Stop calling it gouging.

[Sam1911]

What I take issue with is the degree to which [strike]sellers[/strike] buyers have drastically increased [strike]their products[/strike] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

For me, personally, I have found a great solution to this gouging:

I. DO. NOT. BUY.

 

[jcwit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I presume we'll just have to agree to disagree!

Probably the best action to take.

 

[skypirate7]

It is gouging and it is legal. Buyers can retaliate with boycotts or group-purchases from more friendly establishments.

 

[Sam1911]

I presume we'll just have to agree to disagree!

Uh...ok. That doesn't answer my questions, though.

 

[nazshooter]

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]

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]

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]

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.