4 ms·

> 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 bu

by 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.
        avalys 5y ago
        The problem here is that lots of people want to buy GPUs. There's no need to "justify" an upswing in prices, because there is no central authority that sets the prices who can accept or reject your justification. Yes I'm sympathetic but there is no solution here other than increasing the supply of GPUs or decreasing the demand. Complaining about scalpers isn't going to help with either one. Scalpers don't set the price. In fact, what you should be willing to do is argue that NVidia and AMD should sell all their GPUs direct to consumer at an auction, so that they can capture all the consumer surplus here and re-invest it in order to expand production capacity.
        rektide 5y ago
  - notahacker 5y ago
    If people value an item more than those who bought it, they are perfectly entitled to indicate that they would be willing to pay more on a secondary market, and see if there are any takers. Scalpers buying huge chunks of inventory and releasing it slowly to maximise yield adds no value to them.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > If people value an item more than those who bought it, they are perfectly entitled to indicate that they would be willing to pay more on a secondary market, and see if there are any takers. By which point the item may have already been consumed (if not a durable good) or whoever bought it at the discounted price may not be willing to sell at any reasonable price. At least if scalpers get the item you know that they have little incentive to keep it for themselves.
      - notahacker 5y ago
        > ...whoever bought it at the discounted price may not be willing to sell at any reasonable price. At least if scalpers get the item you know that they have little incentive to keep it for themselves. If they're more interested in keeping it for themselves than selling it at a price the prospective buyer is willing to pay, then obviously that's not a problem. They don't value it as much as it's actually worth to the current owners, ergo no more efficient market allocation is possible. It's a weird, cargo cultish notion of markets where asking prices are only "reasonable" if the only value an item has to its owner is how much they think they can gouge others for, and people refusing to sell items at a price because they have more incentive to keep it for themselves is seen as a problem! The actual deadweight losses are incurred when the opposite takes place: scalpers don't enjoy the stock but do restrict others from enjoying it. The only situation in which scalpers actually help you buy something you couldn't otherwise have made an acceptable offer for is if lots of people value something at more they can actually afford, and scalpers inserting themselves in the middle prevents them from getting their hands on it at a price they could afford. But that shift in allocation isn't pro-market, it's anti poor. Otherwise, if you can't buy it, that's because you're the one that's not willing or able to pay what it's actually worth
- avalys 5y ago
  Right, and banning scalping bots doesn't increase the supply of GPUs either, that's my point. Supply and demand is the issue. Not scalping.

by avalys 5y ago

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.
      - avalys 5y ago
        The problem here is that lots of people want to buy GPUs. There's no need to "justify" an upswing in prices, because there is no central authority that sets the prices who can accept or reject your justification. Yes I'm sympathetic but there is no solution here other than increasing the supply of GPUs or decreasing the demand. Complaining about scalpers isn't going to help with either one. Scalpers don't set the price. In fact, what you should be willing to do is argue that NVidia and AMD should sell all their GPUs direct to consumer at an auction, so that they can capture all the consumer surplus here and re-invest it in order to expand production capacity.
        rektide 5y ago
- notahacker 5y ago
  If people value an item more than those who bought it, they are perfectly entitled to indicate that they would be willing to pay more on a secondary market, and see if there are any takers. Scalpers buying huge chunks of inventory and releasing it slowly to maximise yield adds no value to them.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > If people value an item more than those who bought it, they are perfectly entitled to indicate that they would be willing to pay more on a secondary market, and see if there are any takers. By which point the item may have already been consumed (if not a durable good) or whoever bought it at the discounted price may not be willing to sell at any reasonable price. At least if scalpers get the item you know that they have little incentive to keep it for themselves.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      > ...whoever bought it at the discounted price may not be willing to sell at any reasonable price. At least if scalpers get the item you know that they have little incentive to keep it for themselves. If they're more interested in keeping it for themselves than selling it at a price the prospective buyer is willing to pay, then obviously that's not a problem. They don't value it as much as it's actually worth to the current owners, ergo no more efficient market allocation is possible. It's a weird, cargo cultish notion of markets where asking prices are only "reasonable" if the only value an item has to its owner is how much they think they can gouge others for, and people refusing to sell items at a price because they have more incentive to keep it for themselves is seen as a problem! The actual deadweight losses are incurred when the opposite takes place: scalpers don't enjoy the stock but do restrict others from enjoying it. The only situation in which scalpers actually help you buy something you couldn't otherwise have made an acceptable offer for is if lots of people value something at more they can actually afford, and scalpers inserting themselves in the middle prevents them from getting their hands on it at a price they could afford. But that shift in allocation isn't pro-market, it's anti poor. Otherwise, if you can't buy it, that's because you're the one that's not willing or able to pay what it's actually worth
avalys 5y ago
Right, and banning scalping bots doesn't increase the supply of GPUs either, that's my point. Supply and demand is the issue. Not scalping.