Price gouging

[Toprudder]

I wondered if someone would go this route.

The key phrase in a "free market economy" is "FREE MARKET".

When a monopoly exists, then a free market economy cannot. This is what the antitrust/anti-monopoly laws are about.

That's not the same as you or I having an entire garage full of toilet paper we've bought/invested in waiting for the time some crazy Chinese virus might be unleashed upon the world and all the Karen's across the country march upon the stores and deplete the entire national stockpile of butt paper.

I agree, but at the same time I have to wonder just how "free market" the market is, when the government will step in to prevent a monopoly. Where do we draw the line between price gouging lawsuits and monopolies? I'm not sure I see "monopoly" and "price gouging" as completely different things, they just lie on different regions of the spectrum, with "monopoly" near the extreme end.

But, again, I admit that "monopoly" is outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[SPST]

If it was truly a free market, all businesses would be open right now.

 

[wvsig]

I wondered if someone would go this route.

The key phrase in a "free market economy" is "FREE MARKET".

When a monopoly exists, then a free market economy cannot. This is what the antitrust/anti-monopoly laws are about.

That's not the same as you or I having an entire garage full of toilet paper we've bought/invested in waiting for the time some crazy Chinese virus might be unleashed upon the world and all the Karen's across the country march upon the stores and deplete the entire national stockpile of butt paper.

I agree, but at the same time I have to wonder just how "free market" the market is, when the government will step in to prevent a monopoly. Where do we draw the line between price gouging lawsuits and monopolies? I'm not sure I see "monopoly" and "price gouging" as completely different things, they just lie on different regions of the spectrum, with "monopoly" near the extreme end.

But, again, I admit that "monopoly" is outside the scope of this discussion.

I see monopoly and gouging as two sides of the same coin. @RetiredUSNChief in your TP scenario replace the individual with a corporation or business and you have the exact same argument. Why is one ok and one is not?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I see monopoly and gouging as two sides of the same coin. @RetiredUSNChief in your TP scenario replace the individual with a corporation or business and you have the exact same argument. Why is one ok and one is not?

You're saying that, as the owner of say 14 pallets of 9mm ammunition you've invested your time and money into buying and storing a your private property, that's the same thing as a monopoly? That the 52 foot long tractor trailer load of Charmin you likewise bought is the same thing as a monopoly?

Because it's not. It's your private property.

Being the guy who thought ahead and stocked up on stuff everybody else goes on to run out of does NOT make you a corporate monopoly.

Let's say you own a retail business. Again... being the only business selling whatever merchandise does NOT make you a monopoly. Because you're a retail seller, not a manufacturer.

Let's say you own a business that provides a unique manufactured product or service. Being such a business does NOT make you a monopoly in this instance either. The flip side is whether or not you are preventing others from marketing similar services or products. And even then, there's more to it.

 

[TCAM]

So say you are a small business, you typically can sell boxes of ammo or pmags or whatever. for a small amount of profit and you normally sell in volume. Now with limited availability you can't even get the ammo, mags or whatever to sell. You are forced to mark the items up bc you are only getting a tenth of the inventory each month. And you still need to pay the bills.

Or you as a business owner took your own money and stocked up first of the year bc you had a hunch . Election year equals panic buying.

Either way no difference, than playing the stock market. Buy low sell high . Or buy low, stock up and keep on shooting .

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I see monopoly and gouging as two sides of the same coin. @RetiredUSNChief in your TP scenario replace the individual with a corporation or business and you have the exact same argument. Why is one ok and one is not?

Well... for the TP example, how many companies make TP?

 

[wvsig]

You're saying that, as the owner of say 14 pallets of 9mm ammunition you've invested your time and money into buying and storing a your private property, that's the same thing as a monopoly? That the 52 foot long tractor trailer load of Charmin you likewise bought is the same thing as a monopoly?

Because it's not. It's your private property.

Being the guy who thought ahead and stocked up on stuff everybody else goes on to run out of does NOT make you a corporate monopoly.

Let's say you own a retail business. Again... being the only business selling whatever merchandise does NOT make you a monopoly. Because you're a retail seller, not a manufacturer.

Let's say you own a business that provides a unique manufactured product or service. Being such a business does NOT make you a monopoly in this instance either. The flip side is whether or not you are preventing others from marketing similar services or products. And even then, there's more to it.

Corporate entities have been declared "individuals" in many respects.

The private property distinction IMHO is a false one. There is no difference between the private property of an individual vs a corporation. You are making an arbitrary distinction between the an individual and a corporation in your example in an attempt to prove your point.

My point is that both monopolies and price gouging take advantage of scarcity and lack of availability in the market. In one case the entity is creating the scarcity in the other they someone is using it to their advantage. It is not identical but they are IMHO to sides of the same coin.

 

[IkeStarnes]

If it was truly a free market, all businesses would be open right now.

I miss the Uptown Cabaret

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Corporate entities have been declared "individuals" in many respects.

The private property distinction IMHO is a false one. There is no difference between the private property of an individual vs a corporation. You are making an arbitrary distinction between the an individual and a corporation in your example in an attempt to prove your point.

My point is that both monopolies and price gouging take advantage of scarcity and lack of availability in the market. In one case the entity is creating the scarcity in the other they someone is using it to their advantage. It is not identical but they are IMHO to sides of the same coin.

Yes...but the important difference between a "monopoly" and "price gouging" as we've been discussing it is in a monopoly, "conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power".

(Quoted portion from the FTC site about defining monopolization.)
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

The same source also goes on to say in the same paragraph:

"This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications."

While they may share similar attributes, "price gouging" as we've been discussing it does NOT fall under "monopoly".

There is no "monopoly" on bullets, primers, toilet paper, generators, etc. They're all manufactured by many different companies/corporations. You and me just having a garage full of anything while other people do not does not constitute a "monopoly".

 

[wvsig]

Yes...but the important difference between a "monopoly" and "price gouging" as we've been discussing it is in a monopoly, "conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power".

(Quoted portion from the FTC site about defining monopolization.)
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

The same source also goes on to say in the same paragraph:

"This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications."

While they may share similar attributes, "price gouging" as we've been discussing it does NOT fall under "monopoly".

There is no "monopoly" on bullets, primers, toilet paper, generators, etc. They're all manufactured by many different companies/corporations. You and me just having a garage full of anything while other people do not does not constitute a "monopoly".

I’m not saying that they are identical but the motive to profit off of scarcity In a restricted market make them similar.

Also just because there are multiple manufacturers of a particular product does not mean the market is free. Accessibility to the goods also can come in to play especially in times of disasters or state of emergency.

In the end for the most part the market we work in allows one and not the other to a certain extent. Good discussion.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I’m not saying that they are identical but the motive to profit off of scarcity In a restricted market make them similar.

Also just because there are multiple manufacturers of a particular product does not mean the market is free. Accessibility to the goods also can come in to play especially in times of disasters or state of emergency.

In the end for the most part the market we work in allows one and not the other to a certain extent. Good discussion.

You have some good points on some aspect. We're just not 100% in agreement. Which is OK.

In any given topic, there are almost certainly "gray areas". Shades of good and bad. Where people place the line of "absolute" will vary from person to person and circumstance to circumstance.

IN GENERAL, in a market where a lot of people/companies make something or provide a service, the competition between them tends to keep prices down because they all want a share of the market when it comes to profits. How they do this is as innovative as people can be. This is the gist of a "free market".

A "monopoly" occurs, basically, when one individual/company is able to maliciously crowd everybody else out, to the point of being the sole provider of whatever goods or services. Nobody else is allowed to even enter the arena and play.

But we're not talking about those kinds of circumstances. We're talking about goods that, for whatever reason, have become relatively scarce for reasons OTHER than someone who "monopolizes" certain goods or services. These goods and services are STILL being manufactured/provided by a variety of sources...they're just scarce. What we're discussing here is HOW MUCH you are ALLOWED to sell something for under such conditions as we're currently seeing.

I say slinging "price gouging" out and placing prohibitions on people for what they can and cannot sell something at is a whole cartload of horsesh*t in the vast majority of cases.

EVEN DURING EMERGENCIES.

Otherwise...I'm perfectly entitled to come over to your house and "appropriate" whatever I perceive as something I need and for whatever price I think I should pay (if any), not what YOU think I should pay.