The "gouging" paradox.

Luxury goods are products and services that are not considered essential and are associated with affluence. First and foremost, by definition, beer is not a luxury good. BCS Rare might fit the definition but beer in general is definitely not a luxury good.

 

I just think of PTY. RR charges $4.50 for a 10oz pour. Then a local place here charges $12 a 10oz pour. I cannot imagine Vinnie would be too happy to hear this, maybe I'm wrong. But i know how mad he got at seeing PTY growlers on Ebay a few years ago for astronomical amounts. Yes i have had PTY at RR and no way in hell I'm going to pay $12 for a 10oz pour of beer.. Yes, I found it very unfair that another business charges almost triple the amout the actual brewer is charging

 

I'm definitely not talking about small differences. I am talking about paying, for example, $35 for a bottle of CBS, or as was specifically alluded to above, paying $38 for darkness. I don't think it is a particularly legitimate complaint to whine about either of these things. Yes, I wish prices were lower, but so does everyone who wants to buy something. I have no problem with eBay and I have no problem with what some call price gouging. If you can give me a good reason that charging a huge premium for a limited and highly sought after beer is morally reprehensible or in any way wrong, I would be happy to reconsider my opinion. I know it's a cliche, but if you don't like the price then you don't buy it.

 

I'd like to hear an opinion from a non Western capitalist viewpoint. It seems as though the only voices in support of 'price gouging' are speaking in terms of Classical Economics and Long Run Theory.

 

So what is it about BCS Rare, aside from MSRP, that makes it a luxury good but excludes CBS and Darkness etc. etc. These are all nonessential, world class, highly regarded, well crafted beers. Why in the world would beer be by definition not a luxury good? Would you consider an expensive bottle of wine or an expensive meal a luxury good? What makes the pinnacle of craft beer different from those things.

 

Beer, by definition, is not associated with affluence. I agree, though, that CBS and Darkness could be seen as luxury goods. That's a good point.

 

If I were Surly, I wouldn't want my consumer to pay $38 for a bottle of beer that they feel should cost $19. It's unfair to the brewer and it's unfair to the consumer. (it looks like Surly feels that way http://beerpulse.com/2011/11/surly-brewing-releases-statement-on-darkness-pricing-and-availability/) And some of that I alluded to when talking about perception.

I think most, but not all, brewers these days have a philosophy similar to something IceAce posted earlier in this thread. A good product at a fair price. If retailers (or ebayers) are ignoring this philosophy and charging much higher than what the brewer requests, I do find that morally and ethically questionable.

And you're right, one doesn't have to pay that price. When I find a store that does choose to price beer that way, I question its business ethics. Edit: And I choose not to pay those prices.

 

Beer is not an essential item, it's not something you need to buy, it's something you choose to buy, if you see a price you don't like you can choose not to pay it.

Now perhaps you can answer my question, you stated that a retailer charging triple the MSRP is "completely unfair", so how is this completely unfair to you exactly?

 

"...and are associated with affluence."
I'm far from convinced that beer is a luxury good.

 

Careful Mr. 42, someone might construe that comment as you advocating the high prices!

Gough on my good man!

 

Can you answer my question?

 

Your question is only relevant if beer is considered a luxury good.

 

Uh, hello, YOU'RE the one who said it.

Here is a direct quote from YOUR post above:

"How is tripling the MSRP fair for anyone involved? It's completely unfair."

YOU said that it is completely unfair for a retailer to charge triple the MSRP, now I want you to explain YOUR statement, how is it unfair exactly?

 

Easy now. By your reasoning, they can charge whatever they want only if beer is considered a luxury good:
"Is there no such thing as a 'fair price' in any market? Prices are prices and that's it?"
"For luxury goods no, there is no such thing as a 'fair' price."

 

In economics, a luxury good is defined as an item for which people devote an increasing percentage of their income to as their income rises. It doesn't need to be associated with affluence, even if it often is.

 

You said that it is completely unfair for a retailer to charge triple the MSRP, can you explain what is unfair about this or can you not? It seems that you cannot, hence you have no point to make here.

 

I argue that beer is not at all a luxury good. Because it is not a luxury, by your definition, this kind of 'price gouging' is unfair. Again, your question is only relevant if beer is a luxury.

 

You made a statement, I'm asking you to explain your statement, clearly you cannot and therefore my point stands, there's nothing unfair about a retailer charging triple MSRP. You may not like it, but you don't have to pay it, and it's not unfair. If you can explain to me how it is unfair then perhaps we can discuss this further, if not then we're finished here.

 

How is beer not a luxury good? Do you need it to live? Do you need it to maintain a reasonable quality of life? You don't. Beer is a luxury, and arguing otherwise is absolutely idiotic.

Actually, I don't believe it will. The Firestone Anniversary beers, in my experience, don't hold up well for more than a year or two. Others might disagree, but that is absolutely not a universal truth.

 

Sharp words. A civil conversation would be nice but it seems as though that's out of the question.

Luxury goods are associated with affluence - I don't feel that beer in general is associated with affluence.