13 ms·

This pure economist point of view feels so unwelcome & reductionist. That the market isn't taking every ounce of profit being viewed as inefficiency, this idea

This pure economist point of view feels so unwelcome & reductionist. That the market isn't taking every ounce of profit being viewed as inefficiency, this idea that prices must be as high as possible seems like a diseased view to me. Consumers should have access to things like GPUs at a rate the manufacturer is happy to charge. There's a net benefit to society when supply isn't maximally constrained & exploited. Recently, folks are wondering whether PC gaming is going to be able to survive, when even shitty ass lower-mid range graphics cards cost as much as a console. That would be horrificly sad for computing.

heyitsguay 5y ago
Seriously. If you ever meet any of these people in real life, take their car keys and remind them the market dictates the price of all goods and the police are a statist intervention.
avalys 5y ago
> Consumers should have access to things like GPUs at a rate the manufacturer is happy to charge. Okay, great, so you ban scalping bots. Now consumers can't buy GPUs because they're sold out, as opposed to because they're too expensive. (1) The problem is that the supply of GPUs is constrained and there are more consumers who want GPUs than there are GPUs to sell them. Banning scalping bots is not going to solve that problem. (1) Of course people can still resell for a profit on eBay, unless you decide to ban that too. Heck, why not just ban everything you don't like? Let's pass a law to ban poverty while we're at it. --- All that said, the act actually doesn't ban bots, it bans bots which circumvent protections that the seller put in place to block them. Which is fine by me, if a seller wants to put in a place a policy that says they will not sell to bots, I think it is fine for the government to help them enforce that policy.
- notahacker 5y ago
  > Okay, great, so you ban scalping bots. Now consumers can't buy GPUs because they're sold out, as opposed to because they're too expensive. Scalping bots don't increase the supply of GPUs. In the scalper's absemce no more people than before will be unable to buy GPUs because of the shortage, it's just those that do manage to buy them will tend to get them earlier at a cheaper price.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > it's just those that do manage to buy them will tend to get them earlier at a cheaper price That's the problem. It means they go to people who may not have been willing to pay what they were actually worth, while others who were willing to pay are unable to buy them because there aren't any left to sell.
    - heyitsguay 5y ago
      What you're describing as a "problem" is people beyond the wealthiest members of society having a chance at owning popular consumer goods, while the wealthy must contend with an X% chance at getting them on demand instead of 100%.
      - nybble41 5y ago
        Please do keep in mind that we're talking about toys here. You don't have to be among "the wealthiest members of society" to be able to afford the market-clearing price.
        rektide 5y ago
        It's really hard for me to accept such downtalking, the presumption that we should all have to compete & that since these are mere "toys" it's ok that we get charged 2x market rate, 4x what flagship gpu card prices were a couple years ago. This is a sad drain on society. The way this is talked about, the justification for prices spiking, ignores so much sadness I feel for all the kids who will never have access to PC gaming ever again. Whole generations being cut off from the PC, in this one swoop. I'd really like to see some kind of even modest go at empathy, some dawning cognition that something is lost here from those justifying the massive massive upswings in prices. So far I haven't seen the recognition of human good that seems clear to me, that we as a world have clearly lost now that this "market surplus" is eradicated & exploited. I'd just like to see some of the anti-market-surplus views at least acknowledge some of the human cost here, be willing to adopt some viewpoint that acknowledges trade-off. That doesn't assume from the start it's own correctness & properness.

heyitsguay 5y ago

Seriously. If you ever meet any of these people in real life, take their car keys and remind them the market dictates the price of all goods and the police are a statist intervention.

avalys 5y ago

> Consumers should have access to things like GPUs at a rate the manufacturer is happy to charge. Okay, great, so you ban scalping bots. Now consumers can't buy GPUs because they're sold out, as opposed to because they're too expensive. (1) The problem is that the supply of GPUs is constrained and there are more consumers who want GPUs than there are GPUs to sell them. Banning scalping bots is not going to solve that problem. (1) Of course people can still resell for a profit on eBay, unless you decide to ban that too. Heck, why not just ban everything you don't like? Let's pass a law to ban poverty while we're at it. --- All that said, the act actually doesn't ban bots, it bans bots which circumvent protections that the seller put in place to block them. Which is fine by me, if a seller wants to put in a place a policy that says they will not sell to bots, I think it is fine for the government to help them enforce that policy.

notahacker 5y ago
> Okay, great, so you ban scalping bots. Now consumers can't buy GPUs because they're sold out, as opposed to because they're too expensive. Scalping bots don't increase the supply of GPUs. In the scalper's absemce no more people than before will be unable to buy GPUs because of the shortage, it's just those that do manage to buy them will tend to get them earlier at a cheaper price.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > it's just those that do manage to buy them will tend to get them earlier at a cheaper price That's the problem. It means they go to people who may not have been willing to pay what they were actually worth, while others who were willing to pay are unable to buy them because there aren't any left to sell.
  - heyitsguay 5y ago
    What you're describing as a "problem" is people beyond the wealthiest members of society having a chance at owning popular consumer goods, while the wealthy must contend with an X% chance at getting them on demand instead of 100%.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      Please do keep in mind that we're talking about toys here. You don't have to be among "the wealthiest members of society" to be able to afford the market-clearing price.
      - rektide 5y ago
        It's really hard for me to accept such downtalking, the presumption that we should all have to compete & that since these are mere "toys" it's ok that we get charged 2x market rate, 4x what flagship gpu card prices were a couple years ago. This is a sad drain on society. The way this is talked about, the justification for prices spiking, ignores so much sadness I feel for all the kids who will never have access to PC gaming ever again. Whole generations being cut off from the PC, in this one swoop. I'd really like to see some kind of even modest go at empathy, some dawning cognition that something is lost here from those justifying the massive massive upswings in prices. So far I haven't seen the recognition of human good that seems clear to me, that we as a world have clearly lost now that this "market surplus" is eradicated & exploited. I'd just like to see some of the anti-market-surplus views at least acknowledge some of the human cost here, be willing to adopt some viewpoint that acknowledges trade-off. That doesn't assume from the start it's own correctness & properness.