People taking advantage

[CorbLand]

I have a relatively unused FN FiveSeven and some FN 5.7mm ammo. I recently thought about selling my pistol and the ammo, primarily to simplify things. When I was debating the sale decision, I looked at the GB completed sale prices for used FNs. The prices were pretty significantly less than what I paid. Not the end of the world, and I never expected to get back my money for a pistol that is no longer "new". When I did the same analysis for my ammo, I looked at ammoseek and saw that my ammo was pretty valuable - and for some boxes, worth more than what I paid.

So this thread got me thinking. What are the fair prices for my pistol and ammo? I don't think any would argue with looking at GB (maybe with a discount) for the price for the pistol, but how should I set the price for my ammo? I expect someone might suggest that I sell my ammo for what I paid, plus shipping. But does it matter that I might use the proceeds to buy more ammo (or lumber, or some other currently high-priced item)?

Not trying to stir the pot - it's a legitimate question. (FWIW, I had decided to price the ammo at less than $70 per box )

Set the price and if people don't buy it, lower it until they do.

Wait, I mean its only worth 500 but I will give you 550 and have a great FFL to work with...

 

[Marbles]

I'm not very good at communicating my thoughts in writing which often translates for people who don't know me very well/at all thinking that I'm angry or annoyed at them. I get in trouble at work with this from time to time even though I work hard not to come across that way. But no, I like these types of conversations as well!

So in regards to enforcing justice, I completely agree that it is an important part of having a functional society. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I'm glad there are people out there enforcing our codified laws for the most part (there are codified laws I think are wrong, but that is a different topic), but at the end of the day I am not in that business and so I don't feel like it is worth the stress and mental energy thinking about the idea.

Let's say someone commits a terrible crime against me or someone I love. Sometimes our justice system get's it right, but does that "justice" undo the harm that was done to me? In almost all cases I would say that no it does not. Even if the crime was a monetary one and the justice system fully compensates me for my financial losses there is still an inherent harm that has been done to me that cannot be remedied.

We also know that in many cases that person can "get away with it" in one way or another. In that case I can spend my time obsessing about the unfairness and injustice of it, but that doesn't do anything to undo the wrong that was done and, in my opinion, does me a great deal of mental harm in addition to the original wrong that was done. I could try to get my own justice through some kind of act of vigilantism or revenge, but this could very well end up with me dead or in prison and, once again, does nothing to undo the harm that has been done to me. At the end of the day I feel it is in your best interest to accept that what has been done cannot be undone and move on with your life. That doesn't mean you have to forgive the person, but holding on to anger doesn't make your life better.

Now, does that mean there is nothing that I would fight for? No, it does not. I will do whatever I need to do to defend myself, my family, or others that are under a direct threat of violence or harm. There are also things that are bigger than me. If someone is working to take away our inalienable rights, well, that impacts everyone...both current and future generations. I will fight against that with everything I have. I didn't have thousands of rounds of ammunition for my weapons (before I lost both in that tragic boating accident) because I just REALLY love putting holes in paper.

I cannot disagree with any of that.

Stoicism and not worrying about things one cannot change go a long way towards contentment in life.

 

[bsnedeker]

I cannot disagree with any of that.

Stoicism and not worrying about things one cannot change go a long way towards contentment in life.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

We may just disagree. I would argue that payment is not evidence of providing a service unless all the elements of a free market are in place (which includes competition). Consider protection rackets and monopolies for example.

What element of a free market is missing in the case of someone buying ammo from a retailer and reselling it?
Willing buyer
Willing seller
Competition
Unrestricted pricing

I would rather manufactures and retailers increase prices until ammo has a more normalized flow onto and off the shelves, then use that money to increase supply and efficiencies in the supply chain (or even just line their own pockets) than see the current parasitic activity (obviously not everyone agrees with that characterization). The fact that the increase in price at normal retailers is less than that of the scalpers (and thus a business is leaving profits on the table) says a good bit about the ethics involved.

In a cynical world where profits are the only motive for every action and ethics should not exist, one could argue that more permeant business don't want to harm their future reputation. Thus the service provided by our middlemen to retailers is their lack of long term skin in the game and ability to fade away like smoke in the wind once things normalize and the service provided to customers is to increase the cost to price out most of the market and insure product is available to those who can afford to pay.

The only ethical principles I expect myself and others to uphold in commerce (and life more broadly) are honesty and non-coercion: don't deceive others and don't force others to do anything against their will. The so-called scalper/gouger/middleman isn't deceiving anyone or forcing anyone to buy his "overpriced" ammo.

There's nothing unethical about profit. Profit is a signal that value has been created, that resources have been used/reconfigured in such a way that the value of the output exceeds the combined value of the inputs.

I also wish retailers would raise their prices closer to what consumers are actually willing to pay. Whether out of misguided altruism (doubtful) or to avoid public ire and claims of "gouging" (more likely), retailers' suppression of prices is contributing to inconsistent supplies and is slowing stabilization of the ammo market.

 

[Marbles]

I have a relatively unused FN FiveSeven and some FN 5.7mm ammo. I recently thought about selling my pistol and the ammo, primarily to simplify things. When I was debating the sale decision, I looked at the GB completed sale prices for used FNs. The prices were pretty significantly less than what I paid. Not the end of the world, and I never expected to get back my money for a pistol that is no longer "new". When I did the same analysis for my ammo, I looked at ammoseek and saw that my ammo was pretty valuable - and for some boxes, worth more than what I paid.

So this thread got me thinking. What are the fair prices for my pistol and ammo? I don't think any would argue with looking at GB (maybe with a discount) for the price for the pistol, but how should I set the price for my ammo? I expect someone might suggest that I sell my ammo for what I paid, plus shipping. But does it matter that I might use the proceeds to buy more ammo (or lumber, or some other currently high-priced item)?

Not trying to stir the pot - it's a legitimate question. (FWIW, I had decided to price the ammo at less than $70 per box )

In your case, a fair price is whatever the buyer will pay. I would try and make some money on it, primarily by selling it with the gun. But there would be nothing wrong with splitting them up.

I have some ammo I bought years ago, it has been moved all over the country and my cost of ownership at this point is significantly higher than what I payed at the time. I've not tried to sell it, but I would rather burn it all at the range than sell it for what I payed.

Plus, in a free market higher prices increase supply by inducing individuals to sell from their stocks.

Of course, my opinion does not really matter, but I don't take issue off of profiting. Even if someone bought ammo 2 years ago with the explicit intent of reselling if prices increased as they add elasticity and reserve to the market.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

My friend wants me to sell him some 209 primers for what I paid for them a years ago. I told him, I will give you 700 but you will need to replace them when they become available again. He said, but they will cost more Than what you paid. I said forget it, just wait, either way you are going to pay going price.

I have a “friend” like that too….once he even asked if he could wait to pay for gas until after we got a moose, he said “I don’t want to just waste money on gas and not get one”. I don’t really hunt with him much at all other than driving around for grouse.

 

[4rcgoat]

This is the type of mindset that leads people to believe that the rich are only rich because they are stealing from the poor. The only way Jeff Bezos got to be a billionaire is from stealing from the poor!

No. He's selling a product that people want or need, at a price they are willing to pay. You can say it's not fair if you want to I guess, but I think that is a pretty silly way of looking at things. The idea of "fairness" is like Santa Claus in my opinion. It's a concept we teach to children so they are nice to each other and share their toys, but once you reach a certain age you should understand that there is no such thing as "fair" and "unfair". Your successes and failures in this world are determined by some combination of hard work, good decision making, and luck....that's life.

Well said

 

[Lawnboi]

I want ammo and components. The continued shortage is being perpetuated by people buyin in for the sole reason to resell. Local shops won’t let me buy more than two pounds of powder because they think I’m going to sell it at gun shows. Capitalism or not, it’s not helping the shooting industry. And if you think these prices are just going to go back down like hand sanitizer and ass wipe I don’t think that will be the case either.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

My friend wants me to sell him some 209 primers for what I paid for them a years ago. I told him, I will give you 700 but you will need to replace them when they become available again. He said, but they will cost more Than what you paid. I said forget it, just wait, either way you are going to pay going price.

Your friend is either cheap or really dumb to not realize he's asking you to eat the cost difference so he can go back in time to buy primers at prices unlikely to be seen again even when the gouging dies down.

 

[307]

Your friend is either cheap or really dumb to not realize he's asking you to eat the cost difference so he can go back in time to buy primers at prices unlikely to be seen again even when the gouging dies down.

I would have gone with selfish prick, but your way sounds nicer.

 

[fwafwow]

OP - are you still looking for 5.7mm?

 

[Marbles]

What element of a free market is missing in the case of someone buying ammo from a retailer and reselling it?
Willing buyer
Willing seller
Competition
Unrestricted pricing


The only ethical principles I expect myself and others to uphold in commerce (and life more broadly) are honesty and non-coercion: don't deceive others and don't force others to do anything against their will. The so-called scalper/gouger/middleman isn't deceiving anyone or forcing anyone to buy his "overpriced" ammo.

There's nothing unethical about profit. Profit is a signal that value has been added, that resources have been used/reconfigured in such a way that the value of the output exceeds the combined value of the inputs.

I also wish retailers would raise their prices closer to what consumers are actually willing to pay. Whether out of misguided altruism (doubtful) or to avoid public ire and claims of "gouging" (more likely), retailers' suppression of prices is contributing to inconsistent supplies and is slowing stabilization of the ammo market.

The five things mentioned in the link you posted to defend middlemen, that due not apply to the scenario in question (just the scenario for the rest of this post) are (these are slightly paraphrased for clarity)
1: "If middlemen where eliminated the whole order of production would be thrown into chaos. Goods and services would be in short supply."
2: "If not providing a necessary service, number 3 would not by the product from number 4 for a higher price than he can buy it from number 5. If number 4 was not doing
a more efficient job than number 3 could do, then number 3 would cut number 4 out and do the job himself."
3: "Number 4 does not over charge for his efforts, if he need number 3 would go around him or others would enter the market adding competition."
4: "If number 4 middle man eliminated by a legal decree, his job would have to be taken over by others and the cost of production would rise. The fact that they did not take over the job until forced to indicates that they cannot do the job as well."
5: "If the number 4 stage was completely eliminated and no one took over the function the process of production would be seriously disrupted."

For 1, there would no harm to the process of production or distribution if the middlemen in the scenario where eliminated, to the contrary the process would improve.

For 2, the option to just go around does not exist in the scenario as "number 4" has eliminated the ability for "number 3" to go directly to "number 5."

For 3, again, the option to just go around is not there.

For 4, the system ran just fine without the middlemen in the scenario for many years. If they disappeared to day it would run just fine again and no one in the chain from production to end consumer would take over the "work."

For 5, complete elimination of the middlemen in the scenario would not disrupt the supply chain or process of production in any way.

The "double coincidence of once" discussed in that source also does not apply to the scenario.

Again, that is from the source you told me to look at, which I find supports my position. There are economic defenses of scalping that would have been a better choice. Don't worry, you don't need to find one for me, I read a few of those on my own just to challenge my carefully held notions, which they did. I'll ruminate on those arguments for a bit, but so far they have not shifted my position.

I never implied profit was "unethical." Only a very economically ignorant person would argue that.

For me there are different levels of concern for the ethics of others. These range from the 'I will go to literal war over that' to 'I don't really want to do business with you because you have questionable character."

The latter category applies to people who buy ammo this morning to sell it at a greatly inflated price to the same market this evening. I would not outlaw the practice, but those who engage in it will find it hard to earn my trust.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

For 1, there would no harm to the process of production or distribution if the middlemen in the scenario where eliminated, to the contrary the process would improve.

Were the middlemen removed, ammo distribution/availability might improve from the perspective of some buyers, but not from the perspective of those who are currently choosing to buy from middlemen. For the guy sourcing his ammo through GunBroker because his local retailers don't have what he wants, eliminating middlemen would be harmful.

For 2, the option to just go around does not exist in the scenario as "number 4" has eliminated the ability for "number 3" to go directly to "number 5."

For 3, again, the option to just go around is not there.

There are always potential workarounds. Number 3 (the ammo consumer) could take off work to go stand in line at number 5 (the retailer) on restocking day. Or the consumer could hire someone else to go stand in line for him. Or the consumer could just pay a premium to number 4 (the middleman) to procure and deliver the ammo.

For 4, the system ran just fine without the middlemen in the scenario for many years. If they disappeared to day it would run just fine again and no one in the chain from production to end consumer would take over the "work."

The ammo market ran fine without middlemen when retailers had their prices more in line with what consumers were truly willing to pay. Retailers are now knowingly suppressing their prices, which creates an arbitrage opportunity for middlemen who can get ammo from where it's less valued (retailers' shelves) to where it's more valued (the hands of buyers in secondary markets).

For 5, complete elimination of the middlemen in the scenario would not disrupt the supply chain or process of production in any way.

Elimination of middlemen most certainly would disrupt the supply chain for those consumers currently relying on middlemen for whatever reason (short local supply, need for odd calibers, inability to be in person at retail stores when shelves are stocked, etc).

The "double coincidence of once" discussed in that source also does not apply to the scenario.

The term is "coincidence of wants", not "once" (homophones are often an unfortunate casualty of audio format), and I agree that it's not relevant to this scenario

The latter category applies to people who buy ammo this morning to sell it at a greatly inflated price to the same market this evening.

It's not the same market, and therein lies the crux of the issue and the source of the value the middleman is adding. The immediate market of buyers in person at the retail store in the morning when ammo is in stock is not the same market of buyers utilizing secondary outlets like GunBroker. The middleman is transferring ammo from a market where it's valued lower to a different market where it's valued higher, and he's profiting on the difference in valuation. From the buyer's perspective, ammo on the shelf at a retail store that he is unable/unwilling to get to is not the same as ammo delivered to his doorstep. The ammo may be the same physically speaking, but it's different in an economic sense and valued differently by the buyer.

The root of the arguments made against ammo "scalpers" could also be applied to retailers: the retailer "just" buys ammo from a wholesaler/manufacturer, marks up the price, and sells it to end users. But most people have no visibility into retail mark up amounts and therefore exempt retailers from their indignation.

 

[NDGuy]

are determined by some combination of hard work, good decision making, and luck....that's life.

Big part of the luck is coming out of the right lady.

Don't know too many self made men nowadays. Just self made dad's and grandpa's that Jr. can suck the teet from. Purely anecdotal though.

 

[hflier]

You can dislike the price but not the seller. They are selling at market. If you bought your house at $100k, but now could sell it for $400K, would you sell it at $100K. I think not.

I sold a shitload of 5.7 ammo I bought at $14.00 a box for over $50.00 a box. No guilt involved. I set an auction with no reserve and that is what it brought. Supply and demand. It is what it is. Sucks, but sad fact is some people get rich in hard times because they out thought the other guy.

 

[Marbles]

The root of the arguments made against ammo "scalpers" could also be applied to retailers: the retailer "just" buys ammo from a wholesaler/manufacturer, marks up the price, and sells it to end users. But most people have no visibility into retail mark up amounts and therefore exempt retailers from their indignation

No, the retailers provides storage and distribution services, they have to pay for buildings and staff as well. Trying to equate the two as the same is nothing more than creating a straw man at this point.

Elimination of middlemen most certainly would disrupt the supply chain for those consumers currently relying on middlemen for whatever reason (short local supply, need for odd calibers, inability to be in person at retail stores when shelves are stocked, etc).

But in this case his insertion disrupts the supply chain for others, so at the very best he has a neutral effect on end consumers.

Many retailers depend on the traffic flow created by the sale of consumables to sell other products. So, this cancels out the benefit the scalper gains from his profit, leaving it as once again neutral at best.

Thus, his profit exist through causing harm, not through adding value. He has a parasitic relationship to the retailer (his supplier) and the benefit he provides to one customer is offset by the harm he causes to another.

 

[Azone]

If someone has a couple hundred pieces of ADG 6.5 PRC brass that is up for grabs and a few hundred 6.5 131 grain Hammers please feel free to pm me. Since this price gouging is bull shit and causing so much anguish I feel a crisp 100 dollar bill will make you feel better for the whole lot. That way you can say screw these gouging MFers and show them who’s boss!
Open to all offers on below market value, pristine Swarovski optics as well.

 

[5MilesBack]

The fact that the increase in price at normal retailers is less than that of the scalpers (and thus a business is leaving profits on the table) says a good bit about the ethics involved.

There are no ethics involved in "just setting price points". You set a price and then it's up to buyers to determine if they want to pay that price or not. If the price is too high, no one will buy. If the price is too low.......they will be over run with buyers. There's a price point to which both buyers and sellers come together and agree to complete a transaction. That price point will not always be the same for all buyers or all sellers.

To think that ethics are involved in setting a price point, would also mean that ethics are involved for buyers setting that price point as well. So the buyers are unethical for buying what they want at said price? That's crazy.

The bottom line is.......the buyers set the market price. Just because some retailers are selling below that price doesn't make any of the pricing unethical. Heck, look at the oil market and how OPEC is viewed. If anything, there are some that think OPEC is unethical when they flood the market with oil.....which then brings the market price DOWN. But it's the market that ultimately sets those prices. A free market will never be unethical, it just adjusts to the supply and demand in equilibrium. There will always be those that will and would pay more, and those that want to pay less than market......but the equilibrium is always somewhere in the middle. A free market doesn't have emotions, it just reacts to all that is being input into the equation.

I know a lot of people that have been "taking advantage" of this current housing market, so selling their current home and downsizing. If the market price in a neighborhood is $300k and a seller with a similar house lists his for $500k and someone buys it.......is he unethical for selling it at that price? Of course not. Willing seller, willing buyer......completed transaction acceptable to both parties. It seems that the only ones crying about all this are the ones OUTSIDE of said transaction, of which they had no part or vested interest in. That's just weird.

 

[Marbles]

I know a lot of people that have been "taking advantage" of this current housing market, so selling their current home and downsizing. If the market price in a neighborhood is $300k and a seller with a similar house lists his for $500k and someone buys it.......is he unethical for selling it at that price? Of course not. Willing seller, willing buyer......completed transaction acceptable to both parties.

Clearly you have not read parts of what I have already argued, such a comparison is already delt with, on more than one occasion, in what I have already written in this thread. Choosing to wrap up by attacking a straw man undermines the rest of your arguments.

To think that ethics are involved in setting a price point, would also mean that ethics are involved for buyers setting that price point as well. So the buyers are unethical for buying what they want at said price? That's crazy.

For me, ethics are most certainly involved in setting a price point (both as a buyer and seller). Just because you choose to reject ethics during transactions does not mean the rest of us have to. Don't worry though, I find your position at least as "crazy" as you find mine.

The bottom line is.......the buyers set the market price.

No, buyers and sellers set the market price together and sometimes market conditions favor one over the other.

It seems that the only ones crying about all this are the ones OUTSIDE of said transaction, of which they had no part or vested interest in. That's just weird.

So, you have no vested interest in the price of ammo? Interesting, you either hunt archery only and don't keep firearms for self defense, or..... Anyway, so why are you crying about those of use who do have a vested interest in being able to aquire ammo? That's just weird.

 

[Throwin Darts]

Don’t like the price then don’t buy it. Simple as that.