Stop calling it gouging.

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!

Ironic how personal circumstances dictate morals.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

coolluke01 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

oneounceload said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

coolluke01 said:

Situation doesn't dictate morals in the situation because it's not a moral issue!

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig. It is gouging.

-Dan

and that won't cost you as much to replace is immoral.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

coolluke01 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

No one here is willing to sell me their AR-15 for $800?

Ya bunch of gougers!

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.

jcwit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.......

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"