
Amazon sellers marking products as collectible to get around price gouging rules - juokaz
https://www.theverge.com/21273383/amazon-price-gouging-collectible-loophole-dumbbells-hot-tub
======
giarc
Would price gouging not just apply to essential products (with the caveat
being 'who determines what is essential')? My city flooded a few years ago and
gas stations were selling bottled water for super high prices. I think that's
an obvious case of price gouging. However, a dumbbell set that is sold out
online, listed for $300. I think you could argue that's just free market at
work.

~~~
pitaj
Even if we could easily draw a line between essential and non-essential goods
(pretty much impossible), you'd still have the problem that banning "price
gouging" doesn't help anyone.

Sure, it keeps prices down, but by artificially lowering prices when under
high demand, it incentivizes hoarding and exploitation. It also decreases the
incentive for increased supply. When local prices increase drastically, it
gives incentive for non-local suppliers to enter the market, increasing the
quantity of supply.

~~~
cwilkes
That’s what I don’t understand about the argument against price gouging. Fresh
water is hard to come by, ergo the price goes up.

If the product wasn’t in demand it wouldn’t go up in price. By artificially
forcing a low price it guarantees there’s going to be shortages.

By allowing the price to go up it will also enforce people use water wisely.
That is they won’t start taking showers or watering plants with bottled water
as it will be expensive.

~~~
jariel
When the price of water spikes:

\+ Some people in need are priced-out, which is very bad. \+ Many for whom the
price isn't really a problem given it's become a 'health issue' will stock up
dramatically, further driving prices up and hoarding from others.

The 'shortage' FYI is probably inherent in a flood type situation.

By far a better solution is rationing, which is exactly what is done in these
situations and has been for quite some time. Rationing can be enforced at the
point of sale i.e. 'Max 3 per household', definitely through social
conditioning, i.e. making sure community members are aware of the need to do
this, much like mask-wearing and social distancing, and possibly through more
specific measures, i.e. 'ration cards'.

The immediate problem with rationing maybe 'lineups' which is the visual
epitome that many people like to point to from the Soviet Era as an example of
'bad economics' from centrally planned economies, and it surely is in the long
run, but in the short-run, i.e. in disaster type scenarios, rationing is often
a very obvious and useful strategy.

------
exabrial
Sigh... Amazon needs to let prices rise. The market elastic goods is dictated
purely by second and third order consequences.

When prices go up, people realize there's more money to be made. More
sellers/manufacturers enter the marketplace in response, increasing the
overall supply pool and eventually causing a price crash.

Conversely, limiting prices rewards hoarders as they can justify their
actions. It also rewards antisocial actors by constraining supply an
increasing the amount of time they can be profitable. Finally it delays the
onset of the price crash keeping prices high and making sure the poor can't
afford said goods.

Also keep in mind stuff like hand sanitizer, lysol wipes, and tp all have
replacements. Soap has been shown to be more effective than hand sanitizer,
and bleach on a reusable rag is more effective effective than lysol... And for
the last one I'll just let you figure it out ;)

~~~
Nursie
Gouging denies essentials to people who need them that can't afford "surge"
pricing.

It's unethical in times of emergency, when the response needed is too short
term for more capacity to be spun up to meet immediate needs. It allows the
worried (wealthy) well to buy up supplies needed by petty, inconsequential
bodies like health services.

So no, Amazon does not need to let prices rise.

~~~
ric2b
Not gouging also denies essentials to the same people, because the problem is
the shortage but with low prices some people will buy larger quantities and
leave less for others.

~~~
Nursie
> Not gouging also denies essentials to the same people

No, it doesn't, especially when used in combination with controls on the
amounts bought or who can buy.

Greed is not always good, however much you try to contort yourself to believe
so.

------
ChuckMcM
Sellers gonna sell :-).

There are a lot of retro computer kits these days, I can imagine next up we'll
see, "Vintage KIM-1 Computer kit, shipped using 500 N95 respirator masks as
packing material to protect it in shipping, only $6,000"

~~~
carnitas
Can you provide examples of these kits?

~~~
ChuckMcM
[https://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence/kim-uno-
summar...](https://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence/kim-uno-
summary-c1uuh)

------
toohotatopic
I still don't understand why price gouging is not accepted. Only high prices
are an incentive for new producers to enter a market. Or rather: high prices
promise huge return on investments so that investors allocate money for
producers to open new production facilities.

With fixed prices, there is not enough profit in opening new production lines
to balance the risk of entering a new market or spending more money on fast
transportation methods. It makes the situation even worse because those with
free distribution channels will buy all price-fixed products and leave nothing
for Amazon customers.

~~~
PeterisP
Price gouging _is_ accepted normally. It's just temporarily prohibited for the
duration of an emergency for the products related to that emergency.

Most emergencies are sufficiently short-term that they don't meaningfully
reduce incentives for new producers to enter a market, because there's no time
to adapt. E.g. an hour before a hurricane strikes, the price of water bottles
and gas won't motivate new producers to enter a market, but there's a social
interest to keep these prices stable.

The main problem here is a prolonged "emergency with default rules" that's
happening now, because the default rules are targeted at short emergenices.
It's reasonable to announce an emergency now and figure out the details later;
but now it's been many months and the "later" should have already arrived with
specific "pandemic laws" replacing the generic emergency laws, but that's been
problematic in many areas.

~~~
WalterBright
What gouging does in an emergency is allocate the needed supplies to where
they are needed the most. If people in the zone have extra supplies, they'll
sell them rather than hoard.

> the price of water bottles and gas won't motivate new producers to enter a
> market

It absolutely does. Before the anti-gouging laws, when there was a hurricane,
people outside the zone would fill up all their gas cans, get supplies, etc.,
then drive into the zone and sell them for high prices. After the laws were
enacted, that put a stop to that - no gas until FEMA got around to showing up
a few days later.

Anti-gouging laws produce shortages, hoarding, mis-allocation, and crime
(black markets, theft, etc.).

~~~
SquishyPanda23
> What gouging does in an emergency is allocate the needed supplies to where
> they are needed the most

This statement is disconnected from reality.

The concept you're thinking of is that the supplies will go to the people who
will pay the most for them.

Who will pay the most for them is unrelated to who needs them the most. It has
more to do with who has disposable income.

If everybody is panicking, then the goods go to the panicking people who have
the most disposable income. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with
where the goods are most needed.

E.g. the ultra wealthy can easily outbid hospitals for PPE. You are free to
argue that the ultra wealthy need PPE more than hospitals, but it's going to
be a hard sell.

~~~
crazy1van
> If everybody is panicking, then the goods go to the panicking people who
> have the most disposable income.

Higher prices often discourage people from over-buying an item.

For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, people sensed toilet paper
might soon become hard to find. Its not perishable, so when they found it at a
normal price, they stocked up. Why not? They know they'll use it eventually
and they don't want to be hunting for it a month later. You don't need to be a
super wealthy person to pre-purchase a years worth of TP.

But, if TP had been selling for double the normal price, they would have
bought less. There's no need to pay pandemic prices for TP that you'll be
using next year.

~~~
ineedasername
And the doubled price would keep people who are least able to pay from getting
necessary resources, also potentially encouraging them to continue working in
risky conditions to earn extra income to do so, helping in some small way to
perpetuate the pandemic itself.

If you're looking for a market-based solution to hoarding, there are others
besides price gouging. Amazon's approach, at least in areas where they have
complete control like their pantry, fresh, and whole foods services, can serve
as an example: They want happy customers. Happy customers return and buy more
stuff. Customers who can't buy what they need because it's sold out due to
hoarding are not happy. Amazon institutes a policy for orders through
fresh/pantry/whole foods that limit TP purchases to a single package. More
customers get needed supplies, stay happy return to buy more, make Amazon more
money in the long term.

Supply/Demand price curves & price elasticity are not the only rational
market-based methods of price discovery. More subtle and long-term
considerations breed other strategies.

~~~
epicureanideal
A doubled price of TP isn't going to prevent almost anyone from not having
enough. (Yes yes, I know there are edge cases where $5 matters, but weigh that
against the alternative.)

On the other hand, a doubled price of TP means that hoarding 10,000 packages
becomes far more expensive, and less profitable.

~~~
ineedasername
You have likely never been in a situation where you have to weigh the purchase
of food against the prospect of eviction. I grew up that way, and labelling
those circumstances "edge cases" is a tidy way of dehumanizing the situation
that many millions of people find themselves in. I won't do the work for you:
lookup how many people are on SNAP programs. These are not edge cases.

Think market forces can solve all economic problems? Fine. But don't let that
blind you to the fact that _they have not done it yet_ and large numbers of
people _live in poverty and misery_ at the bad end of the economic scale.

~~~
kukx
While not perfect free market/capitalism pulled up more people from poverty
than any other system. It is usually about who you compare yourself to. If you
compare yourself to 1% of the most wealthy country in the world then you are
most likely going to look poor. But if you compare yourself to the bottom 1%
of the poorest country you most likely going to turn out sickly rich. And when
you do the same comparison to the poor in the far past then it gets even more
crazy.

~~~
throwlaplace
>While not perfect free market/capitalism pulled up more people from poverty
than any other system

Nope not true - that award goes to communist China

>China lifting more than 800 million people out of poverty since the start of
its economic reform is a "great story in human history", World Bank President
Jim Yong Kim said today, underlining that there is "lessons to be learned"
from this Chinese experience.

[https://www.business-
standard.com/article/international/chin...](https://www.business-
standard.com/article/international/china-lifting-800-million-people-out-of-
poverty-is-historic-world-bank-117101300027_1.html)

>Over the past three decades, China has successfully led the greatest poverty
alleviation program in the history of the world. During that time, an
estimated 500 million Chinese were lifted out of extreme poverty.

[https://news.trust.org/item/20140408110950-ndf6e/](https://news.trust.org/item/20140408110950-ndf6e/)

I'm sure I'll be downvoted for this for some reason or another

------
chiefgeek
I know they're huge and I'm just pissing in the ocean, but I do just about
everything I can these days to buy elsewhere. Several months ago I started
ordering from a local bookstore with a lackluster interface and slightly
higher prices. Books sometimes take a week or more to arrive (gasp!) and I
drive two miles to the shop to pick them up. I've been patronizing Amazon
since roughly 1999. No longer. Amazon is a cancer.

EDIT: changed "them" to "Amazon" for clarity.

~~~
GuB-42
So, more expensive, slower, and less convenient. You are basically buying from
your local bookstore for charitable reasons only.

It makes me really uncomfortable. Bookstores are businesses, subject to the
market, they should be able to make money by their own merit.

I can only see these solutions:

\- They will disappear, not a pleasant outcome, but it is not the first time
such a thing happen. Movie rental stores suffered this fate for instance.

\- They become public or subsidized in some way. I don't expect this to happen
in the USA.

\- They find some way of staying competitive. The way it is usually done is by
creating local communities and events. Maybe host a variety of nerdy
activities, like tabletop roleplaying. But they can also focus on the used
market, or partner with schools to offer convenient "school year" packages,
which could possibly also include used books.

While I think suffering in order to support local businesses is a noble thing
to do, it is not sustainable, "pissing in the ocean" as you say. I am curious
to know if there are local bookstores that managed to be successful against
Amazon, and how they did it.

~~~
chiefgeek
Yes. I was born and bred a capitalist. The last twenty years have nearly wrung
it all out of me. That said, it's not all suffering. Sometimes it is nice to
get out of one's place for some air after staring at a screen all day. Like
you said, though - it is not sustainable.

~~~
GuB-42
About getting out of one's place, I remember seeing a lot of kids sitting on
the floor reading comics in bookstores. I was one of them. It was well
tolerated as long as you weren't in the way (if you were, they just politely
asked you to sit somewhere else). I don't know if it still happens, it
certainly doesn't look as common but maybe that's just me not paying
attention.

Of course, by spending way too long in bookstores, I often ended up actually
buying books. I used it essentially like a library, except I bought books to
bring them back home instead of borrowing them.

------
jjcon
Pre-Covid it wasn’t uncommon to see crazy prices on the amazon marketplace. I
remember seeing a 10 year old 256mb MP3 player on amazon marketplace for like
$600.

You can find most these items for normal prices on amazon too so this seems a
bit like making a story where there may not be one.

~~~
nordsieck
> You can find most these items for normal prices on amazon too so this seems
> a bit like making a story where there may not be one.

My understanding is that there are generally 2 reasons for "outrageous" prices
(in normal times).

1\. Some vendors specialize in being the seller of last resort. They price
their products high and wait out the market until they're the only game in
town. This definitely happens with books, although I'd hope that with the
advent of ebooks, this will be less viable.

2\. Algorithmic pricing gone wrong. Sometimes multiple companies will set
their prices on each other's current prices, resulting in gradual price drift.

~~~
Alupis
3\. Sellers don't want to deactivate a listing or set their account in
"Vacation Mode", so they price it so high nobody sane would buy it.

(deactivating listings has an impact on future search visibility and other
metrics)

~~~
anewdirection
4\. Money Laundering/proxy buying of drugs.

This has happened with everything from bottles of tide, to ingame items in
online games, it was no suprise it made it to amazon.

------
Aeolun
> $279.99 “collectible” Nintendo Switch games that previously went for $79.99.

Why would anyone pay this for a switch game they can get from the nintendo
store for the original price?

~~~
TAForObvReasons
The only games that retailed at $79.99 were ring fit adventure (which had a
separate joy-con attachment) and some "limited edition" sets for games (which
are artificially scarce -- oftentimes there's enough demand for another run)

------
rkagerer
_But I’m not looking to be in a situation where I make the front page of the
news for being that guy who hoarded 20,000 bottles of sanitizer that I’m
selling for 20 times what they cost me_

Whoops.

------
ggm
Laura Ingalls Wilder's father and the feed store during the blizzard?

------
lazylizard
How much does the price increase , in how long a timespan, before its
considered gouging? Who gets to decide?

------
mhb
Are nurses guilty of ‘price gouging’ for being paid $10,000 per week in NYC,
which is significantly higher than normal?:

[https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/are-nurses-guilty-of-price-
go...](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/are-nurses-guilty-of-price-gouging-for-
being-paid-10000-per-week-in-nyc-which-is-500-above-normal/)

------
fulldecent2
Better approach is bundling.

Hand sanitizer on sale now. Includes a baseball card. $40.

------
nelsonenzo
make it easy for viewers to flag false collectibles, or other rule breaking,
and this problem would be near instantly solved.

------
vmchale
life finds a way

------
throwawaysea
Price gouging laws don't make sense: [https://fee.org/articles/the-crackdown-
on-price-gouging-help...](https://fee.org/articles/the-crackdown-on-price-
gouging-helps-no-one-except-politicians-and-the-media/)

[PDF]
[https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regu...](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2011/4/regv34n1-1.pdf)

