Is it unethical to allow a buyer to price your item in this time of high demand?

[CoRoMo]

Let's say you're sitting on a half dozen stripped lowers that you are tempted to throw onto GunBroker during this buying hysteria. You don't want to be accused of being a 'price gouger', so you figure starting the auctions out at a penny and letting the market take its course would be fine.

Is it unethical to let someone buy your item that is in high demand, at a price of their choosing, just because the market currently happens to be in a panic?

 

[primalmu]

No. You aren't demanding an outrageous price. They have decided for themselves what the item is worth to them.

 

[KDS]

You are just participating in the free market. Nothing wrong with that. If it makes you feel better, why not just sell 2 of those lowers to me at a price where you break even. Hey, I'm always here to help

 

[Texan Scott]

" ... After all gentlemen, we're not Communists." - Don Barzini, The Godfather II

 

[CoRoMo]

I can agree, but you would certainly be 'taking advantage' of the current market.

Would you also be taking advantage of the panicked buyer?

On one hand, it is their decision to buy your item at an inflated price of their own choosing and they might be perfectly satisfied with the transaction. If they didn't buy it from you, they would have bought it from someone else.

On the other hand, it's purely an act of opportunity if you're only deciding to sell them because of the price you are sure to get.

 

[Mr.510]

Of course it's not unethical. Neither would be listing those lowers on Gunbroker for $1k a piece. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy them. This is a free market and you may sell (or not sell) any item you own for any amount you wish at any time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I guess the people that whine about "price gouging" don't understand supply and demand in a free market economy. If they don't like it they can move to a country where all the prices are fixed by the gubmint.

 

[rcmodel]

Supply & demand.
Free trade.
Etc.


If someone is dumb enough to buy it at an inflated price?
More power to you.

Thats how todays billionaire politicians got that rich.

It's the American Dream to find something you can sell at a 1,000+% profit!

rc

 

[Dr.Mall Ninja]

Go for it!! Nothingn unethical at all.

 

[M-Cameron]

On the other hand, it's purely an act of opportunity if you're only deciding to sell them because of the price you are sure to get.

is there anything wrong with that?....people do it all the time.

buy stocks low, sell them high

buy houses when the market is bad, sell them when its good

looking to trade in your car, im sure you dont take the first offer you get, you shop around until you get the best you can.


If you are buying a firearm, you are a grown adult, you understand fully what you are doing.....if you want to pay $XXXX for it when you know its normal worth half that....thats your choosing

 

[Onward Allusion]

If you are fortunate enough to have a bunch of stripped lowers sitting around, there is absolutely nothing wrong with letting a penny auction determine their final selling price. It is capitalism at its best.

Now, if this was a disaster situation and one were to price gouge on bandages then it would be unethical and it would probably land a person six feet under rather quickly - again, capitalism at its best.

 

[Grassman]

I don't see the problem here, you wern't demanding an outrageous price, but if it got there on it's own, then you made a tidy little profit. This is supply and demand at it's core.

 

[mgmorden]

I don't think its really unethical to even ask the higher fees. Granted I think people are crazy to buy some of the going prices for them, but its capitalism at work. If the market has the demand and you've got the supply feel free to make a little money.

 

[velojym]

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.

 

[mljdeckard]

No. Supply and demand.

 

[armed hiker]

We all are big kids here. Think of it this way. If you wanted a gun and really were worried you would not be able to get one then it is what ever you could afford. Does the cost matter? Only if you are planing on sell it in the near future.

 

[velojym]

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.

 

[CraigC]

Is it unethical to let someone buy your item that is in high demand, at a price of their choosing, just because the market currently happens to be in a panic?

How could it possibly be unethical??? Have we really lived in such a nanny state that we all think that people need to be protected from themselves at all times???

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Item A is offered at MSRP + 100%.

No one is forcing anyone to buy it.

In fact, the market is completely dry. You can't buy Item A anywhere at MSRP.

If you want Item A bad enough, you'll pay over the MSRP by an amount you find fair. If 100% over MSRP is worth it to you, then you have exchanged money for a product you feel is of equal value. No one put a gun to your head.

Scarcity drives up prices and demand goes up when supply is limited. When demand goes up, the cost of goods and services go up. When supply is limited, people can increase supply by entering the marketplace merchandise at higher prices and meet the demand.

Win-win.

 

[justice06rr]

Its not unethical, if the buyer is willing to pay an inflated price for your item. i'm not one to "price gouge", but nothing is wrong with making a profit.

Its just business. No one is forcing a buyer to spend their money on an overpriced rifle. it is the buyer's choice. If they have the money, why not?

 

[coloradokevin]

Price is pretty much where supply and demand meet. It isn't unethical to accept what someone is willing to pay for an item, however crazy it might seem.

To me it is annoying when people intentionally try to clear the store shelves of everything they can buy, merely so they can take the same retail-priced items, jack the price up, and sell them online. Is it unethical? Probably not, but I'd argue that it is rude.

 

[itchy1]

It's economic Darwinism out there--better to be the species that survives or sells in this case.

 

[sota]

many other items are purchased at a certain price point with the hope and/or expectation that they will be sold later on at a higher price point. stocks, houses, land, cars, etc. I see no reason the same cannot or should not apply to firearms and their accessories.

 

[JohnBT]

I don't care if you advertise it for $2599 and somebody buys it. Do let me know if that happens though.

I read a piece in yesterday's Washington Post about the housing market heating up in certain D.C. neighborhoods with houses once again being bid up beyond all reason.

www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-hou...c37ac0-488d-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

168 bids.

"It didn’t look like a house anyone would pay $400,000 extra for."

Original asking price was $337k. Sold for $761k. And it needs work.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

The only folks that call it "price gouging" are the ones that WANT to purchase but didn't purchase beforehand.

 

[hso]

Many people who wouldn't have bought it at the lower price are now clamoring to pay 5 times the "value" two weeks ago. They set the value based on their personal demand.