4 ms·

He thought the stores could easily restock, and he would profit from online sale. Possible?

by datashow 7y ago

garmaine 7y ago
Because people wouldn't want to go out, yeah. Possible.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Because there was clearly no sort of distribution infrastructure to get hand sanitizer to people without having to go into the stores. Right. NPR's talked about retail arbitrage before and sure there are all sorts of crazy reasons people buy stuff at inflated prices through Amazon and eBay. What's missing though is that typically the sellers are capitalizing on things that are difficult-to-impossible to find elsewhere (e.g. Trader Joe's products, none of which are otherwise available from other vendors or online from TJs) or to capitalize on sale pricing. Neither of those things are true here with the guy hoarding hand sanitizer. Whether or not he donated his stockpile to charity under duress or not he still deserves to be punished.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    That’s for a judge or jury to decide, not an internet mob.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      Sure, and ostensibly the United States has some sort of don't legislate morality doctrine. Just because I think he deserves to be punished doesn't mean our legal system will punish him. I'm certainly not above public shaming especially when the guy has very publicly and unequivocally explained what he's doing.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Judges and juries decide criminal penalties. Fellow citizens decide social penalties. Nobody should be banging on his door, but I'm fine with both his neighbors and the world at large telling him what they think.
techslave 7y ago
yes, possible. it’s still called price gouging.
- jariel 7y ago
  He's speculating on a commodity, it's just not corn or potash. Nobody expects that there's going to be an acute, worldwide shortage of wheat and that it will be unavailable anywhere. Demand goes up, prices go up, same as anything. Now - this kind of arbitrage has very, very limited value for society (there's an economic argument for price clearing), so we can think of it as 'gouging', but sometimes this is not the case. I think at this scale, price arbitraging for normal household goods provides zero net value (in fact negative value because it involves work and effort without net value creation). Amazon, Wallmart etc. should probably clamp down on this because it's their customers who pay by having middlemen in between.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > "He's speculating on a commodity, it's just not corn or potash." Lives are not at stake because of corn or potash speculation.
    - jariel 7y ago
      If there are acute shortages, yes lives can be at stake because of major disruptions in the food supply. Several weeks ago, nobody assumed that 'Purell' or 'toilet paper' was going to fully sell out everywhere, rather, simply that there would be increased demand for it. All retailers who sell Purell have their buyers clamoring to buy as much as possible because they know their customers want it, and there's no reason to think that the price won't be increased somewhat. In fact, given the excessive demand and challenges in production, Purell will probably be increasing its wholesale price ... and then some. So are retailers - buying up as much Purell as possible and probably selling for a little bit of a markup considered 'hoarders'? So long as they have the intention of selling it for not-some-crazy-price, then it's just normal business. There's no reason individuals can't do the same. As long as this guy was not price gauging, and he was in fact selling, then what are they going to charge him with exactly? It's reasonable that the government put restrictions on certain goods during a crisis, such as margin limits, the requirement to not hold inventory etc. but the same would have to apply to this guy. If he bought his inventory before any emergency crisis or calamity ... then again, what's the legal crime? Buying Purell 2 months ago was normal, but 'having Purell inventory' now is illegal? I have no lost love for this guy, but that he gave his inventory away is punishment enough.

He thought the stores could easily restock, and he would profit from online sale. Possible?

garmaine 7y ago

Because people wouldn't want to go out, yeah. Possible.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
Because there was clearly no sort of distribution infrastructure to get hand sanitizer to people without having to go into the stores. Right. NPR's talked about retail arbitrage before and sure there are all sorts of crazy reasons people buy stuff at inflated prices through Amazon and eBay. What's missing though is that typically the sellers are capitalizing on things that are difficult-to-impossible to find elsewhere (e.g. Trader Joe's products, none of which are otherwise available from other vendors or online from TJs) or to capitalize on sale pricing. Neither of those things are true here with the guy hoarding hand sanitizer. Whether or not he donated his stockpile to charity under duress or not he still deserves to be punished.
- garmaine 7y ago
  That’s for a judge or jury to decide, not an internet mob.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Sure, and ostensibly the United States has some sort of don't legislate morality doctrine. Just because I think he deserves to be punished doesn't mean our legal system will punish him. I'm certainly not above public shaming especially when the guy has very publicly and unequivocally explained what he's doing.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Judges and juries decide criminal penalties. Fellow citizens decide social penalties. Nobody should be banging on his door, but I'm fine with both his neighbors and the world at large telling him what they think.

techslave 7y ago

yes, possible. it’s still called price gouging.

jariel 7y ago
He's speculating on a commodity, it's just not corn or potash. Nobody expects that there's going to be an acute, worldwide shortage of wheat and that it will be unavailable anywhere. Demand goes up, prices go up, same as anything. Now - this kind of arbitrage has very, very limited value for society (there's an economic argument for price clearing), so we can think of it as 'gouging', but sometimes this is not the case. I think at this scale, price arbitraging for normal household goods provides zero net value (in fact negative value because it involves work and effort without net value creation). Amazon, Wallmart etc. should probably clamp down on this because it's their customers who pay by having middlemen in between.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > "He's speculating on a commodity, it's just not corn or potash." Lives are not at stake because of corn or potash speculation.
  - jariel 7y ago
    If there are acute shortages, yes lives can be at stake because of major disruptions in the food supply. Several weeks ago, nobody assumed that 'Purell' or 'toilet paper' was going to fully sell out everywhere, rather, simply that there would be increased demand for it. All retailers who sell Purell have their buyers clamoring to buy as much as possible because they know their customers want it, and there's no reason to think that the price won't be increased somewhat. In fact, given the excessive demand and challenges in production, Purell will probably be increasing its wholesale price ... and then some. So are retailers - buying up as much Purell as possible and probably selling for a little bit of a markup considered 'hoarders'? So long as they have the intention of selling it for not-some-crazy-price, then it's just normal business. There's no reason individuals can't do the same. As long as this guy was not price gauging, and he was in fact selling, then what are they going to charge him with exactly? It's reasonable that the government put restrictions on certain goods during a crisis, such as margin limits, the requirement to not hold inventory etc. but the same would have to apply to this guy. If he bought his inventory before any emergency crisis or calamity ... then again, what's the legal crime? Buying Purell 2 months ago was normal, but 'having Purell inventory' now is illegal? I have no lost love for this guy, but that he gave his inventory away is punishment enough.