re: Coronavirus price gouger stuck with 18,000 bottles of sanitizers after Amazon bans him

quote:

---

return items to stores

---

Better yet, set outside a store on adjacent parking/empty lot and sell direct, cash only, like a lemonade stand. Avoid those pesky local and state sales taxes since he can pick up and move at random too as well as avoiding need for a state sales license/business license fee.

If he has that many units. He could say screw Amazon and EBay and setup his own e-commerce store online.

He may miss out on some profits he wanted but at least he can get some of his money back.

quote:

---

Making it too expensive for poor people would help everyone get it.

---

I don’t know what the appropriate price is. The market determines that.

But if “poor people” could buy 6-8 packages of toilet paper at $7.99, something tells me they can buy 3 at $12.99.

Do you think they’d buy 8 at $12.99? Probably not.

Just an example.

quote:

---

Yes, Amazon has found a way to make huge profits by getting people to give them money for stuff they think they need. Many overpay for the convenience but at the end of they dat, nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head.

---

Amazon is doing this within normal market conditions. Those profits are all generated within the regular market as it’s designed to operate and therefore the market is “setting the price”.

What these “profiteers” are doing is basically taking advantage in a glitch in the system. The market doesn’t have adequate time to properly adjust to this temporary dramatic increase in demand.

And they are doing this to the detriment of the health and well-being of our country. The best thing we can do is slow the rate this spreads, and restricting public access to sanitizers (like these guys did) makes that more difficult.

In a pure, 100%, capitalistic sense then yes what they are doing is just adjusting to the market. But again, it’s to the detriment of public health. If this is how you feel, then you also couldn’t argue against a company who finds the cure for cancer and can produce it for $100, but sells it for $100,000. People would pay for it at that price point, it would be within what the market dictates, but hopefully you don’t agree that makes it right. There should be *some* limited intervention and regulation in the market. We would be a lot worse off in a 100% capitalist market without any regulation whatsoever.

quote:

---

Yes, Amazon has found a way to make huge profits by getting people to give them money for stuff they think they need. Many overpay for the convenience but at the end of they dat, nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head.

If you need the hand sanitizer and are willing to pay for it, then do it. If not, there are many other cheap and available alternatives.

---

Amazon is free to do whatever the frick it wants. And so are these guys. Maybe they can go on ebay, or set up an online site. No one is stopping them

quote:

---

Yet you claim the price (set by the market) is not appropriate.

---

Consumer decision determines that.

If no one wants to pay $300 for a share of Apple, then the price drops until there is a buyer. That’s how the market works.

It should be the same way with consumer goods.

quote:

---

What's the difference? If stores had adjusted prices appropriately neither of those things would have happened.

---

I keep seeing this but I don't think stores have that kind of leeway. There are distribution agreements that come into play.

Charmin won't let Winn Dixie sell for fifty bucks a pack.

quote:

---

There is a solution, but I’m not upper management at Walmart.

---

Correct. The solution would be too costly and frustrating to customers that they'd gravitate to a more reasonable solution that...wait for it...has more stable prices.