WHYYYYY are you giving in to these .22lr gougers!?

[jworm1420]

As I've said before ....... If people are stupid enough to pay 50$ for a bulk pack, I know thers better ammo for you precision shooters, but being bulk pack is basically a baseline for ammo but of people are dumb enough to pay that what can you do. I will pay 30-35 tops just because I can't seem to get it anywher But I won't pay more. That's just stupid. But why would someone sell it for cheaper when some dummy will pay 50$. Just cause I dnt like it doesn't mean tgers anything I can do about it. Life sucks get over it. Stop buying the 50$ bulk packs and the price will come down.

 

[sgreen3]

Do I think their "scum" for selling their property for inflated or way more money than what I think its worth?.... No of course not its their right to sell it for whatever the amount they want to as its my right to not buy it. It really just boils down to how bad you want something. If an individual has the money to spend and they want the item is it really gouging to that person?... Do I agree with the prices, of course not and I doubt their would be many members on here that would. But on the other hand when we start censoring things that are suppose to be things that should be allowed in our "free" society, then that's when I think we have a serious problem.

 

[Chuck26287]

"Free Market" is a myth. It's neither a real thing, nor is it what many people who use the term seem to think it is.

An economy, even a microcosm of one such as ammunition, is not readily defined by such simple terms. When people can corner a market on something and artificially create demand and then profit from that artificially created demand then the market is not in fact, free. Point in fact, a "free market" will have a STRONG tendency to slide towards monopolization because that maximizes the profits.

In a free market a commodity is produced and is bought and sold between the producer and the consumer. A market is not free when various stages of middlemen act not to broker a deal, but to restrict supply and stand between the producer and the consumer and create that artificial demand.

A market is a complex and dynamic system and the larger it becomes the further away it moves from being a "free market," even in the absence of governmental controls and regulations.
In the modern society There Is No Such Thing As a Free Market.

I'm sure in the context of every Econ 101 lesson ever taught, you're absolutely correct. However, I think the scenario at hand is probably more related to the original origin of the first true free market... an individual seller, free to set his price without regulation, and an indiviual buyer, free to pay the price or not, based on his personal valuation of the product/service. But as you mention, the more complex the market gets (like using an internet forum to reach buyers), the further from free it gets (as illustrated by this very thread and the restrictions it implies should be imposed).

No matter how complex you make it, the end buyer is still free to say yes or no. I have always said there are two quilty parties when it comes to someone being gouged on price... the seller who intended to gouge someone for the maximum profit, and the buyer who, for whatever reason, made the desicion to allow himself to be gouged by paying the price required. Unless, of course, we're talking about healthcare.

Remember... the very last person to approve the price gouging is the buyer.

 

[rhino]

I just got two bricks of Blazer .22 from Cabelas.com. I will not sell it at inflated prices because I am going to feed it to my Savage Mk II and my CZ 452.

If I had surplus to sell, I would sell to my friends at my cost or give it to them in some cases. If I had surplus after that, I would sell to anyone legally allowed to buy for whatever price the market would allow.


That is all.

 

[sniper102]

If the dumb want to pay over inflated prices for crap 22's. Then let them. Ive got a box of remington vipers. Anyone want them for only $50 bucks. Lmao

 

[Cameramonkey]

I have to agree that the 22 retail is no longer a free market.

It stopped being an effective free market when the folks started actively using the benefit of their free time to abuse the retail distribution channels and effectively cut off distribution to the masses. Anyone who knows the restock schedule and regularly shows up as it comes off the truck to buy it all is removing the free market piece in effect. Its no longer free when the average person can walk in and buy it any time (within reason) because the flippers are showing up with their friends to clean the shelves on purpose before the boxes can even be placed on the shelves. Those are the folks that need to DIAF for abusing the system.

So you bought two boxes because you HAPPENED to be there mid afternoon some thursday and they had some and you want to sell off the second box for an extra $10 because you realized you had more at home than you thought? OK. but if you are actively flipping just to make a buck because you can, F-You.

Just because you can, doesnt mean you should. its called being a decent human being. And if your defense as a flipper is "well, If I didnt do it, somebody else would!" you really need to reexamine your principles.

 

[sb0]

"Free Market" is a myth. It's neither a real thing, nor is it what many people who use the term seem to think it is.

An economy, even a microcosm of one such as ammunition, is not readily defined by such simple terms. When people can corner a market on something and artificially create demand and then profit from that artificially created demand then the market is not in fact, free. Point in fact, a "free market" will have a STRONG tendency to slide towards monopolization because that maximizes the profits.

In a free market a commodity is produced and is bought and sold between the producer and the consumer. A market is not free when various stages of middlemen act not to broker a deal, but to restrict supply and stand between the producer and the consumer and create that artificial demand.

I'm sorry but this is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

We're not talking collusion by ammo manufacturers. Any limit in supply by gougers is strictly a byproduct of a business plan that was already counting and could not work without a massive limit in supply already in existence. It is thus negligible.

Without gougers, supply would be lower, due to the lower prices at retail outlets. Fact.

Gougers do absolutely nothing to increase demand. The demand exploded before the first gouger had the bright idea to buy a brick at $20 and sell at $50.

Nobody is cornering the market, this is a completely disconnected response by individuals among the general public (any of which would immediately be forced to lower prices were it not for the current level of demand) to an increase in demand coupled with a static supply and an unwillingness to raise prices directly from production.

We are so far away from a monopolistic scenario here I'm not sure why you would even mention the term except to make a tangential point regarding your broader statements about the term "free market". Monopolization requires a very concentrated economic self interest combined with a high level of influence over the market. This is the exact opposite of what we have here.

 

[sb0]

I have to agree that the 22 retail is no longer a free market.

It is absolutely a free market. It is proven to be a free market by the fact that the market will not allow retailers to sell at a price that is completely out of line with the current supply and demand dynamic.

All that non decent human being is changing the criteria by which a scare resource is allocated. In a free market, that criteria is not dumb luck, it's willingness to pay.

What an economic system is, at its core, is a manner in which resources are allocated.

 

[Expat]

I have never paid an inflated price for 22…. never more than 25$ a box of 500. I am still finding it for that at times. Just have to be patient….

There are people here that would accuse you of gouging at that price if you posted it, at least they were a few months ago.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I'm sorry but this is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

We're not talking collusion by ammo manufacturers. Any limit in supply by gougers is strictly a byproduct of a business plan that was already counting and could not work without a massive limit in supply already in existence. It is thus negligible.

Without gougers, supply would be lower, due to the lower prices at retail outlets. Fact.

Gougers do absolutely nothing to increase demand. The demand exploded before the first gouger had the bright idea to buy a brick at $20 and sell at $50.

Nobody is cornering the market, this is a completely disconnected response by individuals among the general public (any of which would immediately be forced to lower prices were it not for the current level of demand) to an increase in demand coupled with a static supply and an unwillingness to raise prices directly from production.

We are so far away from a monopolistic scenario here I'm not sure why you would even mention the term except to make a tangential point regarding your broader statements about the term "free market". Monopolization requires a very concentrated economic self interest combined with a high level of influence over the market. This is the exact opposite of what we have here.

I grant you that my monopolization comment is not relevant to this immediate situation, it was a tangential comment and part of my train of thought that most people using the term "free market" have no real understanding of the dynamics involved.

But the people who buy up supply, having the effect of limiting that supply, so they can then resell at a higher price ARE interfering with the "free market" people keep blathering on about.
In doing so they are artificially creating the perceived shortage that allows them to charge a higher price, ie "what the market will bear." But that's not a free market. We have the freedom to do so in this country in the absence of government regulation, but market manipulation is not "free market." Just because in this situation it's an aggregated effect and not a point source does not make the effect any less. It doesn't matter if it is a thousand indigents standing in line to buy all the supply, or a single commodity trader buying all of the supply to create the higher demand. It's Not Free Market.

I don't really care if people want to wait in line at *mart just to buy whatever they can so they can resell to those who don't have the time or inclination to do so. But it isn't "free market" and I wish people who keep using it to try to prove their point about how it's ok to do so simply because it is not illegal to do so would stop because they just sound ridiculous.

Your argument that without the gougers supply would be lower is specious. If the supply was lower then people would still shoot or put away less because there would be less available, not much different than is currently going on except without the redistribution of wealth that is currently happening. Whether people are reluctant to shoot it because it costs more or people are reluctant to shoot it because they don't have as much is irrelevant, the end result is the same.

 

[sb0]

I grant you that my monopolization comment is not relevant to this immediate situation, it was a tangential comment and part of my train of thought that most people using the term "free market" have no real understanding of the dynamics involved.

Ah okay, that's what I thought.

But the people who buy up supply, having the effect of limiting that supply, so they can then resell at a higher price ARE interfering with the "free market" people keep blathering on about.

Wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Without gougers, supply would be lower. That's a fact. I don't see how this is disputable?

Gougers increase prices, not (edit: decrease) supply. They increase supply by raising prices to a level that allows a supply to be maintained under current demand.

Is your argument really predicated on the idea that without gougers, we wouldn't be in the middle of a massive shortage of 22lr, in which demand is outpacing supply by leaps and bounds?

Any limitation of supply by gougers is negligible. The evidence indicates it. What evidence? The fact gougers can still sell at a $50 in a market with thousands of competitors holding thousands of bricks of 22lr and millions of potential consumers?

In doing so they are artificially creating the perceived shortage that allows them to charge a higher price, ie "what the market will bear." But that's not a free market. We have the freedom to do so in this country in the absence of government regulation, but market manipulation is not "free market." Just because in this situation it's an aggregated effect and not a point source does not make the effect any less. It doesn't matter if it is a thousand indigents standing in line to buy all the supply, or a single commodity trader buying all of the supply to create the higher demand. It's Not Free Market.

Are you implying that gougers increase demand?

And it is absolutely relevant that this is an aggregate effect. In order to "corner the market" as you stated, there needs to be a concentrated interest.

You can not corner the market when you have thousands of competitors operating under the same conditions as you are. No gouger has power over any other gouger, and given that gougers are simply individuals with no special powers, they have no inherent power over individuals.

Edit:

I need to elaborate. You're flopping around here and I feel that some things need to be clarified.

Gougers buy with the intent to sell. This does not limit supply. This increases prices, and increases supply. This also lowers demand. Higher prices lower demand.

A commodity trader buying a commodity in order to intentionally limit supply does not increase demand. He increases prices. But the only way he is able to increase prices is if he controls the entire supply, himself (concentrated interest). With a reasonable supply coming from upstream, even one or two competitors will force him to lower prices to the levels that the market justifies, barring any type of collusion.

These two things are polar opposites.

I don't really care if people want to wait in line at *mart just to buy whatever they can so they can resell to those who don't have the time or inclination to do so. But it isn't "free market" and I wish people who keep using it to try to prove their point about how it's ok to do so simply because it is not illegal to do so would stop because they just sound ridiculous.

This is a complete misunderstanding of my argument.

My argument is not that it's okay because it's not illegal. Certain forms of price gouging are in fact illegal - and those laws should be repealed. Because those laws are made by economically illiterate politicians and the type of sheep that are terrified by ominous sounding phrases like "price gouging".

Legality has nothing to do with my argument.

Your argument that without the gougers supply would be lower is specious. If the supply was lower then people would still shoot or put away less because there would be less available, not much different than is currently going on except without the redistribution of wealth that is currently happening. Whether people are reluctant to shoot it because it costs more or people are reluctant to shoot it because they don't have as much is irrelevant, the end result is the same.

What creates more reluctance to consume a commodity - higher prices, or an inability to attain said commodity?

 

[shibumiseeker]

Without gougers, supply would be lower. That's a fact. I don't see how this is disputable?

I have yet to see evidence presented to this "fact," therefore it is disputable.

I've seen a lot of conjecture, but no hard fact.

You want to say that in you OPINION I am wrong, that's fine, but you have yet to present me with convincing evidence I am. Proof by vigorous assertion is not proof.

The truth of the matter is that no one really understands economic system because they are chaotic (in the mathematical use of "chaotic") systems and they defy hard quantification. People who try to do so remind me of chess players whose primary strategy is to remove as many pieces off the board because they need to simplify it as much as possible to even try to come close to understanding it.

I have sat and watched top expert economists (my former father-in-law was one, got to see some interesting dinners when he had colleagues over) argue the systems back and forth endlessly because in the end they are doing little more than pulling numbers out of their butts and then trying to justify their positions. These are experts in their fields and they can't even come close to consensus because economics is not a science, it is an art.

And, as an FYI, I'm not going to argue the point further as I really don't CARE about it, my initial rant's point has been made. You can make a rebuttal if you like and I will read it, but it's already used more of my time and effort than it is really worth to me.

 

[sb0]

I have yet to see evidence presented to this "fact," therefore it is disputable.

So is it your contention that without gougers, people would buy less 22lr, because it was cheaper?

There is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. You're taking higher prices and calling them lower supply. Which is just... a blatant falsehood. It's like saying 2 = 4.

I've given you plenty of economic theory to go along, you've given me repeated assertions... of false statements like "gougers are limiting supply".

I'll say it once again in bold: Gougers are not limiting supply.

Fact.

 

[sb0]

Didn't see your FYI, so I'll wrap this up because I want to get my own thoughts in text if nothing else and provide a starting point for the next person to tell me I'm full of crap.

1. Gougers do not limit supply. They increase prices. When a gouger buys a brick for $20 and puts it on gunbroker for $50, he has not affected supply. He has increased prices. The supply is exactly as it was before.

2. Gougers increase supply. When a commodity doubles and triples in price, it doesn't sell as much. Demand at these higher price points is obviously going to be lower. Thus keeping more on the market. This is obvious to any onlooker, given that virtually every Walmart is out of stock at $20, but there are hundreds of bricks on gunbroker at higher prices.

3. The only way gougers would be limiting supply is if they were holding, not selling. This would be the most massive collusion scheme in the history of the world. Thousands, probably tens of thousands of individuals who have never met and are no part of any larger entity, all hoarding in order to limit supply? No, just no.

4. Concentrated interest is required to execute #3 properly. We don't have concentrated interest here.

5. Gougers must set prices that are in line with supply and demand, given that they have thousands of competitors. Gougers have no more control over the market price of 22lr than you or me. As gougers are individuals with absolutely no inherent advantage allowing them to influence the market.

6. Consumers are limiting supply. By hoarding and purchasing more, they have a direct effect on supply, unlike gougers who are middlemen who do nothing to impact supply.

7. As a collective, the only impact gougers have is increased prices and higher supply. This is simply a reallocation of 22lr from those who are lucky enough to stumble on it to those who are willing to pay. This is a more efficient system of distribution, hands down.

 

[BGDave]

Lots of ideas here. Just to mess up all the economists Did Johnny Carson Cause A Toilet Paper Shortage? | The Daily Legend

 

[Dolton916]

Just a thought...I am by no means a economist.

Gougers do not limit supply... My understanding is that .22lr is currently at the industry's manufacturing limit, so when you have a limited supply, their purchases and stockpiling massive qty's to hold until they can be sold at a premium they are not limiting supply as it has already been limited to production limits, but wouldn't they be controlling a segment of "Availability" thus manipulating market prices and seemingly the supply?

And isn't that the Capitalist Idea?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Just a thought...I am by no means a economist.

Gougers do not limit supply... My understanding is that .22lr is currently at the industry's manufacturing limit, so when you have a limited supply, their purchases and stockpiling massive qty's to hold until they can be sold at a premium they are not limiting supply as it has already been limited to production limits, but wouldn't they be controlling a segment of "Availability" thus manipulating market prices and seemingly the supply?

And isn't that the Capitalist Idea?

With the extremely limited amounts produced coupled with the flippers' ability to remove virtually ALL of the stock from the actual shooter's hands, I have to disagree. They dont limit production, but to you and I, they DO limit supply. The limit just isnt in the wholesale supply chain.

Whether Remington doesnt make enough, walmart doesnt get enough, or somebody buys it all to flip before I can get there it doesnt matter; the supply is indeed limited.

ETA: what about concerts? the first 20 rows are typically reserved for promoters and ticket brokers. The seats are there. They just arent available for you or me to buy at Ticketmaster. Are you trying to say that there isnt a market impact by the promoters who gobble up virtually all the good seats? By your logic even though the seats are not available to the consumer, there is no effective limit to the supply of the retail consumer because the tickets were "printed" in the first place. And that doesnt make sense. Simply substitute "broker" for "flipper" and you have pretty much the same scenario.

 

[sb0]

With the extremely limited amounts produced coupled with the flippers' ability to remove virtually ALL of the stock from the actual shooter's hands, I have to disagree. They dont limit production, but to you and I, they DO limit supply. The limit just isnt in the wholesale supply chain.

Whether Remington doesnt make enough, walmart doesnt get enough, or somebody buys it all to flip before I can get there it doesnt matter; the supply is indeed limited.

The supply is not limited. How anyone can assert this is completely and totally beyond me.

They raise prices. The supply is the same. The prices are higher. Gougers keep MORE supply on the market by raising prices.

The fact that they do not make supply disappear into thin air is an indisputable fact. It's still on the market for god's sake.

Think about it for 2 seconds.

 

[sb0]

Just a thought...I am by no means a economist.

Gougers do not limit supply... My understanding is that .22lr is currently at the industry's manufacturing limit, so when you have a limited supply, their purchases and stockpiling massive qty's to hold until they can be sold at a premium they are not limiting supply as it has already been limited to production limits, but wouldn't they be controlling a segment of "Availability" thus manipulating market prices and seemingly the supply?

And isn't that the Capitalist Idea?

They control a segment (in a distributed manner) of the market and they use it to increase prices.

Call it a semantic argument but supply is an economic term, it means what it means, and by its definition gougers increase supply.

Gougers would be affecting supply if they were buying and hoarding. But they're not. Because if they did that, they would not by definition be gougers.

Edit: If they were stockpiling and not selling, yes, they would be limiting supply. But that's not the case here. Nobody in this thread has made any such accusation. The "problem" (which isn't really a problem) is that they are buying and immediately selling at a higher price.

 

[radar44]

From what I am getting from all of this .... that the person who had the wise idea to buy a large stock pile , weather a little at a time , or an internet boat load . As long as he already had it and sells for a profit - THAT is higher on the Respect -O - meter than the pond scum who are waiting at the door ( while most are at work ) , buying 5,000 at a time , thus stripping the shelves and flipping it .

One side will see " market correcting middle men " while the other side will see a bunch of shelf stripping @$$ (*)*s ...

If these guys would just LEAVE THE STUFF ALONE , at least SOME of the people will get to buy it from the store . (yeah , like the good ol' days ) pre -Sandy..

In my best Klingon voice - "There is no honor in these shelf strippers "..