn one down? But wait, you're already in his labor inventory. Gouger!

Gouging implies something nefarious. That's why market pricers don't like being accused of it. In truth, it's a made-up term, made up by disgruntled people on the losing end of the free market.

BCCL
February 4, 2013, 10:40 AM
Question: What do a 'gouger' and a 'hoarder' have in common?

Answer: They are names that those who got caught unprepared call those who did not.

We have a winner!

Someone mentioned "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. I cannot recommend that book highly enough, and it's painfully apparent that a lot of people need to read it here.

Browning
February 4, 2013, 10:45 AM
Well...we tried. Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to support your position with more than insults doesn't make your position look stronger.
That implies that you had something correct to tell me and that I wouldn't listen to reason. The fact is that you don't have anything to tell me.

I have no issue with people making a fair profit off of their products and if it'll cost them more to replace their stock than it did before then the price must increase for them to get new stock and still make a profit. In that case raising prices is the only way. I get that. What I take issue with is the degree to which sellers have drastically increased their products.

For instance before the panic the average price for an AMD-65 was about $550. AA could have sold it for $750 to $850 and made a tidy profit. That wasn't his answer, he felt it necessary to raise the price to $1,100. There's something wrong with that.

Either you see the ethics and morals involved or you don't.

It's not my job to teach you right from wrong, that was your parents job. Whatever sense of right or wrong you have as an adult is whatever you're going to have for the rest of your life.

You and a few others on this thread don't see it that way, so why bother wasting my time pounding out 'War and Peace' when it's just going to be scoffed at?

So I'm not going to.

You can feel that I had no point to begin with and dismiss people who see it the same way that I do as being on the losing side of the free market scale. That's your prerogative. I just don't feel that there's a point to this discussion any longer. It's run it's course and so I'm through.

BCCL
February 4, 2013, 10:51 AM
What makes $850 "fair", but $1100 unfair?

Grey_Mana
February 4, 2013, 10:51 AM
I'm sick and tired of those price gougers trying to sell working machine guns. First, there is a ridiculous amount of paperwork, just to try to wear a buyer down. Second, all the machine guns for sale are old and used!

I heard about CNN guys buying AK rifles for less than $50 in Afghanistan, Columbia, the Congo. American sellers are just trying to rip the consumer off.

Don't tell me about price due to scarcity. I listen to NPR, so I know the US is awash in fully automatic firearms, millions being bought and sold every day without any paperwork at all due to the Gun Show Loophole.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 10:55 AM
What I take issue with is the degree to which sellers buyers have drastically increased their products what they are willing to pay. Makes more sense this way. Remember, the BUYERS SET THE MARKET PRICE!

For instance before the panic the average price for an AMD-65 was about $550. AA could have sold it for $750 to $850 and made a tidy profit. That wasn't his answer, he felt it necessary to raise the price to $1,100. There's something wrong with that.What is wrong with that? That he didn't really do his homework and find the most optimal point in the market to sell it? He made someone happy with a new (to them) rifle. He made himself happy with money he can use for other things. That's a win for everyone but you who was made sad by these two happy people. That seems wrong to me.

Either you see the ethics and morals involved or you don't.I certainly do! Buy low, sell high, don't misrepresent yourself or your product, make folks happy when you can.

It's not my job to teach you right from wrong, that was your parents job.They did a lot of that. Somehow they didn't take the opportunity to instill in me a collectivist mentality that says my property must only have some nebulous level of value that is inherent and that is NOT reflective of what someone else is willing to exchange for that property.

Your sense of right and wrong sounds more like an affinity for Marxist theories of value over libertarian capitalism. (That's not an insult, by the way, but an analysis.) No, my folks did not teach me to value things that way.

Gordon_Freeman
February 4, 2013, 11:01 AM
Question: What do a 'gouger' and a 'hoarder' have in common?

Answer: They are names that those who got caught unprepared call those who did not.
You nailed it.

beatledog7
February 4, 2013, 11:03 AM
I have no issue with people making a fair profit off of their products...

You could have finished the sentence: "...as long as they apply MY definition of fair."

jcwit
February 4, 2013, 11:36 AM
Question: What do a 'gouger' and a 'hoarder' have in common?

Answer: They are names that those who got caught unprepared call those who did not.

Nope! I still call them gougers and hoarders.
No I did not get caught unprepared.

Do they hurt our sport. Absolutely, check out if your Junior organizations have plenty of supplies, I'll venture they are short if not out, now tell me it doesn't hurt our sport.

But again we live in a society where its "all about me". And to H*** with anyone else. Gimme, gimme gimme.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 11:44 AM
Do they hurt our sport. Absolutely, check out if your Junior organizations have plenty of supplies, I'll venture they are short if not out, now tell me it doesn't hurt our sport.

It would be a great idea to go ahead and convince all those buyers to stop offering so much money, then. If you can get them to quit buying, maybe those programs would have a chance!

You know, it really doesn't matter one iota if a Jr. Rifle program can't get supplies because items cost $5,000, or because they were all sold at $5 and aren't on the shelf anyway ... or they're $5,000 AND sold out.

It's the buyers...period.

CoRoMo
February 4, 2013, 11:45 AM
Either you see the ethics and morals involved or you don't.
What would be unethical is forcing people to sell their property at a set price. Be it stripped lowers, bandages, or water. All you're doing by forcing people to cap their prices is creating a shortage situation by forcing the market out of what should be a natural adjustment.
The end result of a market acting naturally in an emergency will limit those who would "hoard" goods during said emergency, allowing more people to buy what they need at the inflated (due to higher demand for the supply) prices.
Those who were prepared before the event won't have to deal with those prices, or the long lines.

I think the real issue here is that prepping for disaster is considered a "fringe" activity, and that those who practice keeping adequate supplies of food, water, ammunition, etc. on hand are somehow antisocial nuts.
They can think that all they like, but they can think long and hard while waiting in line for that water... and if the price has been capped, they can hope there'll be a little left when they finally get to the shelf.
Gouging is merely the price one pays for being unprepared, and I'd rather pay $20 for an existing box of bandaids than see someone walk out with all of them at $4.99 each.
There is another aspect to increased prices in a localized disaster scenario. If prices on various goods and materials is significantly elevated, it will incentivize outside providers to bring in whatever is in demand.
So, if water is going for multiples of its retail value, (and not artificially capped by tyrants), then Joe Schmoe can load up his pickup truck at a Sam's Club, and haul a load into the affected area to make a tidy profit on his haul.
This is entrepeneurship at work, the (once) driving force that made this country great.
Price is a signal, and it signifies a greater demand for a good or service. Suppliers will respond more strongly to a higher price point, and will strive to provide that which is in demand.
Thirsty residents get their water (or beans n bullets, etc.), Joe gets a few bucks for his efforts, and everyone is better off than they were before Joe showed up.

Unless, of course, FEMA stops him at a roadblock, confiscates his water, or at least lets him keep it as they turn him around. He's out the gas (kinda like Walmart was after Katrina), and nobody has much reason to send in goods, beyond the natural level of charitable contributions, which while helpful, will never meet the demands of a market like Joe would have.

Just had to post these quotes from my own thread about this; http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=690654. These posts nail it to the wall.

I'd rather be given the option to buy $10/gal. gasoline in order to escape a natural disaster in my area than for it all to be gone because every gas station was "noble" and let people take it all away at regular prices. The later would give me no options.

AethelstanAegen
February 4, 2013, 12:06 PM
For instance before the panic the average price for an AMD-65 was about $550. AA could have sold it for $750 to $850 and made a tidy profit. That wasn't his answer, he felt it necessary to raise the price to $1,100. There's something wrong with that.

Except I sold it to a gentleman for $1000, with me paying the transfer fees. Included in the deal was the AMD-65 which according your "fair" price is maybe worth $750-$850 (not that by the way, your estimation of fair matters in any way shape or form). Also included was 400rds of Yugo surplus ammo from the 90s, 7 magazines, and a cleaning kit. Which I think more than accounts for the other $150-$250 dollars in the deal. So according to your own "fair" evaluation I didn't gouge anyone. I guess I probably could have gotten more for it but the guy was willing to go through a background check he didn't lawfully need (because the profit was less important to me than guns falling into the wrong hands) and he dealt straight with me, so we made a deal with which we were both happy.

I think you should try reading some of this stuff in greater depth rather than trying to play some sort of moral high card that you actually don't hold. Frankly, people need to stop getting butt-hurt that the prices have gone up and either buy or don't depending on how much value the rifle has to you. People like Browning also need to stop judging other people when they're clearly not aware of all the information at hand (like in this case not having the pricing right and not understanding economics in the slightest). But then again I guess it's not really about right and wrong it's really about people getting to feel all high and mighty and give all us "sinners" a good tongue lashing for making any sort of profit on a sound investment.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 12:22 PM
Except I...Stop trying to make allowances for one person's opinion. Personally, I think you were silly not to make a bit more with a little more market research. You could have made enough to give a good home to an orphan antique revolver, which would be doing your part for the "greater good!" :)

Arkansas Paul
February 4, 2013, 12:25 PM
I admit I did not read all posts.
I agree with your OP that it's not gouging. They are free to charge whatever they wish, and we are free to buy or pass on it. However, when some companies like CTD jack up magazine prices by 300% or more, and other companies do not, I will do all my future business with the ones that did not. That's free market too.

gossamer
February 4, 2013, 12:27 PM
For me, personally, I have found a great solution to this gouging:

I. DO. NOT. BUY.

jcwit
February 4, 2013, 12:27 PM
It's the buyers...period.

And IMO the seller!

But again we live in a society where its "all about me". And to H*** with anyone else. Gimme, gimme gimme

It is a 2 way street, goes both ways.

MTO
February 4, 2013, 12:29 PM
jcwit said:

Remember if your taxes didn't subsidize the farmers milk it would be at a minimum of $8.00 a gal.
Thats why they hurried up and passed the farm bill a week or two ago.

I'm sorry, but the reason behind the projected increase in the price of milk is as you cite it here is misleading. Had the farm bill expired, the law would have reverted to the 1949 scheme of government price supports (subsidization with our tax dollars) since that was the last permanent law on the books.

In other words, the bill passed prevented heavy-handed government interference in the market for milk.

fallout mike
February 4, 2013, 12:31 PM
I agree with Paul. One company goes up 300%. One company goes up 25%. Is one gouging? No, the 25% mark up place have not been sold out apparently bc I got a box of magazines delivered on Friday that I ordered for a friend that needed them.

2nd 41
February 4, 2013, 12:31 PM
What's with all the upset people calling raised gun prices "gouging"?
It is gouging. Case closed. Butter it up and change the wording but the gun/ammo prices are "Gouging".
Me..I'm jealous not upset.

jcwit
February 4, 2013, 12:32 PM
For me, personally, I have found a great solution to this gouging:

I. DO. NOT. BUY.


This works well for me also, but then I have no need to either.

Just like I also remember the auto repair shop that overcharges for their work/service.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 12:34 PM
It's the buyers...period.
And IMO the seller!Seeing as there are so few sellers these days tying people up and holding a gun to their head to make them buy something... and how the only reason any property holder who becomes a seller did so because someone agreed to willingly pay the asked price... how could that possibly be the sellers' fault?

Are the sellers supposed to look at the money being offered and say, "NO, that's too much! I demand you pay me LESS MONEY!"

I'll anticipate a wave of sellers refusing to accept the UNETHICAL and IMMORAL prices being offered by buyers any day now.

481
February 4, 2013, 12:42 PM
You can really tell who the buyers and sellers are on this thread.

Ironic how personal circumstances dictate morals.

Yes, it is.

I have enough stuff to sell at "gouge-level" pricing but won't simply because replacement could become problematic not because I have a problem with reaping what the present market will allow.

mikechandler
February 4, 2013, 12:43 PM
Supply and demand in a free market.

The other option is a regulated market with set prices. In that environment goods are bought and sold at the same prices, regardless of demand - price competition is unallowed, and you always pay the fixed price. How that worked in the real world is you stood in ridiculously long lines, and often times went home with nothing, unless you were a member of the elite party setting the prices, in which case you entered through another door.. For the rest of the people, if you were smart you collected barter items, to butter up the merchants to your business. Welcome to the (now-deceased) Soviet Union. It was hell - and if you didn't have cartons of Marlboros to grease the merchants with, you might very well starve, or be wiping your freezing cold behind on the latest copy of Pravda... And how did you acquire those Marlboros? Yep, the cigarettes were all a FREE black-MARKET, involving everything from ration coupons to farmer's daughters, and these black market items were the only thing making it possible for a single drop of heating oil to get out past Moscow, if enough even made it there in the first place.

So unless you want a system that works only with bribery, and implicates everyone in criminal activities of some sort, thank God for the Free Market you have and stop complaining.

jcwit
February 4, 2013, 12:47 PM
I presume we'll just have to agree to disagree!

Probably the best action to take.

skypirate7
February 4, 2013, 01:01 PM
It is gouging and it is legal. Buyers can retaliate with boycotts or group-purchases from more friendly establishments.

Sam1911
February 4, 2013, 01:09 PM
I presume we'll just have to agree to disagree!Uh...ok. That doesn't answer my questions, though.

nazshooter
February 4, 2013, 01:12 PM
Last week I found a good deal on a new Ruger 10/22. I really wanted an extra magazine or two before taking it out for the first time so I drove around to a bunch of different gun shops looking for magazines but they were all out of stock. Finally I stopped at one that had a reputation for gouging and found several of the Butler Creek steel lips 25 round mags on the shelf but priced at nearly 2x what they would have cost at the other shops and I bought one. Did he harm me in any way by charging so much? No, he was the only one in town who had found a way to provide what I wanted at a price I was willing to pay.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

AethelstanAegen
February 4, 2013, 01:22 PM
Stop trying to make allowances for one person's opinion. Personally, I think you were silly not to make a bit more with a little more market research. You could have made enough to give a good home to an orphan antique revolver, which would be doing your part for the "greater good!"

Haha. A vaild point, Sam. The point I was trying to make to Browning is that he should, in general, read things more closely instead of being so quick to judge. In my particular case, my prices met his "fair" pricing scheme perfectly which sort of undercuts his attempts to put me in a pillory as a gouger.

But you're right, there's no point catering to his opinion when in principle it would have been just as valid for me to have sold them for $1100 with the rifle alone. I do think I could have gotten more for them, but frankly, I just wanted to get it wrapped up quickly and a find a local buyer who was willing to do the transfer through an FFL.

And don't worry, Sam. I rescued 100+ year old Winchester 1897 and a reproduction of a single action revolver (as well find some ammo for my 1898-1899 S&W Safety Hammerless) with some of the proceeds from my sale. I'll be reloading for those two new purchases as well, which should be an awful lot of fun.

aeriedad
February 4, 2013, 01:25 PM
I don't stockpile or hoard ammo, usually only have 3-6 month's supply on hand. Shoot some, buy some. Used to go to the range 2-3 times a month, but have cut back lately because I'm low on .223 and 9mm. Still good on .45 ACP, but don't want to run low there too so I don't shoot it much either.

I've basically got three ways to re-supply:

1. Walmart. Almost always out of stock on everything. Got lucky Saturday and found two boxes of Federal 9mm. But generally speaking, I go in there 2-3 times a week and see empty shelves because they sell at regular prices with 3-box limit per customer.

2. Mail Order. Slightly inflated prices, but even more out of stock than Walmart. Many places don't even accept backorders anymore, and some that do are unable to estimate shipping anytime in the next six months.

3. LGS. Crazy-inflated prices and slightly depleted stock. Usually can find something, but it's hit or miss on quality. There is also a 10-box limit, and they sell it all--even at the crazy prices. Still, I can buy it there if I want it. If they sold it at Walmart prices, they would have Walmart-like empty shelves because the first 20 guys in there on Monday morning would clean them out.

I don't blame any retailer for the way they price their goods. I can either pay their price or walk away. Empty shelves don't pay the bills, and with the demand for some items today, the shelves may stay empty--or close to it--for a long time. Stocks will be replenished when the demand subsides, and prices will follow. Not the sellers' fault.

And before I'm questioned on my connection to the retail business, it ain't there. I'm just a retired Marine who paid attention in high school.

Mayvik
February 4, 2013, 01:35 PM
This thread is making me very sad. :( Aside from lack of basic understanding of economics and general whininess, the inability/unwillingness to grasp basic examples is really frustrating. The $30/gal milk works - if you have a child with you that needs milk to grow up big and strong, I bet 100% of you will pay $30/gal. Substitute anything else in there as well - gasoline, medicine, a room at the inn etc. If you NEED it, you will pay what it takes (or resort to taking it by force/theft, I suppose). If you WANT it, you have freedom to choose to pay or choose to hold out and wait for a better deal.

How about doing some substitution of commodity and paper money with your barter hat on (call it post-SHTF economy or whatever, but really all exchange is just barter by another name) - say food and copper coins, water and spare ammo, gasoline and a handful of shiny rocks, etc? What sets the intrinsic value of these items? Nothing but the need/desire of both parties to swap items.

If I'm in a foxhole with you and the only thing between me and a horde of screaming somebodies with fixed bayonets is your empty rifle, I guarantee I will be giving you a great deal on a spare loaded mag. Otherwise, fair market price is always going to be determined how bad you (the community of eligible buyers) want/need it.

1911Tuner
February 4, 2013, 01:53 PM
My assumptions did turn out to be true. Might be biased, but true. Two biggest defenders turned out to be selling something.

Nah. Your assumptions are true for you and your opinions. And for the record, I'm not selling anything at any price right now.

At any rate I'm done with this thread.

Well, just in case you can't resist takin' one more peek...

Here's how it works.
****************

"How much you want for that?"

"Two grand."

"That's too much! I refuse to pay that much!"

"Okay. Happy shoppin', then."
****************

From another perspective:

"Nice rifle. I'll give you 1500 dollars for it."

"Nope. Gotta have two grand for it."

"Too much. Have a nice day."

"You too."
*****************

And:

"Nice rifle. I'll give you two thousand dollars for it."

"Sold!"
*************

And one more:

"Nice rifle. I'll give you 1500 dollars for it."

"Nope. Gotta have two grand for it."

"Will ya take 1750"

"Make it 1850 and ya got a deal."

"Make it 1800."

"Done!"

HoosierQ
February 4, 2013, 01:55 PM
I think it's only really gouging if a) a price is set high in opposition to the price the market would place them, and b) the buyer is not in a position to either seek the product elsewhere or pass on buying the product all-together.

So charging people stranded in Florida City $10 for a half-liter bottle of drinking water after Hurricaine Andrew back in 1992 was gouging. Buy or die...it was August in Florida.

Charging $50 for a $15 Pmag? Don't like the price, don't buy it. Don't wanna pay $1 a round for 5.56? Shoot your 30-30. Don't wanna pay $2,000 for an AR-15? Buy an NEF Pardner. Etc, Etc, Etc.

nazshooter
February 4, 2013, 01:57 PM
Haha. A vaild point, Sam. The point I was trying to make to Browning is that he should, in general, read things more closely instead of being so quick to judge. In my particular case, my prices met his "fair" pricing scheme perfectly which sort of undercuts his attempts to put me in a pillory as a gouger.


It actually made for an excellent example of why central planning in a "browning style" economy never works. The central planners cannot ever know enough about the details of each transaction to make a rational decision.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

nazshooter
February 4, 2013, 02:22 PM
So charging people stranded in Florida City $10 for a half-liter bottle of drinking water after Hurricaine Andrew back in 1992 was gouging. Buy or die...it was August in Florida.


In that situation it's even more important than ever to let the price mechanism work. That $10 dollar price will encourage people from outside the area to bring in supplies even though it might be expensive and difficult to do so. Some people with plenty of water may bring it out into the market rather than leaving it in their basement. At the same time that high price discourages people who already have enough to from buying up all the available water. The net result is that more water will be available to third who really need it than if prices had been artificially capped.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

RevGeo
February 4, 2013, 02:33 PM
It is not gouging. Yes, it is all based on free market economic principles. We don't need the items. If you can't afford it, you can't buy it.

Nonetheless, our whole economic system is based on good old fashioned avarice. Thats the way it is.

GoWolfpack
February 4, 2013, 02:37 PM
Nonetheless, our whole economic system is based on good old fashioned avarice. Thats the way it is.


Capitalism is the only economic system that works with human nature, rather than against it.

Cosmoline
February 4, 2013, 02:41 PM
There is a right to complain. There is no right to be free from criticism about your choice to charge a fortune or to pay one.

Part of the free enterprise system is the freedom to call you a fool for paying too much or asking too much.

Robert
February 4, 2013, 02:46 PM
That's enough for this go around.

If you enjoyed reading about "Stop calling it gouging." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!