People taking advantage

[mwebs]

Not against capitalism. Just frustrated seeing people selling way above what I think are fair prices. I have a personal ethics that I can’t sell things for 2 to 3 times price. If I were selling my house and there was a bidding war I can’t stop that. But when this whole thing started and a roll of toilet paper was on Craigslist for$20. Bs.

Capitalism determines “fair” price by what someone will pay for it. You can have your ethics but if someone wants to pay $1000 for a box of my ammo I’ll sell it to them. I don’t own a high horse. I paid way more than I wanted for my duck sells this year but that’s the price they are going for so that’s what I pay.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Just frustrated seeing people selling way above what I think are fair prices.

You'll have a happier life if you don't let the voluntary interactions of others, economic or otherwise, frustrate you. Live and let live.

 

[CorbLand]

You would be wrong on that one.

Provide a reason why I am wrong?

 

[Billinsd]

If the government had complete control, we wouldn’t have to worry about these things.

Because we'd being worrying about everything else!!

 

[CorbLand]

Oh supply and demand win out. . . I just think it's funny that when the government wasn't prepared and people bought up hand sanitizer they put a stop to capitalism, but now that the government created inflation by shutting off and turning on the economy, they have no problem with prices running wild.

I'm all for capitalism, but let's not kid ourselves we don't live in a purely capitalistic society and I don't think anyone would really want to see the prices of things if we did!

No we don’t but I am not sure I understand your point. In the end I would rather have the least amount of intervention as possible. Even capping the price on hand sanitizer didn’t work and less than a year later I bought a box of 10 bottles for a dollar the other day.

 

[Fordguy]

Capitalism determines “fair” price by what someone will pay for it. You can have your ethics but if someone wants to pay $1000 for a box of my ammo I’ll sell it to them. I don’t own a high horse. I paid way more than I wanted for my duck sells this year but that’s the price they are going for so that’s what I pay.

I'm not sure that "fair" has anything to do with it. I live in a rural area, but even the larger towns near by don't have many high paying jobs. It's been that way for years, and that's ok. Lately there's been an influx of out of state people with plenty of cash coming in and buying houses and property. Great for the seller (until they try to find a new place to live- or maybe they end up van-lifing it) terrible for everyone else. Home and property values have doubled over the last 3 years. The problem is that no one local can afford to buy a home or property on the wages that are offered in any of the nearby towns.
I'm sure its not just my area, but its worse than I ever expected it would be. Heck, if I hadn't met the right girl I never would have moved here myself.
As far as ammo prices go, i still see some pretty good deals- if I happen to show up at the right time. If not I can always go to the local pawn shop and buy walmart ammo for 3x the price.
It is what it it, and you hold on to what you've got until someone takes it from you or you have an offer that's too good to refuse. Pretty much the same as it's always been.
Lol Maybe every state should have its own currency in the interest of fairness. That way 500,000 California dollars would equal 100,000 Mississippi dollars.

 

[ozyclint]

 

[5MilesBack]

I'll have to get back to you with a more complete answer to the homework assignment, but for now I'll just say that the fact that the middleman reselling ammo can turn a profit is itself proof that he is providing a valuable service.

Just because someone finds something at a garage sale that they can resell for a higher amount doesn't make them a middleman. Buying ammo or such from a retailer that they then resell for a higher amount doesn't make them a middleman either. They are consumers.......end of line users that might use said products........or sell to other end of line users just like everyone selling stuff on Rokslide. Just because someone sells an item for more than they paid for it......doesn't determine whether they are a middleman.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Just because someone finds something at a garage sale that they can resell for a higher amount doesn't make them a middleman. Buying ammo or such from a retailer that they then resell for a higher amount doesn't make them a middleman either. They are consumers.......end of line users that might use said products........or sell to other end of line users just like everyone selling stuff on Rokslide. Just because someone sells an item for more than they paid for it......doesn't determine whether they are a middleman.

I agree; I was just using the chosen vernacular of my interlocutor.

 

[bsnedeker]

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.

 

[Marbles]

I'll have to get back to you with a more complete answer to the homework assignment, but for now I'll just say that the fact that the middleman reselling ammo can turn a profit is itself proof that he is providing a valuable service. If there were no value being added, there would be no profit opportunity. His valuable service may be as seemingly trite as being in the right place at the right time to buy ammo from a primary retailer, but it is a service nonetheless that buyers in secondary markets such as GunBroker, online forums, etc. are currently willing to pay a premium over retail prices for.

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.

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 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.

Arguing that fairness is only for children, is to argue that corruption is vertue and justice is just a construct intended to keep the powerful in power. Personally, I reject that (and not just because it sounds a lot like Marxism and Critical Race Theory, but because I believe ethics are the core of every functional society). Fairness and justice are emergent properties that come into existence only in sentient beings, just because they are not found in the non-sentient parts of nature does not make them invalid, though it does explain why life is not fair. Sentient beings are also not always just to one another, but that does not make it moral.

I use fairness and justice interchangeably in this context because all justice must be fair, and thus any general use of the term fairness inherently includes justice as well. I will grant that fairness is a broader term that encompasses more than justice, but that distinction is immaterial to the argument on the validity of fairness as a concept because if fairness is invalid, so must be justice.

Robbery is hard and dangerous work, I still condemn it though on the grounds that it generally violates fairness to unilaterally take from someone else (which is hopefully taught to children and carried over into adulthood).

Now, there is disagreement on what is fair and what is not. Such disagreement is valid and necessary in a free society. My argument here is only concerend with the validity of fairness as a concept and is distict from my arguments about what is and is not fair.

 

[CCooper]

For Elk I shoot 300 win. mag. Barnes 180 gn. ttsx. If you can find it, plan on paying $120.00 for twenty. It's what the market will bare. After what guys spend on an Elk hunt that is an insignificant cost.

Not to derail, but I have a box in the classifieds for $75 if you need some.

 

[bsnedeker]

Arguing that fairness is only for children, is to argue that corruption is vertue and justice is just a construct intended to keep the powerful in power. Personally, I reject that (and not just because it sounds a lot like Marxism and Critical Race Theory, but because I believe ethics are the core of every functional society). Fairness and justice are emergent properties that come into existence only in sentient beings, just because they are not found in the non-sentient parts of nature does not make them invalid, though it does explain why life is not fair. Sentient beings are also not always just to one another, but that does not make it moral.

I use fairness and justice interchangeably in this context because all justice must be fair, and thus any general use of the term fairness inherently includes justice as well. I will grant that fairness is a broader term that encompasses more than justice, but that distinction is immaterial to the argument on the validity of fairness as a concept because if fairness is invalid, so must be justice.

Robbery is hard and dangerous work, I still condemn it though on the grounds that it generally violates fairness to unilaterally take from someone else (which is hopefully taught to children and carried over into adulthood).

Now, there is disagreement on what is fair and what is not. Such disagreement is valid and necessary in a free society. My argument here is only concerend with the validity of fairness as a concept and is distict from my arguments about what is and is not fair.

Well, based on this response it's clear you've probably put more thought into this subject than I have, but I remain unconvinced.

I'll give you that the terms fairness and justice can, in many ways, be used interchangeably. I believe that the idea of "justice" is also something that is completely imaginary and therefore it is a concept I don't feel it is worth any time thinking about as an adult. There is no "justice" in this world. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. If you spend your time worrying about "righting the wrongs" I feel you are going to be a very unhappy individual. Life is too short to spend time obsessing about what happens to other people. I choose to spend my life focused on living the best that I can. I do my best to be as ethical as I can be, and I teach my children that as well. There are others that do not live their lives that way, and sometimes their "unethical" behavior leads to great outcomes for them. That is something they have to live with, it is not something that concerns me.

I like the quote from Randy Newburg on this one, "You can have justice, or you can have peace, you can't have both". He says this in regards to having a happy marriage, but I think that advice is applicable to living life in general.

 

[Btaylor]

Not to derail, but I have a box in the classifieds for $75 if you need some.

You have a box on sale for 37% off

 

[CCooper]

You have a box on sale for 37% off

I think most on here try to be fair with ammo pricing. Just what I paid a couple years ago + shipping. I won't use them and maybe someone else can. I need all the good karma I can get this September.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

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.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money.

 

[Marbles]

Well, based on this response it's clear you've probably put more thought into this subject than I have, but I remain unconvinced.

I'll give you that the terms fairness and justice can, in many ways, be used interchangeably. I believe that the idea of "justice" is also something that is completely imaginary and therefore it is a concept I don't feel it is worth any time thinking about as an adult. There is no "justice" in this world. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. If you spend your time worrying about "righting the wrongs" I feel you are going to be a very unhappy individual. Life is too short to spend time obsessing about what happens to other people. I choose to spend my life focused on living the best that I can. I do my best to be as ethical as I can be, and I teach my children that as well. There are others that do not live their lives that way, and sometimes their "unethical" behavior leads to great outcomes for them. That is something they have to live with, it is not something that concerns me.

I like the quote from Randy Newburg on this one, "You can have justice, or you can have peace, you can't have both". He says this in regards to having a happy marriage, but I think that advice is applicable to living life in general.

I enjoy these discussions, I gather from the above that you may not. If so, feel free to skip this.

I view it is like rights (which anly exist for sentient beings, or conversely are completely imaginary). I only believe negative rights are a valid concern for society, likewise I only believe negative justice/fairness is a valid concern.

I'll use the Second Amendment as an example. I have a right to keep and bare arms, in the negative since this means others should not inhibit me from doing so. The negative right only demands abstaining from action on the part of others (i.e. they cannot take my guns away). A positive right would mean someone (lets say the government just because) has an obligation to provide me with arms.

So, I would say people have an ethical obligation not to inflict injustice on others, however there is NO obligation to insure the lives of others are devoid of injustice.

Granted, the result of this up to this point is very similar in practice to what you describe.

Where I differ, I feel there is a vested interest in punishing intentional injustice. At the most basic level, I believe it is ethical to fund the police and judicial system even though doing so represents being concerned with Injust actions carried out by others.

It is only hard to live with having done something if one believes it is wrong. I am not content to say having "to live with" it is enough for murderers and rapists (again, to use the most extreme example) and I do concern myself with their actions even if those actions do not effect me or mine.

While I value peace, there are things I value significantly more. So, for myself, I prefer the quote by John Stuart Mill "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Note, I very specifically lack the ability to say that quote applies to you, so please don't take it as me trying to imply anything about your character. It is just the quote that popped into my head when I read your Newburg quote as in general justice (in the negative since) is something I value more than peace. I value it more than my marriage as well and if I became an abusive husband my wife would be completely justified in ending our marriage on the grounds that I was inflicting injustice on her, I would even go so far as to say she would be wrong to keep our daughters in such a situation.

Now, in regards to positive justice, which is what many people ruin marrages over, I'm in complete agreement with Newburg and value peace more. Same applies to society in general.

 

[bsnedeker]

I enjoy these discussions, I gather from the above that you may not. If so, feel free to skip this.

I view it is like rights (which anly exist for sentient beings, or conversely are completely imaginary). I only believe negative rights are a valid concern for society, likewise I only believe negative justice/fairness is a valid concern.

I'll use the Second Amendment as an example. I have a right to keep and bare arms, in the negative since this means others should not inhibit me from doing so. The negative right only demands abstaining from action on the part of others (i.e. they cannot take my guns away). A positive right would mean someone (lets say the government just because) has an obligation to provide me with arms.

So, I would say people have an ethical obligation not to inflict injustice on others, however there is NO obligation to insure the lives of others are devoid of injustice.

Granted, the result of this up to this point is very similar in practice to what you describe.

Where I differ, I feel there is a vested interest in punishing intentional injustice. At the most basic level, I believe it is ethical to fund the police and judicial system even though doing so represents being concerned with Injust actions carried out by others.

It is only hard to live with having done something if one believes it is wrong. I am not content to say having "to live with" it is enough for murderers and rapists (again, to use the most extreme example) and I do concern myself with their actions even if those actions do not effect me or mine.

While I value peace, there are things I value significantly more. So, for myself, I prefer the quote by John Stuart Mill "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Note, I very specifically lack the ability to say that quote applies to you, so please don't take it as me trying to imply anything about your character. It is just the quote that popped into my head when I read your Newburg quote as in general justice (in the negative since) is something I value more than peace. I value it more than my marriage as well and if I became an abusive husband my wife would be completely justified in ending our marriage on the grounds that I was inflicting injustice on her, I would even go so far as to say she would be wrong to keep our daughters in such a situation.

Now, in regards to positive justice, which is what many people ruin marrages over, I'm in complete agreement with Newburg and value peace more. Same applies to society in general.

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.

 

[fwafwow]

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 )