My point is that I think that the current standard going price for a PS5 or a Series X ($500) and a Switch ($300) in stores is a good price for most consumers right now.
It is "good" in the sense that both the retailer and the customer find it an acceptable price. However, the fact that many are willing to pay more means there's excess value going to someone, and you're stating that you want that excess value to go to the people who are fortunate enough to be able to find a console at that low price, and that they should have to receive that value by using the console, and not by reselling it.
Making scalpers’ “jobs” harder by instituting regulations and enforcement that curbs the ability for bots to be used in this way will enable more consumers to get the products they want at those standard going prices.
I agree that would be great - if it can be done without screwing up a bunch of other stuff, SOPA-style.
But at least those shortages will have their primary cause being consumers getting the products they want at the prices they want rather than being fucked over by scalpers.
I clearly am not as concerned with why people can't buy what they want as you are.
Re: Re: Re: Re: We are never going to be able to address problem
What I said is that the problem can be solved only by increasing supply. What do you think the solution is? How do you propose to ensure everyone who wants to buy a PS5 for $500 can walk into a store and do so, without increasing the number of PS5s being manufactured?
Re: Re: We are never going to be able to address problems like t
We are never going to be able to address problems like this until we stop acting as though "socialism" is a dirty word, or a concept espoused by terrible people.
Now you're talking! The real problem isn't PS5 scalpers, it's massive income and wealth inequality, and the solution, as you say, is social democracy. I have no hope that the US will get there in the lifetime of me or my kids, but maybe I'm wrong.
The reality is that the free market works as long as there is unlimited supply of an item and there are no artificial restraints on who can purchase the item.
There's no need for an unlimited supply, just enough to meet demand.
If you want a perfect example of why the "free market" doesn't work, compare what most Americans are paying for Internet service compared to what they would pay in the more "socialist" countries.
That's a terrible example, because it's about as far as you can get from a free market.
Be careful, you may invoke the wrath of Nasch by insulting the horseshit that is free market capitalism and economics!
Don't worry, I don't get angry about people not understanding economics.
“Hmm, this situation is clearly happening because the goods are underpriced and definitely not because assholes are screwing regular consumers over and the corporations don’t want to do shit about it"
Those aren't mutually exclusive statements. All of these can be true at the same time:
it's possible to scalp consoles because they're underpriced
assholes are screwing over consumers
corporations don't care
So what is your point exactly? Are you saying the consoles aren't underpriced? Are you saying scalpers would be scalping them even if the retail price was the highest price people are willing to pay? I'm just not sure where your disagreement is, because I'm not saying that this is a good situation, or that the scalpers have their hearts in the right place, or anything like that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
So anything that some person can afford to buy no matter how expensive and jacked-up the price is becomes the “market price”,
It's not quite as simple as having one person out of 8 billion willing and able to pay a price, and I'm not sure how exactly it's determined, but if there is a large mass of people who will pay then yes that's the market price. That's what the term means.
your arguments are able to stay correct forever and nobody can prove you wrong so we have to just keep dealing with this shitty situation that you agree is shitty. Got it.
Exactly. It can be shitty in various ways, but until the supply is increased to meet the demand, it's not going to be fixed. I don't know what it is you want to hear, but that's just the way it works. If you think maintaining the low price and having the product sell out immediately is preferable, that is fine, and it is one possible outcome of the proposed legislation (impossible to tell since there's no bill). I disagree that that would be a substantial improvement, but that's a matter of opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
The problem is that there’s always people with more money.
Indeed, income inequality is a far worse issue than expensive PS5s.
Consumers getting priced out of goods that they want because someone used bots to buy up the products and flip them at higher prices isn’t a good thing.
No, it isn't. But it's also not a disaster, and it's not meaningfully worse than consumers not being able to buy goods they want because they're underpriced and thus unavailable.
Products reach the hands of people who will use them, but they aren’t always the same people who originally wanted those products.
Wanting a product doesn't mean you're entitled to it. The ultra wealthy buy the Lamborghinis I want, and just put them in garages and drive them once a year. I don't complain about this. It's just what happens when some people have a lot more money than others.
Econ 101 is a helluva drug; y’all have got to stop using it as an excuse for letting shitty situations stay shitty.
It isn't an excuse, it's an explanation. Basic economics doesn't indicate how things ought to be, it describes how things work (to the extent that the theories are correct). I'm not telling you that it's great that scalpers are reselling game consoles. I'm telling you that it's a very predictable outcome of pricing game consoles below their market price.
If a PS5 was, say, $700 at Best Buy or Target rather than its price of $500, do you actually f***ing think that would stop the scalpers from using bots to buy up stock and flip it for $1000?
If people are willing to pay $1000, no, it wouldn't. If $700 is as much as most people are willing to pay, the scalpers are going to have a bad time. The specific numbers don't matter. Let d be the price customers are willing to pay. Let s be the price retailers are selling for. If d is substantially higher than s, you're going to have an opportunity for scalpers. And I don't like the situation, but when the price of a product is too low (or put another way, the supply is too low), you're going to have some kind of market failure. I don't see scalping as being any worse than shortages.
The problem is that the real solution (short of increasing supply, which may not be a viable option right now) is for retailers to increase the price. However they don't like to do that because it makes them look bad. With scalpers, they still get to sell the product, and blame the high prices on the scalpers. If the public had some understanding of economics, and realized that sometimes products are more expensive than they would like, Target could just charge $700 and people could choose whether that was worth it or not, and it would be ok. But executives know what will happen to them if they do that.
Or scalpers buy things at the value that consumers agree is a fair price and then jack up the price knowing that they’re the only ones that consumers will be able to get those things from in a reasonable time frame.
And if they are charging more than what consumers are willing to pay, they won't be able to sell. If consumers are willing to pay that price, then that's the market price.
I think that a fair amount of consumers are okay with shortages if it’s clear that the shortages are being caused by other consumers buying the product from the stores and actually using it.
I don't know if I'd go that far, people don't like not being able to get the things they want.
Shortages caused by people who just want to flip the product to make a profit?
That's not a shortage (unless you restrict your consideration to store shelves only).
That stuff is the stuff that folks don’t take kindly to.
paying more if they want to get the product they want in the same amount of time that they wanted.
Customers don't get to just set the price they want to pay. If people are willing to pay what the scalpers are charging, then that's the market price by definition.
It’s a distortion in the market
It's a reaction to the distortion of goods priced well below market rate.
I’m fine with government stepping in and addressing the problem
So am I - in principle. My confidence in their ability to do so without royally screwing up all kinds of stuff is very low.
1) The argument against the law is not that scalpers are fine upstanding folks. 2) People who leave shopping carts laying around the parking lot are trash too, but that doesn't mean Congress should get involved.
There is not a single use case for scalpers to exist at all in any market or jurisdiction.
However, that doesn't mean that everything would be fine were it not for the scalpers. Their existence indicates the product may be priced below market value. When that happens you tend to get shortages. So with scalpers prices are high, and without them the product is difficult to buy at all. There is no good situation for the customer except for increasing supply.
I expect this is the same person who has posted this suggestion before, and seriously seems to think the foolproof way to get out of any legal trouble is to break into the prosecutor's computer and delete the evidence. Maybe they watched Matthew Broderick movies too many times.
Then you screw up the prosecutors by breaking into the US Attorney (in this case) office computer network and erasing the files related to the case.
I don't think it would be the prosecutors you would be screwing up. But please go ahead and do that and let us know how it goes if you get internet access in the federal slammer.
18 U.S. Code § 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy - 20 years
Are you one of those people who thinks any criticism of someone who happens to be Jewish is antisemitic? That's the only explanation I can think of for your comment.
The reason we restrict the display of nudity is because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content
So tag it as nudity, and people can set their filters to show nudity or not. They can still continue to entirely block pornography (though that will of course also have false positives).
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is "good" in the sense that both the retailer and the customer find it an acceptable price. However, the fact that many are willing to pay more means there's excess value going to someone, and you're stating that you want that excess value to go to the people who are fortunate enough to be able to find a console at that low price, and that they should have to receive that value by using the console, and not by reselling it.
I agree that would be great - if it can be done without screwing up a bunch of other stuff, SOPA-style.
I clearly am not as concerned with why people can't buy what they want as you are.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: We are never going to be able to address problem
What I said is that the problem can be solved only by increasing supply. What do you think the solution is? How do you propose to ensure everyone who wants to buy a PS5 for $500 can walk into a store and do so, without increasing the number of PS5s being manufactured?
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: We are never going to be able to address problems like t
Now you're talking! The real problem isn't PS5 scalpers, it's massive income and wealth inequality, and the solution, as you say, is social democracy. I have no hope that the US will get there in the lifetime of me or my kids, but maybe I'm wrong.
There's no need for an unlimited supply, just enough to meet demand.
That's a terrible example, because it's about as far as you can get from a free market.
Don't worry, I don't get angry about people not understanding economics.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those aren't mutually exclusive statements. All of these can be true at the same time:
So what is your point exactly? Are you saying the consoles aren't underpriced? Are you saying scalpers would be scalping them even if the retail price was the highest price people are willing to pay? I'm just not sure where your disagreement is, because I'm not saying that this is a good situation, or that the scalpers have their hearts in the right place, or anything like that.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
It's not quite as simple as having one person out of 8 billion willing and able to pay a price, and I'm not sure how exactly it's determined, but if there is a large mass of people who will pay then yes that's the market price. That's what the term means.
Exactly. It can be shitty in various ways, but until the supply is increased to meet the demand, it's not going to be fixed. I don't know what it is you want to hear, but that's just the way it works. If you think maintaining the low price and having the product sell out immediately is preferable, that is fine, and it is one possible outcome of the proposed legislation (impossible to tell since there's no bill). I disagree that that would be a substantial improvement, but that's a matter of opinion.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
Indeed, income inequality is a far worse issue than expensive PS5s.
No, it isn't. But it's also not a disaster, and it's not meaningfully worse than consumers not being able to buy goods they want because they're underpriced and thus unavailable.
Wanting a product doesn't mean you're entitled to it. The ultra wealthy buy the Lamborghinis I want, and just put them in garages and drive them once a year. I don't complain about this. It's just what happens when some people have a lot more money than others.
It isn't an excuse, it's an explanation. Basic economics doesn't indicate how things ought to be, it describes how things work (to the extent that the theories are correct). I'm not telling you that it's great that scalpers are reselling game consoles. I'm telling you that it's a very predictable outcome of pricing game consoles below their market price.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If people are willing to pay $1000, no, it wouldn't. If $700 is as much as most people are willing to pay, the scalpers are going to have a bad time. The specific numbers don't matter. Let d be the price customers are willing to pay. Let s be the price retailers are selling for. If d is substantially higher than s, you're going to have an opportunity for scalpers. And I don't like the situation, but when the price of a product is too low (or put another way, the supply is too low), you're going to have some kind of market failure. I don't see scalping as being any worse than shortages.
The problem is that the real solution (short of increasing supply, which may not be a viable option right now) is for retailers to increase the price. However they don't like to do that because it makes them look bad. With scalpers, they still get to sell the product, and blame the high prices on the scalpers. If the public had some understanding of economics, and realized that sometimes products are more expensive than they would like, Target could just charge $700 and people could choose whether that was worth it or not, and it would be ok. But executives know what will happen to them if they do that.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
And if they are charging more than what consumers are willing to pay, they won't be able to sell. If consumers are willing to pay that price, then that's the market price.
I don't know if I'd go that far, people don't like not being able to get the things they want.
That's not a shortage (unless you restrict your consideration to store shelves only).
Yep, it's a crappy situation.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Customers don't get to just set the price they want to pay. If people are willing to pay what the scalpers are charging, then that's the market price by definition.
It's a reaction to the distortion of goods priced well below market rate.
So am I - in principle. My confidence in their ability to do so without royally screwing up all kinds of stuff is very low.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re:
1) The argument against the law is not that scalpers are fine upstanding folks. 2) People who leave shopping carts laying around the parking lot are trash too, but that doesn't mean Congress should get involved.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: I'm disagreeing on this one...
However, that doesn't mean that everything would be fine were it not for the scalpers. Their existence indicates the product may be priced below market value. When that happens you tend to get shortages. So with scalpers prices are high, and without them the product is difficult to buy at all. There is no good situation for the customer except for increasing supply.
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: My perspective
Hard to say when the bill itself doesn't actually exist.
On the post: Texas Gas Companies Hit Texas Consumers With 'Whoops You Froze To Death' Surcharge
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reference for that?
On the post: Apple Sues NSO Group For Targeting IPhone Users With Powerful Exploits
Re:
Hard to detect humor in print sometimes... but just in case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group
I'm leaning towards humor though.
On the post: When The FBI Shows Up At Your Door About Your Reporting, That's Intimidation
Re: Re: Re:
I expect this is the same person who has posted this suggestion before, and seriously seems to think the foolproof way to get out of any legal trouble is to break into the prosecutor's computer and delete the evidence. Maybe they watched Matthew Broderick movies too many times.
On the post: When The FBI Shows Up At Your Door About Your Reporting, That's Intimidation
Re: Re:
I don't think it would be the prosecutors you would be screwing up. But please go ahead and do that and let us know how it goes if you get internet access in the federal slammer.
18 U.S. Code § 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy - 20 years
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers - 20 years
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
I'm sure a prosecutor could come up with some other applicable sections.
On the post: Company Promises 'Seamless Parking Experience' In Exchange For The Permission To Track App Users All Over The Internet
Re: Re:
Are there any limits at all in the US?
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re: Re:
There is no such thing.
On the post: Why Are Drug Prices So High? Because Asshole McKinsey Consultants Figure Out Ways To Re-Patent The Same Drugs Over And Over
Re: Depressing
Are you one of those people who thinks any criticism of someone who happens to be Jewish is antisemitic? That's the only explanation I can think of for your comment.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Studies: Facebook Suspends Account For Showing Topless Aboriginal Women (2016)
Tag it
So tag it as nudity, and people can set their filters to show nudity or not. They can still continue to entirely block pornography (though that will of course also have false positives).
Next >>