4 ms·

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 p

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
    - CraigJPerry 10mo ago
      >> you have a price ceiling by definition Price ceiling definition: a government-imposed legal maximum price My original comment: First come first served is a better <snipped for brevity> This is not a legal maximum price, this is a legal maximum in the derivative of price. > I didn't mention or allude to supply at all >> get what I need with 100% chance than get what I need cheaply with 5% chance How do you square these two statements? One claims 100% supply certainty when no such thing exists in this context. Without making certain assumptions (unstated, but ludicrous, assumptions are rife in economics discourse), you can't state much of value about which buyer will get the goods in the surge pricing model, you especially cannot say that the buyer with the larger wallet will always win. Think for a second what assumptions you've made to this point in the conversation - you're still down the rabbit hole of price ceilings in the comment chain thus far. >> The empirical history of price ceilings is there Not disputed but as per your call out of definition above, not relevant. To make the point further - the name for a limit on rate of change of price is not a price ceiling, anymore than the 0-60 time of a car is its top speed limit. >> you thought that I was talking about supply instead of resource allocation My challenge to you is to name the assumptions you've identified in your reasoning around resource allocation. I'm confident i can point out the deficiencies in your model because that is the nature of models. >> you should study elementary economics That's a great idea, a really good follow on from that is to identify logical fallacies you discover i. that process, especially those so accepted that it's not a stretch to say they are underpinning the discipline. A good example of that would be the conjectural origin theory of money but i digress.
zozbot234 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Aurornis 10mo 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 10mo 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.

energy123 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
  - CraigJPerry 10mo ago
    >> you have a price ceiling by definition Price ceiling definition: a government-imposed legal maximum price My original comment: First come first served is a better <snipped for brevity> This is not a legal maximum price, this is a legal maximum in the derivative of price. > I didn't mention or allude to supply at all >> get what I need with 100% chance than get what I need cheaply with 5% chance How do you square these two statements? One claims 100% supply certainty when no such thing exists in this context. Without making certain assumptions (unstated, but ludicrous, assumptions are rife in economics discourse), you can't state much of value about which buyer will get the goods in the surge pricing model, you especially cannot say that the buyer with the larger wallet will always win. Think for a second what assumptions you've made to this point in the conversation - you're still down the rabbit hole of price ceilings in the comment chain thus far. >> The empirical history of price ceilings is there Not disputed but as per your call out of definition above, not relevant. To make the point further - the name for a limit on rate of change of price is not a price ceiling, anymore than the 0-60 time of a car is its top speed limit. >> you thought that I was talking about supply instead of resource allocation My challenge to you is to name the assumptions you've identified in your reasoning around resource allocation. I'm confident i can point out the deficiencies in your model because that is the nature of models. >> you should study elementary economics That's a great idea, a really good follow on from that is to identify logical fallacies you discover i. that process, especially those so accepted that it's not a stretch to say they are underpinning the discipline. A good example of that would be the conjectural origin theory of money but i digress.

zozbot234 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- Aurornis 10mo 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 10mo 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.