|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 30, 2013, 05:45 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2007
Posts: 1,204
|
@ FairWarning. My point exactly.
Last edited by TheNatureBoy; January 30, 2013 at 05:55 AM. |
January 30, 2013, 06:24 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2012
Posts: 1,031
|
It's "capitalism" as most people will scream until they're hoarse.
I just don't return to the shops that gouge. |
January 30, 2013, 07:02 AM | #53 |
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 22
|
Simple human nature..BUT, shop around..they still have competition and if you don't absolutely have a need---WAIT.
Now, the other side of the coin..I'm sure some of the folks griping would have no trouble trying to sell a gun they purchased years ago and heavily used for more than they paid for it. Used gun prices (even before the hysteria) have always amazed me. Was at a gun show (private stuff-no dealers) this past weekend and in many cases I saw crusty used stuff with price tags higher than they are new (now) at the LGS. We all want to fetch the highest prices we can when we sell stuff (and most of us want less government intrusion)--bit hypocritical to want to have limits on your purchase prices but not your selling prices. |
January 30, 2013, 09:26 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
Unlike the storm analogy, this is not a physical disaster, but like the storm analogy, this is something that folks could have (and many did) plan for. They want other people to store all the necessary good for them (like generators, ammo, or mags) to be ready when they need them at no additional cost instead of forking over the money an incurring the hardship and expense of storing for themselves. So they get caught with their pants down and when nothing illegal is being done, resort to claiming or questioning ethics. The "shortages" right now are artificial. It isn't like the whole of the orange crop in the US was just killed in a freeze and now there are no oranges left. There is plenty of ammo and guns out there, but in private hands. Ammo and gun companies are running at full speed in most cases, producing as much as they possibly can produce and it is just being purchased by Johnny-come-lately hoarders (aka panic buyers). We saw this in 93/94 and 2008/2009. There is no reason people should have been caught flat footed in 2012/2013. If it is a question of ethics, then the question should be as to why folks are skating by and not preparing for such a crisis before it happens. Ethics is most definitely a 2 sided issue.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
January 30, 2013, 10:58 AM | #55 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 21, 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 150
|
Unethical? You're being kind, it's SLIMEY!
|
January 30, 2013, 11:18 AM | #56 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2273005.html |
|
January 30, 2013, 12:14 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Thanks for the link, BigD -- I'd missed this. According to that article, it's a fee that will be added to to the cost of health plans for both employers and individuals, to offset the cost of covering folks with preexisting conditions (who are now unable to get insurance) -- so not technically a tax, but an increase in insurance premiums: a nice little gift to the big insurance companies, in other words. Sure wouldn't want them to make less money, now would we?
(And health care is actually a good example of something that should be considered a necessity, and where price-gouging really is unethical... )
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
January 30, 2013, 12:48 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
Quote:
I was so busy at work I was not paying attention to my supplies. I was down to 250 rounds of 9mm FMJ and 380 rounds of 5.56. I thought that over the Christmas Holidays I would get another 1000 rounds of each. But then the tragedy happened, and now I am stuck.... I use to get 9mm for ~12 per 50... and I would gladly pay twice that today. But I just can't find any. |
|
January 30, 2013, 01:21 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
To the OP - NO! In fact, it would be un-American not to sell his guns for what he can get for them.
Ask yourself this - Were you willing to pay twice the going price for an average AK when there were gobs of them, just to keep your LGS in business??? |
January 31, 2013, 01:58 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 21, 2009
Posts: 325
|
Buyers set prices, not the shop owners. End of story.
|
January 31, 2013, 08:33 AM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Not exactly. Sellers set prices. The question is whether they adjust prices to what the market will bear or not. Overpriced items, as compared to what the normal market will bear, do not well well, but some sellers are comfortable with not selling a lot or are not willing to sell until the price that they set is met by a buyer.
If buyers set prices, I would be getting all my stuff for free.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
January 31, 2013, 08:35 AM | #62 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Sellers set ASKING prices.
The selling price is set by the buyer. You can't get free stuff because sellers won't buy it in the first place if they are forced by the buyer to give it away. On an individual level, the price has to be agreed by both parties. On scale, the average/typical/market price is controlled by the buyers. |
January 31, 2013, 10:39 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Actually, the final strike price is set by the buyer and seller completing a transaction. Neither, individually, set a strike price. This is fundamental supply and demand from economics 101.
|
January 31, 2013, 11:43 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
|
I'm not one to deprive someone from making extra $$ (even lot's of extra $$) and in no way believe that someone raising their ammo/gun prices in anyway for any reason amounts gouging. It just ain't so. But I do have a problem with retailers buying out stock from other retailers. What it comes right down to is the are instilling a de facto local monopoly and removing competition. The only way they can get the $$$ they are getting is to do this and they dang well know and intentionally do this. Not illegal, shouldn't be illegal but I personally won't do any business with retailers doing this.
|
January 31, 2013, 04:11 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
We are, after all, talking about individual sellers who are gouging and so too then we are talking about individual buyers who are paying the gouged prices.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
January 31, 2013, 04:58 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Quote:
Now, if someone hoarded up all of the corn supply in a particular area and set prices so high (relative to what they paid, like 1000%) that people are starving because of it, then maybe you can accuse the seller of price gouging. No, what we have here are just buyers who should have known what was coming with this current administration, refused to prepare, and now they are having to pay prices maybe up to twice as much as about 1 year ago. I have no sympathy for them, none at all. Be glad with what you have; or pony up the money to buy what you failed to buy; or take the risk that you wont' ever be able to get it (or pay 10x for it) and wait to see if prices fall. You have comp Last edited by Skans; January 31, 2013 at 05:25 PM. |
|
January 31, 2013, 07:10 PM | #67 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
No. The seller sets an asking price: Seller: I will sell you this magazine for $5. Buyer, OK. Seller (to self): Hm, maybe $10 would work? Next buyer: OK, I'll pay $10 Seller #2 (to self): #1 is getting $10, I bet I can get $15 Buyer: Hm, #1 has them for $10, #2 has them for $15... Hey #1, I'd like one, thank you. #2 (to self): Darn, no one will pay $15. I'll charge $9. Buyer: OOH! $9! Yes! I'll buy those! Seller #1 is still at $10. That's his ASKING price. He can't sell them anymore... the buyer has set the price lower. The seller has two choices. Lower his asking price or not sell. Who set the selling price? The buyer. The buyer controls EVERYTHING. The seller wouldn't be able to stay in business without the buyer. If the seller has to spend $5 to produce the widget that the buyer will only pay $4.50 to buy, will the seller be in business? No. If the seller can produce the widget for $5 and the buyer(s) will pay $1,000, guess what happens? More sellers! What ELSE happens? The new sellers ASK FOR LESS! If the SELLERS set the SELLING price, what would happen? The original seller would still be getting $1,000 while everybody else gets $900. Why would the first seller lower his price if he was in control? Why would the new sellers sell for less if THEY were in control? The new sellers can't control the buyers and they want their business, so they entice them by OFFERING a lower price. But the seller DOESN'T set the SELLING price. He ASKS for a certain amount but the BUYER sets the SELLING price. If the buyer won't buy, there is no SALE. The seller has NO control. New sellers want a part of the market, so they appeal to the buyer by OFFERING the same item for less money. Do they WANT to sell it for less money? NO! They only do it because SELLING it for less is BETTER than NOT SELLING it for more! The BUYER is in control.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; January 31, 2013 at 07:15 PM. |
|
January 31, 2013, 07:14 PM | #68 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
|
|
January 31, 2013, 07:31 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 947
|
I think it is a matter of level. I think in normal times, the gun shops I like best provide great service and offer slight discounts from retail list. During a shortage, some still offer a slight discount, but I can certainly understand them asking full retail price and wouldn't consider that gouging. If they are to the point where they cannot get enough merchandise to maintain their business or are dealing in collectables, they may even charge a slight premium.
I think where it become unethical is when they try to truly take advantage of a scare and try to charge more than 20% over list. I don't support these shops with my business. |
January 31, 2013, 07:32 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
My problem was that I am 22, poor, and had just gone out on my own after college. I didn't have the cash reserves to *really* prepare for such a situation.
However I DID stretch my wallet in August/September to buy a $1200 firearm that is most likely worth $2k now. While I only have 500 rounds to speak for, I did do the smart thing and planned ahead with the cash reserves I had in advance. Like I said earlier in this thread: People who claim that the market is "unethical" and we are being "gouged" right now are just one or two steps away from claiming that the market is "flawed" and we need more government oversight. You are functionally no different from price controllers and subsidizers. While disliking "gouging" and advocating for "price control" are not the same thing, the inspiration for both stems from the same emotional response to basic economics. It is a disbelieve in the pure concept of liberty and freedom. If you do not like the price, do NOT buy the product. Do NOT support the price. When a large portion of individuals mimic what you are doing and DO NOT purchase at those prices, you are going to force the suppliers to adjust to the market. WHY IS THIS SUCH A DIFFICULT CONCEPT TO GRASP.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
January 31, 2013, 07:40 PM | #71 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
|
|
January 31, 2013, 07:50 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 1999
Location: Where they send me
Posts: 1,013
|
No, it isn't.
All things vary in price at times. Many shops also get stuck holding inventory for long periods when it's not in style. Never saw a line of people offering to buy the unwanted inventory which the shop was stuck with at a fair price.
__________________
He who dares wins. NRA Life Benefactor Member |
January 31, 2013, 07:53 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 947
|
Remember part of what is allowing the prices to be at the level they are at is the fact the often, people who would not be in the market for these items are scared and rushing out to add to the demand. It exacerbates the situation drastically.
That being said, I still believe that approximately SRP is a reasonable upper end for pricing. These prices are based around historically reasonably upper level mark-ups for mfr, distributor and retailer. Do I expect to see discounts when times are slow? Yes. But the discounts have gone away for the most part due to the current demand. That doesn't mean I believe a surcharge is reasonable. |
January 31, 2013, 08:00 PM | #74 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
What is so special about "list"? "List" is an invention of the manufacturer, based on their assumption of what the buyer will pay as a max price. It's not like there's a Price Bible that dictates directly from The Great Beyond that Thou Shalt Not Charge More Than $50 For An AK Magazine. Some products sell for far over MSRP, "List" price, every day. Some products don't even HAVE a "List". We all need to watch this video again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9QEkw6_O6w
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
January 31, 2013, 08:27 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 947
|
"List" is just where I draw my line in the sand. Likewise the level I describe as where I think it becomes unethical.
I know manufacturers spend a lot of effort to determine what the maximum price a reasonable person will pay for an item is, taking into account their costs and expected mark-ups at each level of sale. It's true that some manufacturers sell above list every day, but not to me. I knw they can and do get the prices they ask, but at the price of alienating their customers. Some companies have built successful businesses on this model, but I try to avoid those companies. The companies I prefer to deal with may occasionally charge higher than list, but if they do, they will bring some other, maybe less tangible, value to the transaction. |
|
|