But they aren't 'patently obvious'.
By "patently obvious", I mean: logical, supported by facts provided by multiple reliable sources, and conforming to the basic concepts of supply & demand.
The threads right here at THR are evidence of that its not obvious.
The threads indicate that there are many people who apparently prefer an alternate explanation. The fact that people often choose what they consider to be an attractive alternate "explanation" for something that doesn't actually call for an alternate explanation isn't proof that the alternate explanation has merit. It's just a commentary on how human beings tend to be.
Do you think we are liars?
Nope. Not at all. In fact, I've explained (or tried to explain) why the reports that are being provided as "evidence" can be perfectly accurate while still being misleading if one doesn't look at the big picture.
Or just not smart enough to follow your 'patently obvious' explanation?
Honestly, I don't think it requires much intelligence. I think that the biggest part of this problem has virtually nothing to do with how smart people are and everything to do with what they want to believe--what they find to be the most attractive "explanation" for them.
There were only 10 POS total.
...
There are 40 POS's total now...
There probably are some more retailers getting in on the mix, but I suspect it's more that the existing retailers have increased their orders.
Your example assumes that all the POS's were all selling a lot of .22LR on a regular basis. A few were probably selling a lot but most were probably selling much less than the biggest sellers.
Then when the demand started going nuts, all the POS's started ordering more at once. Therefore the few who had been selling a lot suddenly started getting less than previously even though the overall supply increased.
So here's an example to help explain how that could happen.
Original demand situation.
100 POS's
10 POS's ordering/receiving/selling 25 units per week.
15 POS's ordering/receiving/selling 15 units per week.
25 POS's ordering/receiving/selling 3 units per week.
50 POS's ordering/receiving/selling 1 unit per week.
Total units manufactured/sold per week = 600 units = supply=demand
New demand situation.
Still 100 POS's
Demand increases by 5x, Supply increases by 2x.
Demand is now 3000 units
Supply is now 1200 units
Now the average demand per POS is 30 units per week (3000/100). In response to demand, all POS's increase their orders to meet the new demand.
Since there's not nearly enough to go around, the manufacturers must choose how to distribute what is available. So they try to distribute things evenly amongst the existing POS's.
That means that every POS will now get only 12 units per week--1200 units of supply/100 POS's.
Even though supply doubled, the 10 POS's who were getting/selling 25 units before the change will now get only 12 units--less than half of what they had been receiving.
Even though supply doubled, the 15 POS's who were getting/selling 15 units per week before the change will now get only 12 units--three less than before.
The natural tendency is to focus almost exclusively on the main retailers of ammo--analogous to the 25 POS's in my example that sell much more than the other sellers. That's because that's where most of us go most often for ammo.
But there are many other retailers out there who are also selling ammo. When the demand went up, their orders went up too. If we only focus on how things changed at the major retailers of ammo, we won't get the big picture because it depends heavily on what happens with ALL the retailers--not just the major ones.
My example only uses a very few POS's. There are many, many more in the real world and most of them aren't selling huge volumes of ammo in the normal demand situation. But when the demand goes through the roof, all those small retailers start placing more and larger orders than before and even with increased supply, all that additional demand can reduce the amount available for the major retailers.
For what it's worth, I don't think that the example tells the whole story. I do think that there are probably some new retailers in the mix now which would mean even smaller slices of the pie for each one. I also think that some of the word of mouth reports from sellers are probably exaggerated by the sellers (either intentionally or unintentionally) and/or misinterpreted by the listeners. In other words, a seller might be recalling a particularly large order (which would naturally be much more memorable than the routine) while the listener takes that to be a normal order. I also think that there's probably some disingenuity going on at some retailers where clerks may be exaggerating the shortage (in terms of their shipping receipts) in order to cover special deals with friends/etc. taking place on the side.