4 ms·

It's just surge pricing to manage demand, not "price gouging". Being able to buy RAM at high prices is a lot better than being unable to source it at all becau

It's just surge pricing to manage demand, not "price gouging". Being able to buy RAM at high prices is a lot better than being unable to source it at all because everyone else is panic-hoarding.

ed 11mo ago
We don’t really know whether that’s true, since it’s hard to prove a negative (i.e., suppliers aren’t colluding). But given their history of price fixing it may be worth looking into.
CraigJPerry 11mo ago
It's speculative price gouging. Calling it "surge pricing" doesn't stop erosion of consumer trust in the market. Watch now as more people more readily jump to price fixing conclusions. Not helped by the inevitable further increase in speculation through feedback loops and the resultant volatility. First come first served is a better principle than "surge pricing". A lottery is a better principle than "surge pricing". In the case that someone over purchased, they're free to dispose via secondary market if the value to them is lower than the out of stock price. I.e. decentralised pricing (and profits). Secondary market sales are just more efficient, they occur at negotiated prices that reflect true individual valuation, not the retailer's speculation. I'd rather reward diligence and personal responsibility - if you monitor market trends, anticipate needs, and act quickly, such as buying RAM ahead of a known upcoming supply crunch, you're rewarded with access at the original price. Rather than passive reliance on wealth to solve problems. First come first served values effort and foresight. Scarcity is managed through time and effort rather than money.
- energy123 11mo ago
  > First come first served is a better principle than "surge pricing". This is called a price ceiling, and it's a bad idea with a track record of failure and significant harm. I'd rather pay extra and get what I need with 100% chance than get what I need cheaply with 5% chance and otherwise be forced to go without or buy from scalpers for the same price I would have paid anyways. This is the purpose of prices. So the people who really need it can buy it, and those who are borderline about the purchase decide to opt out. If you're concerned with wealth inequality or one large buyer cornering the market, there are better ways to address those problem than prices ceilings.
  - CraigJPerry 11mo ago
    > This is called a price ceiling The act of eliminating surge pricing is not a price ceiling. That's a different thing. That requires more than simply swapping surge pricing with first come first served. You've created a strawman. > I'd rather pay extra and get what I need with 100% chance False dichotomy. Neither approach increases supply. Of course according to economists who can hand wave away bullwhip effects with simple "this model assumes X" statements that go unquestioned in the conversations which cite the findings of the given model but i digress. According to economists, both approaches do increase supply, the theory goes that the price gouging retailer invests in more factory capacity. Or the factory owner buoyed by vibrant secondary market activity views increased production investment as a safe bet. Maybe there's some truth in the latter... > If you're concerned with wealth inequality I'm concerned with lazy financial engineering over hard work. Why should the scrappy but innovative startup be excluded from resources over the sclerotic incumbent with a deeper wallet?
    - zozbot234 11mo ago
      The bullwhip effect is the whole reason why retailers may want to hold greater product stock in the first place; to absorb transient demand fluctuations and not have to pass them on in full to the supplier. And a "scrappy but innovative" startup has an obvious interest in being able to source the DRAM or other goods they require, even at higher prices.
    - energy123 11mo ago
      > The act of eliminating surge pricing is not a price ceiling. If you force companies to price products lower than what they want, then you have a price ceiling by definition. > Neither approach increases supply. I didn't mention or allude to supply at all, although it's true that price ceilings also decrease supply (less so if there is monopoly or collusion, but they still do). I was talking about resource allocation. The person who needs a new system because their previous computer broke will be willing to pay the extra money, but the person who already has a DDR4 system with a 5950x that runs their games well enough will be content to hold off on their AM5 upgrade to DDR5 because the marginal improvement isn't worth the extra $400. If you have a price ceiling like what you proposed, the person with the DDR4 system may buy the DDR5 that they don't really need 1 day earlier than the person who actually needs the DDR5, creating a misallocation of resources. (that's an example of the more abstract principle at play). Theoretical arguments aren't even needed here. The empirical history of price ceilings is there for you to google. If you didn't know that what you were proposing is a price ceiling, and you thought that I was talking about supply instead of resource allocation, then I mean this with no offence intended but you should study elementary economics before forming confident opinions on the subject. Society is in a vulnerable point with cost of living pressure and we don't need more energy behind these harmful populist ideas.
- zozbot234 11mo ago
  > It's speculative price gouging ... if you monitor market trends, anticipate needs, and act quickly, such as buying RAM ahead of a known upcoming supply crunch, you're rewarded with access at the original price The word for "monitoring market trends, anticipating needs and acting quickly" is, well, speculation. Why should a retailer not be allowed to speculate and hold more product stock when they anticipate a future crunch? In fact, the whole reason prices have become so volatile right now is that this supply crunch was not properly anticipated. The reason why retailers are not "price fixing" is that price fixing involves setting an artificial ceiling on total production; retailers are not in a position to do this, and there is no evidence at all that DRAM makers are doing this either.
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  > First come first served is a better principle than "surge pricing" First come first serve must means enterprising individuals would buy as much as they could afford and then immediately relist it on Facebook Marketplace for the actual market rate. Thinking that retailers could keep RAM prices low and also keep it in stock for you is irrational.
  - CraigJPerry 11mo ago
    >> Thinking that retailers could keep RAM prices low and also keep it in stock for you is irrational. Not a claim i made
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Aurornis 11mo ago
      If your goal isn’t to make cheap RAM available to you, then what even is your goal? Are you just angry that retailers are making a little extra temporary profit on their in-stock inventory? Is the goal to punish them for behaving rationally and understanding basic economics?
- imtringued 11mo ago
  This perspective is pretty silly. If you don't know the price you set it up for auction. The Ebay auction prices in German are in the $400 range for 2x16GB. The retailers aren't particularly expensive. Maybe $10 to $20 more. >I'd rather reward diligence and personal responsibility - if you monitor market trends, anticipate needs, and act quickly, such as buying RAM ahead of a known upcoming supply crunch, you're rewarded with access at the original price. Rather than passive reliance on wealth to solve problems. First come first served values effort and foresight. Scarcity is managed through time and effort rather than money. Are you really going to discount the effort made by the manufacturers to produce the product? You know, giving them money is the best way for them to produce more products. A lucrative DRAM market will also make it easier for new competitors to enter the market. Also, if everyone does what you suggest, then all that will happen is that the price will rise extremely rapidly before the actual supply crunch even happened. That sounds like what is currently happening.
franga2000 11mo ago
Is it better? As with all price gouging, better for those who can afford it, sure, but not for those who can't. The proper way to combat scalping is to implement fair allocation methods (for a start purchase quantity limits) and punish people for scalping. Look at how most places handled war-time gasoline shortages. Rationing coupons, purchase limits, demand leveling (like the odd-even system), price or profit controls, strict prosecution of scalpers and price gougers. And it's not like only the communists did this - even the US had most if not all of these things. And it worked far better than the shit that happened during the pandemic shortages. Governments used to know how to govern.
- zozbot234 11mo ago
  If you want to be "fair" for a necessity such as gasoline, you can have tradable rationing coupons. That way you are rewarded if you buy and use less gasoline, but the excess windfall due to the shortage is still transfered to you and away from the supplier. But even this assumes that gasoline is in fixed supply and there is no way of increasing its total production by paying more, which is not a very good assumption.
  - franga2000 11mo ago
    In a time of shortage, throwing more money at the problem usually won't increase supply. A shortage necessarily means that if you make more of something, you're guaranteed to sell it basically instantly, so there's already an incentive to increase production. And it's not like the higher prices mean more money goes to the producers so they can invest in more production capacity. The price increase is spread out between every middleman in the chain untils there's almost nothing left. This could work only if the producers themselves are the ones raising prices, but then everyone else would still add their own cut, leading to even crazier price hikes, and also it's unlikely that extra profit would go to much more than lining the owners' pockets. Additionally, demand spikes usually don't last, so any new production capacity you build will be a liability later, after the market settles down.
    - kortilla 11mo ago
Sohcahtoa82 11mo ago
> It's just surge pricing to manage demand, not "price gouging". This carries the same energy as company leadership insisting that a RIF is not a layoff.
- kortilla 11mo ago
  Price gouging has a specific meaning. It’s when costs are raised rapidly only because people are desperate and have no other choice. (e.g. water after a disaster) Retailers raising prices in reaction to an incoming event that will take supply away from everyone is not that.

It's just surge pricing to manage demand, not "price gouging". Being able to buy RAM at high prices is a lot better than being unable to source it at all because everyone else is panic-hoarding.

ed 11mo ago

We don’t really know whether that’s true, since it’s hard to prove a negative (i.e., suppliers aren’t colluding). But given their history of price fixing it may be worth looking into.

CraigJPerry 11mo ago

It's speculative price gouging. Calling it "surge pricing" doesn't stop erosion of consumer trust in the market. Watch now as more people more readily jump to price fixing conclusions. Not helped by the inevitable further increase in speculation through feedback loops and the resultant volatility. First come first served is a better principle than "surge pricing". A lottery is a better principle than "surge pricing". In the case that someone over purchased, they're free to dispose via secondary market if the value to them is lower than the out of stock price. I.e. decentralised pricing (and profits). Secondary market sales are just more efficient, they occur at negotiated prices that reflect true individual valuation, not the retailer's speculation. I'd rather reward diligence and personal responsibility - if you monitor market trends, anticipate needs, and act quickly, such as buying RAM ahead of a known upcoming supply crunch, you're rewarded with access at the original price. Rather than passive reliance on wealth to solve problems. First come first served values effort and foresight. Scarcity is managed through time and effort rather than money.

energy123 11mo ago
> First come first served is a better principle than "surge pricing". This is called a price ceiling, and it's a bad idea with a track record of failure and significant harm. I'd rather pay extra and get what I need with 100% chance than get what I need cheaply with 5% chance and otherwise be forced to go without or buy from scalpers for the same price I would have paid anyways. This is the purpose of prices. So the people who really need it can buy it, and those who are borderline about the purchase decide to opt out. If you're concerned with wealth inequality or one large buyer cornering the market, there are better ways to address those problem than prices ceilings.
- CraigJPerry 11mo ago
  > This is called a price ceiling The act of eliminating surge pricing is not a price ceiling. That's a different thing. That requires more than simply swapping surge pricing with first come first served. You've created a strawman. > I'd rather pay extra and get what I need with 100% chance False dichotomy. Neither approach increases supply. Of course according to economists who can hand wave away bullwhip effects with simple "this model assumes X" statements that go unquestioned in the conversations which cite the findings of the given model but i digress. According to economists, both approaches do increase supply, the theory goes that the price gouging retailer invests in more factory capacity. Or the factory owner buoyed by vibrant secondary market activity views increased production investment as a safe bet. Maybe there's some truth in the latter... > If you're concerned with wealth inequality I'm concerned with lazy financial engineering over hard work. Why should the scrappy but innovative startup be excluded from resources over the sclerotic incumbent with a deeper wallet?
  - zozbot234 11mo ago
    The bullwhip effect is the whole reason why retailers may want to hold greater product stock in the first place; to absorb transient demand fluctuations and not have to pass them on in full to the supplier. And a "scrappy but innovative" startup has an obvious interest in being able to source the DRAM or other goods they require, even at higher prices.
  - energy123 11mo ago
    > The act of eliminating surge pricing is not a price ceiling. If you force companies to price products lower than what they want, then you have a price ceiling by definition. > Neither approach increases supply. I didn't mention or allude to supply at all, although it's true that price ceilings also decrease supply (less so if there is monopoly or collusion, but they still do). I was talking about resource allocation. The person who needs a new system because their previous computer broke will be willing to pay the extra money, but the person who already has a DDR4 system with a 5950x that runs their games well enough will be content to hold off on their AM5 upgrade to DDR5 because the marginal improvement isn't worth the extra $400. If you have a price ceiling like what you proposed, the person with the DDR4 system may buy the DDR5 that they don't really need 1 day earlier than the person who actually needs the DDR5, creating a misallocation of resources. (that's an example of the more abstract principle at play). Theoretical arguments aren't even needed here. The empirical history of price ceilings is there for you to google. If you didn't know that what you were proposing is a price ceiling, and you thought that I was talking about supply instead of resource allocation, then I mean this with no offence intended but you should study elementary economics before forming confident opinions on the subject. Society is in a vulnerable point with cost of living pressure and we don't need more energy behind these harmful populist ideas.
zozbot234 11mo ago
> It's speculative price gouging ... if you monitor market trends, anticipate needs, and act quickly, such as buying RAM ahead of a known upcoming supply crunch, you're rewarded with access at the original price The word for "monitoring market trends, anticipating needs and acting quickly" is, well, speculation. Why should a retailer not be allowed to speculate and hold more product stock when they anticipate a future crunch? In fact, the whole reason prices have become so volatile right now is that this supply crunch was not properly anticipated. The reason why retailers are not "price fixing" is that price fixing involves setting an artificial ceiling on total production; retailers are not in a position to do this, and there is no evidence at all that DRAM makers are doing this either.
Aurornis 11mo ago
> First come first served is a better principle than "surge pricing" First come first serve must means enterprising individuals would buy as much as they could afford and then immediately relist it on Facebook Marketplace for the actual market rate. Thinking that retailers could keep RAM prices low and also keep it in stock for you is irrational.
- CraigJPerry 11mo ago
  >> Thinking that retailers could keep RAM prices low and also keep it in stock for you is irrational. Not a claim i made
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Aurornis 11mo ago
    If your goal isn’t to make cheap RAM available to you, then what even is your goal? Are you just angry that retailers are making a little extra temporary profit on their in-stock inventory? Is the goal to punish them for behaving rationally and understanding basic economics?
imtringued 11mo ago
This perspective is pretty silly. If you don't know the price you set it up for auction. The Ebay auction prices in German are in the $400 range for 2x16GB. The retailers aren't particularly expensive. Maybe $10 to $20 more. >I'd rather reward diligence and personal responsibility - if you monitor market trends, anticipate needs, and act quickly, such as buying RAM ahead of a known upcoming supply crunch, you're rewarded with access at the original price. Rather than passive reliance on wealth to solve problems. First come first served values effort and foresight. Scarcity is managed through time and effort rather than money. Are you really going to discount the effort made by the manufacturers to produce the product? You know, giving them money is the best way for them to produce more products. A lucrative DRAM market will also make it easier for new competitors to enter the market. Also, if everyone does what you suggest, then all that will happen is that the price will rise extremely rapidly before the actual supply crunch even happened. That sounds like what is currently happening.

franga2000 11mo ago

Is it better? As with all price gouging, better for those who can afford it, sure, but not for those who can't. The proper way to combat scalping is to implement fair allocation methods (for a start purchase quantity limits) and punish people for scalping. Look at how most places handled war-time gasoline shortages. Rationing coupons, purchase limits, demand leveling (like the odd-even system), price or profit controls, strict prosecution of scalpers and price gougers. And it's not like only the communists did this - even the US had most if not all of these things. And it worked far better than the shit that happened during the pandemic shortages. Governments used to know how to govern.

zozbot234 11mo ago
If you want to be "fair" for a necessity such as gasoline, you can have tradable rationing coupons. That way you are rewarded if you buy and use less gasoline, but the excess windfall due to the shortage is still transfered to you and away from the supplier. But even this assumes that gasoline is in fixed supply and there is no way of increasing its total production by paying more, which is not a very good assumption.
- franga2000 11mo ago
  In a time of shortage, throwing more money at the problem usually won't increase supply. A shortage necessarily means that if you make more of something, you're guaranteed to sell it basically instantly, so there's already an incentive to increase production. And it's not like the higher prices mean more money goes to the producers so they can invest in more production capacity. The price increase is spread out between every middleman in the chain untils there's almost nothing left. This could work only if the producers themselves are the ones raising prices, but then everyone else would still add their own cut, leading to even crazier price hikes, and also it's unlikely that extra profit would go to much more than lining the owners' pockets. Additionally, demand spikes usually don't last, so any new production capacity you build will be a liability later, after the market settles down.
  - kortilla 11mo ago

Sohcahtoa82 11mo ago

> It's just surge pricing to manage demand, not "price gouging". This carries the same energy as company leadership insisting that a RIF is not a layoff.

kortilla 11mo ago
Price gouging has a specific meaning. It’s when costs are raised rapidly only because people are desperate and have no other choice. (e.g. water after a disaster) Retailers raising prices in reaction to an incoming event that will take supply away from everyone is not that.