TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:This should be against the law. I am going to remember this when swine is once again plentiful.

[ Image ]

Or you could buy it in DC, where swine is still plentiful, and is projected to remain plentiful well into the future.

anygunanywhere wrote:

hpcatx wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

dawgfishboy wrote:

Abraham wrote:03Lightningrocks,

You, me, a few others on this thread have done what they can to point out how the free enterprise systems works - beyond that, there's little more we can do...

You're not educating anyone...the people reporting these profiteers are.

I don't think anyone is saying what they are doing is illegal, just unethical.

Ethics has nothing to do with it. How can you say this is unethical?

Lightningrocks and Abe got it right.

Anygunanywhere

If CTD canceled pending backorders (a transaction that was agreed upon by seller and purchaser for a given amount at a future time) to allow CTD to increase prices, as alleged by others in this thread, I would say that's unethical. If they did it to adjust for the increase costs passed on by their suppliers, that's a matter of business as the conditions of the transaction changed. If the price increases were just conducted on future orders, that's neither illegal nor unethical -- but a good way to turn off loyal customers. Consumers are loyal to certain businesses because they expect reasonable consideration in return; that is to say, a loyal customer expects a certain margin of profit to be made off an order, but not anything like the ratios we have seen with Pmags, etc. Even if legal and ethical, I choose not to support businesses which overnight quadrupled (or more) their profit margins on firearm related products, regardless of whether the market would sustain such pricing.

I am in agreement with this. CTD is lower than dirt.

Anygunanywhere

I won't do business with them anymore simply because they cravenly bowed to the antis and halted the sale of AR platforms. However, to me, that order, and subsequent back order, is a contract to sell a particular item at a specified price. Just like if I come to the cash register in a store with an item that has been mis-priced, I expect them to honor the price THEY placed on the item, I also expect a seller like CTD to honor the contract they made to sell an item at the specified price. It's not a legal requirement, but it's not very good business practice to tell customers at the register that the real price is actually quite a bit higher. I just checked a mag price at CTD to be sure, and no where on the page for that item does it say anything like "prices subject to change without notice." If they can't get the item anymore, or it's going to take a very long time, then the ethical thing to do is to inform the customer and offer to cancel his order so he can seek another supplier.

punkndisorderly wrote:I think the difference for me lies in what costs/risks underlie the price.

In your house example, yes, I only paid $100k for the house. But I don't want to sell my house. It may take much more than the value to compensate me for the pain of moving, finding another house, paying a real estate lawyer, etc.

I wouldn't feel bad about selling one of my guns for much more than I paid for it. I don't want to sell it. There is a risk that I won't find another. I took the risk when I bought it that it may eventually be worth less than I paid for it.

Now let's look at roofers after a hurricane. Huge demand. Honest roofers charge a fair price. It may be higher than during normal times, but their costs for materials might be higher because of demand, the may be working crews outside the normal 40 hours and have higher costs due to overtime. All of this is perfectly legit. Roofers from out of state need to be compensated for being away from families, they need to put up in a motel, etc. Again legit.

Same hurricane. A gas station paid $2 a gallon for their gas. They have a contract for their next shipments for $2 a gallon. They charge $4 a gallon normally. There is a rush to the pumps as people fill up to get out of town. They jack the price up to $8 a gallon. That's gouging.

A gun shop selling something they paid $500 for and have orders for more at $500 and normally sell for $750 raising the price to $3,000 when their risks and costs stay the same: gouging.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

No, it's not. There is no such thing as gouging in a free market. It's called charging what the traffic will bear. You don't have to buy it. If everyone is like you, then no one will pay $8 a gallon, and the seller will have to lower the price. What you're really complaining about is that someone else can and will pay $8 a gallon --or, to express it another way, that life is unfair. Price increases under the conditions you describe are merely the efficient operation of a free market. If the price is too high for you, don't buy it. No one owes you $4 gas or a $750 AR.

Zoo wrote:

jmra wrote:

Zoo wrote:How about the Texas government? They charge two or three times what some states do for a CHL. That's as bad as selling a basic AR for $2500.

That argument is getting old. If you don't qualify for any of the discounts it comes out to a little over 50 cents a week. If that is a problem for you good luck buying ammo.

You sound like some guy trying to justify the $2500 price tag on his DIY AR. I wonder why you're so fired up about other people trying to save some money in these tough economic times.

No one owes you an AR15 at the price you want to pay.

Wow, didn't realize there were so many anti-capitalist anti-free market people in this forum. There is no such thing as "price gouging" in a free market. You have the choice not to buy something when you don't like the price. You can only be "gouged" when you don't have that choice. The price-gouging and exploitation talk comes right out of the socialist playbook. The reason there isn't much ammo on the shelves right now is because prices remain TOO LOW. When there is a sudden increase in demand and no commensurate increase in supply, price HAS TO RISE in order to establish a new equilibrium point between supply and demand. If it doesn't the excessive demand just clears the shelves and you have a persistent shortage like we do now. The reduction in demand that goes with a price hike not only allows manufacturers to replenish inventories, it also encourages new supplies to enter the market, both from previously withheld stock (people who have accumulated supply) and new or additional manufacturing. I'd rather pay twice the price and be able to find some ammo for a range trip, and shoot less, than not be able to shoot at all.

The left has conditioned people in this country to consider the normal, efficient, and beneficial operation of a free market to be some kind of evil exploitation of the working class. The same thing happened after hurricane Sandy. Gas prices should have risen to establish a new equilibrium point between supply and demand. There would have been no gas lines. People who really "needed" gas, in the sense that they perceived paying the higher price to be more in their interest than not having gas for their vehicle, would have had it available. The higher prices would have encouraged different behavior among those people who couldn't or wouldn't pay the higher price. When you start talking about what people "need" and suggest that "fairness" requires they be able to acquire what they need by preventing the efficient operation of the market, you're advocating socialism.