Quote:
Originally Posted by Digs
I will remember which scum bag dealers ( and 99% of them are, for years I have commented on how every every scam artist own gun shop) pushed prices 100% over retail. Once the idiot panic buyers leave the market these dealers will have to go back to facing there regulars, and I hope the regulars take there money else were.
If you think about these guys are benefiting from extreme volumes which should make them happy as a pig in slop, but yet they feel the need to double prices.
All the manufactures are running balls to the walls and yet the dealers push blame to them.... I have even heard of numerous complaints were the dealers are even removing the 3 mags out of the box provided by Glock in the gen 4's!!! Another buddy of mine had a Colt AR shipped to dealer and after happily looking over his new rig he noticed the 2 mags were missing that it shipped with. He even contacted the seller who right away told him the were in the case when it shipped......
Sorry guys rant over  |
ehhhhhhhh
regarding taking mags out of the boxes, that's just low and despicable...
(note that it is not my intent for this to be a defense of scumbag dealers, just an economic commentary on why raising your prices should NOT automatically make you a scumbag dealer, that title should be earned through other actions, like the jackass mentioned earlier in the thread that tried to raise the price on a forum member's rifle AFTER the member had already put money down on it and reserved it at the previous price. THAT is a scumbag.)
but in terms of prices, a counterpoint argument to that would be the need/demand based viewpoint of a classical economist. One could argue that BOTH business models (mark prices up and leave them the same) serve a viable and necessary role side-by-side in the overall consumer buying experience.
At times of high demand, the venders who leave their prices the same will sell out instantly. When they get in new stock, there will be a short rush, and then they're sold out again. This means that some customers, regardless of whether they "wanted" that rifle a lot or just thought now might be a good time to buy it (impulse buy), some will get it, some will not. Customers that get one are happy, customers that don't get one will continue hunting for it and hope they get lucky next time.
But for the vendors that mark up their prices, I'll argue that serve a different market. Sure, you're not happy with them, but that's OK, because honestly, you're not their targeted customer, economically speaking. I'll interject a personal example to illustrate what I'm trying to say.
I'm moving out of the country in 10 weeks. I'll be gone for a year. But for the sake of argument, lets say I'm leaving in 3 weeks. I NEED to buy anything I want before I go. I don't have a choice in this matter. In that case, I'll try my hand with the cheaper deal lottery like everyone else, at least for a week... but then my personal demand for the product rises and I'm willing to pay more to have it right now. Or maybe my father's birthday is next week and I really have a specific item in mind for him. In those cases, I have outside mitigating factors that make me willing to pay more for the convenience of having an item RIGHT NOW than you would be.
In that instance, a vendor who chooses to inflate his prices becomes a good thing, because that vendor will the only one available that still has stock on hand to cater to the smaller group of customers that have a higher demand and need for the product than the average buyer. I am grateful for a system that not only votes with it's dollars, BUT ALSO recognizes the inherent value in having both types of vendors in the marketplace. If everyone were forced to keep their prices low, by dearth of law or simply sheer terror of guaranteed and immediate public shunning, then someone like me with a higher need for the product would be S.O.L. when it came time to buy.
The market needs a balance, enough fear of the public voting $$'s that
most will keep their prices low and let the public play the supply lottery, but also enough understanding from the public that some vendors can raise their prices and cater to the other side of the market that has a higher need for the product right now. If everyone had high prices, there would be a segment of the market (those unwilling or unable to pay higher prices) left out in the cold. But equally, if everyone had cheap prices, there would be a segment of the market (those able to, or willing to pay the higher prices) also left out in the cold. We need both!
I see a lot of people angrily decry that they will vote with their dollars elsewhere when this is over, which is fine, I support and encourage the capitalist system's freedom to do so. But when raising prices suddenly becomes synonymous with scumbag, I have to draw the line there. It seems that
some of the persecution leveraged at the higher priced vendors is just a misunderstanding that they are serving a
different market, but a valid market nevertheless. In those cases, I'm sad to see the consumer voting with their dollars like that over a misunderstanding...
I have purchased some stripped lowers at higher prices than necessary for this exact reason. In stock, or shipping before the end of January is my target. If I was willing to wait until March to have my product, I would have had many many more options in terms of what I purchased. (legislation won't take effect until after that anyway). But I needed the product now, so I paid the higher price for the in stock lower instead of the backorder one.
just my
on the subject
(I also happened to be an economics major in college, which influences my view a bit 
)