Ammoman x39 prices. They only sell if people buy accept scalping.

[piratelooking@40]

There are reasonable defenses for actual gouging, as well. When prices on necessities rise in an emergency, it helps to prevent hoarding (if prices do not rise, the first person on the scene is much more likely to buy all that's available of the commodity), and frivolous use (someone using hard-to-get water to wash their car, for example, and don't for a minute think people don't do such things).

I'm not sure though that "gouging" is even a valid concept for stuff which is still plentiful, and <->

Man, I was about to say that ammo isn't a necessity. Too much of this academic crap!

 

[Gun Slinger]

Expecting a business to NOT get every cent of profit they can from every single transaction they can is a socialist (or communist, you pick) core idea.

Your jump to socialist ideology is pretty asinine and has little basis. It also shows a lack of proper understanding of what socialism actually is.

Giroden,

Rob s' "jump" is right on the money. "Price controls" (which diminish profit taking) is one of the primary concepts that Socialism is predicated upon. Further, his statement indicates a clear understanding of Socialism and as such is neither asinine nor lacking in sufficient basis.

 

[barnetmill]

Check out the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx when you get the chance.

Price control is one of the instruments that Marxists, Communists and Socialists wish to employ in order to institute a "classless society". In a Socialist society, regardless of what your line of work is, everyone makes the same amount of money. From brain surgeons to janitors to teachers, no one earns more than anyone else in such a system and the Socialist doctrine mandates the control of commodities and merchandise pricing in order to ensure the mechanics and viability of such a restricted system.

What you are saying is not a correct quote. The basic maxist quote is:

Correction: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism)" is the correct quote.
Under communist run socialism since the communists are considered to be giving the most the receive the most. There is only equality for the masses that typically recieve very little, unless of course they frequent the black market.

 

[piratelooking@40]

I'm going to try to keep this high road but it seems you missed the OPs point entirely and I advise you re-read his post. His premise is totally in line with basic ideas of capitalism ie supply and demand. He is making an argument to cut the demand which would in turn cut the the prices, which are inflated as a result of a recent increase in demand.

Letting the market dictate prices and rational comsumers, ie someone who takes their business elsewhere to find the lowest price, are core elements of capitalism.

Your jump to socialist ideology is pretty asinine and has little basis. It also shows a lack of proper understanding of what socialism actually is.

All absolutely true. But people are getting angry at ammo dealers, and calling them names.

Here's an example: I live in Southern Nevada, and train at a certain firearms academy, which in the interest of circumspection shall remain nameless, in the area. They sell ammo there, for almost exactly twice what the same stuff sells for at Wal-Mart. If I were to plan poorly and run out of ammo while there, I'd have to pay their prices. I'd hate it, and I'd be angry, but mostly at myself. As long as I have ammo, I at their prices and walk on by.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Excellent post, barnetmill.

Although I was not attempting a direct quote there are indeed finer points than I have bothered to distiguish between the two economic philosophies.

 

[againstthagrane]

I believe there was also previously mention of "price gouging" (before people started editing posts) which is a non-existent concept in a capitalist market.

i think price gouging is a very real practice, however, not when it comes to luxury items. i know i'll get flamed, but no one NEEDS an ak-47 with 1000 rounds of ammo. it's a luxury to be able to have it. if they want to charge $50 more a case that's their right. just like it's your right not to buy it.

if the price of gas or milk or some other NECESSITY went up 100% that would be gouging, but an ar15 going up $200 is NOT gouging. it's capitalism. supply and demand baby.

 

[james rogers]

you might have a point there

 

[Girodin]

Giroden,

Rob s' "jump" is right on the money. "Price controls" (which diminish profit taking) is one of the primary concepts that Socialism is predicated upon. Further, his statement indicates a clear understanding of Socialism and as such is neither asinine nor lacking in sufficient basis.

Where are price controls mentioned? The point of this thread was about not buying at inflated prices, it had nothing to do advocating government imposed price controls. Where are you reading that? It is a huge, unfounded, and I will repeat, asinine jump from what the topic and point of this thread was. Re-read the posts and explain to me where anyone, in even the most tenuous way, advocated imposed price controls prior to Rob throwing out allegations of socialism. He was accusing people who were in essence demonstrating one of the pillars of capitalism, the rational consumer, by advocating not buying at what was deemed by them an excessive price. Another poster offered an alternative, to buy from a competitor who was selling for less. We then have the charge of socialism. How in the world does that illustrate a sound understanding of socialism? How is that jump (and it really is a jump) "right on the money" Please enlighten me.

 

[ZombiesAhead]

Anyone who frequents THR should have seen these high prices coming a mile away.

I'm happy to see demand driving up prices. It's good for the firearms industry and is also evidence of a concerned gun-owning public with powerful purchasing ability.

"Price Gouging" aka "The Free Market."

 

[Gun Slinger]

Where are price controls mentioned? The point of this thread was about not buying at inflated prices, it had nothing to do advocating government imposed price controls. Where are you reading that? It is a huge, unfounded, and I will repeat, asinine jump from what the topic and point of this thread was. Re-read the posts and explain to me where anyone, in even the most tenuous way, advocated imposed price controls prior to Rob throwing out allegations of socialism. He was accusing people who were in essence demonstrating one of the pillars of capitalism, the rational consumer, by advocating not buying at what was deemed by them an excessive price. Another poster offered an alternative, to buy from a competitor who was selling for less. We then have the charge of socialism. How in the world does that illustrate a sound understanding of socialism? How is that jump (and it really is a jump) "right on the money" Please enlighten me.

Giroden,

"Price controls" were mentioned in my post #52 (and prior to that in in #28) where I was explaining why "rob s" statement...

"Expecting a business to NOT get every cent of profit they can from every single transaction they can is a socialist (or communist, you pick) core idea."

...constitutes a firm understanding of what makes up a Socilaist economic system.

I have neither the time nor the energy to explain the entire thread to you, but the concept of "price control" is a Socialist (and quite similar to the Communist model) economic instrument. Perhaps you misread or misunderstood one of my posts above?

 

[Girodin]

LOL... you referenced your posts. In other words no one besides you mentioned price controls, which was in essence my point. Price controls had nothing to do with this discussion until you plucked them out of the air and starting talking about them. Did anyone in this thread advocate price controls? NO, they did not. Did any of the actions advocated in this thread equate to price controls? No.

Thus I ask again:

Re-read the posts and explain to me where anyone, in even the most tenuous way, advocated imposed price controls prior to Rob throwing out allegations of socialism.

The answer is simple, they did not. You alone mentioned that price controls are a part of socialism. Its true and thats great, but what does it have to do with this thread or the OPs point? Nothing. Does it in anyway support Rob's charges of socialism? No it doesn't, because the people he was making that accusation against were in no way what so ever advocating imposed price controls. Unless you show that they were any further discussion of prices controls and how it figures into socialism in really totally irrelevant. Are price controls part of socialism? Sure. Does that have anything to do with this thread? Not really.

I have neither the time nor the desire to explain the whole thread to you,

More importantly you seem to lack the ability to explain it to me since A) you seem not to have been unable to follow it yourself and B) you seem unable to draw out the significant parts of it for the purpose of this discussion.

Expecting a business to NOT get every cent of profit they can from every single transaction they can is a socialist (or communist, you pick) core idea."

...constitutes a firm understanding of what makes up a Socilaist economic system.

Equivocating the above ("Expecting a business to NOT get every cent of profit...") with calls for boycotts however shows a serious lack of understanding of socialism and capitalism for that matter.

The call to action by the OP had nothing at all to do with expecting businesses to not make all the profit possible. It had everything to do with altering the demand and thus altering the profit possible for them to make. Those are two radically different ideas. They are so different that if one can not see the differences the explanation of economics and ideologies needed to make it understandable would go well beyond what is appropriate for this thread.

However, I will attempt to delineate my point clearly. The OP in essence called for a boycott in order to respond to a rise in prices. A boycott is in no way the same as socialist, government imposed, price controls. Calling for a boycott in order to bring prices back down in wholly capitalist. It is the basic principals of capitalism at work. To suggest, as Rob did, that such a person or those who agree is/are socialist (on that basis alone) is beyond ridiculous. It really does show a lack of understanding about what socialism is.

Further, to suggest that a boycott is the equivalent of socialist price controls is perhaps even more misguided and also shows a lack of understanding in regards to capitalism and socialism.

Perhaps you misread or misunderstood one of my posts above?

Perhaps you misread or misunderstood the entire thread and missed the issues at hand.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Hardly in the mood to argue the minutae with you. I said what I said and my only point was that "price controls" are a Socialist economic instrument. Done wasting my time beating this to death.

 

[Girodin]

my only point was that "price controls" are a Socialist economic instrument. Done wasting my time beating this to death.

Nobody disagrees with you on that point. It simply wasn't relevant to the thread. We all know why you're done, there is not really a point left for you to argue now is there? You cannot show any connection between price controls and anything mentioned prior to your bringing them up because there is none.

You cannot show the connection between the OP and subsequent reiterations of his original point and socialism because there is none. Why not just put it in those terms?

 

[Girodin]

All better?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you are implying I have engaged in this discussion for some sort of personal satisfaction or merely to be argumentative you're off the mark. If I was I would have already pointed out things such as the fact that you were totally full of it and in full back pedal mode when you wrote the following:

I said what I said and my only point was that "price controls" are a Socialist economic instrument.

In that statement you claim that your ONLY point was that price controls are a Socialist economic instrument. That was not your point (conclusion) however, was it? Rather your conclusion was that "his [rob s] statement indicates a clear understanding of Socialism and as such is neither asinine nor lacking in sufficient basis." You brought up price controls as evidence to support that point. It was fairly irrelevant evidence as has already been discussed, but it was in fact the evidence in your argument not the conclusion or in your terms, your point.

 

[Pine Cone]

I have bought from Ammoman before, and they offer an email list that they suggest you subscribe to. On Nov. 1st I got this email from Ammoman...

"We try and give our customers a heads up on what's going on and what we expect.

7.62x39 is selling faster than we can get it in. Prices from the importer are going up and we are having to pay more if and when we can get it. It's the best selling item we have and we just want everyone to be aware so they can plan ahead."

At that point most 7.62x39 was still $209.

Price went up about 4 days later, jumped again today.

I thought it was pretty nice of them to email me and tell me they were about to raise prices and give me a chance to buy more at the lower price. They might be making a profit, but they gave me a good warning that prices were about to change days before. Pretty straight shooters as far as I am concerned. I'll buy from them again when the panic is over...

 

[Torghn]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ammoman raising prices. He is receiving orders faster than he can ship them. To slow the incoming orders you have to raise prices. Once the chaos subsides and orders return to a normal pace I'm sure prices will to.

When my skills are in high demand I charge a higher rate for my time. Why should a retailer be any different?

 

[paratroop23]

That is a drastic increase in very short period! I bought a couple case from them @ $175 less than a year ago! Just two weeks ago it was listed at $205 if I'm not mistaken!

 

[FourTeeFive]

What part of supply and demand is confusing?

If someone increases prices, and the customer pays those increased prices, then that is the market value at that time. If prices and increased and nobody buys the product, the company will be forced to reduce prices.

Is capitalism really that confusing?

 

[camslam]

Trying to bring it back, the prices on most everything have increased.

That being said, I'm glad I loaded up on 10,000+ rounds from Ammoman.com 2 and 3 weeks ago.

People can blast them if they like, but there is a reason Ammoman does so much business and hence has reasons when supply runs low, to raise prices.

That reason is usually they are the least expensive outfit going. There are others that sell the ammo for less, but everytime I have factored in shipping, Ammoman is the cheapest.

Once things get back to semi-normal gun wise, if that is even possible with the Dems running things, we'll see the prices come back down.

 

[Gun Slinger]

People can blast them if they like, but there is a reason Ammoman does so much business and hence has reasons when supply runs low, to raise prices.

That reason is usually they are the least expensive outfit going. There are others that sell the ammo for less, but everytime I have factored in shipping, Ammoman is the cheapest.

This has been my experience as well. I plan on doing business with them again once the dust settles.