The "gouging" paradox.

Sheesh, yeah I guess we're finished.

 

They do not have to be associated with affluence.

 

Your point was already made It seems we have different definitions.

 

You need to be affluent to be able to afford a $15 bottle of beer.

And even if you didn't, you don't need it to live or to live what anyone would consider a normal life. You can say "affluent" all you want, but you're utterly and obviously wrong, and that you're being ridiculously obstinately pigheaded about it doesn't change that.

 

In economic terms "luxury items" are pretty much anything you buy that is not essential to living everyday life, such as; cable TV, video games, movie tickets, etc. You do not need beer to survive or put a roof over your head, it something you spend your extra money on for entertainment and/or pleasure, ergo a luxury. In this context, "luxury" doesn't have to mean something like gold leaf encrusted Filet Migon. You're confusing the word, "luxury" with, "luxurious". While similar, they don't necessarily mean the same thing.

 

Just picking a post of yours to respond to about 'fair'. (I wish the replies would be lumped together like they used to be. Now it's hard-er to follow a conversation).
By itself, store X charging, say, $50 for a Bud is not unfair. I agree with that.
The question of fairness resides in the availability of competition, and a 'captured audience'--if you will. Let's say store X is the only store within 40 miles. The stores 41 miles away sell Bud for $4. Store X is using your disadvantage in distance to its advantage. It has nothing to do with supply, transport cost, or demand. Store X knows that driving 80 miles for beer is (to most people) out of the question. So it will (or it can) try to charge the most money that won't escape the distance threshold. That's unfair.

 

That is it. Sad but true. Dont like the price? dont buy it.

 

Whenever there is more demand for something than supply the price will inflate. That price doesn't necessarily have to be cash. If it wasn't a cash out of pocket increase at the consumer end, then it would be the cost of establishing a relationship with the persons selling the goods. Time, money, and dealing with any unpleasantness the person with control may have. The winner, the person who has taken the time and effort to establish the relationship. (This is how communist countries work for the elite.) If the people selling the goods must put it out on the floor for first come first serve as well, then the cost would be that of time to wait and ensure you were the first person in line. The winner, the person with the most free time. (This is how communist countries work for the poor.)

In both the non-cash cases there is still "price gouging" going on, it just takes a form other than straight money. The problem you may be having is that you only see cash out of pocket as a cost.

And if no beer is a luxury good, then a Bugatti is also not a luxury good. (And damn it, they keep price gouging.) Just because there is a common form of something doesn't mean there can't also be a luxury form.

 

It's there, it happens. This years DFH 120 was being sold for $20.99 at Shop Rite Liquors in Freehold, NJ. This past weekend I was in Massachusettes and Julios in Westborough was selling it for $10.99.

 

I don't know if I'd take it that far. While normally fair and unfair tend to be strict opposites, I think there is a distinction in this case. If you offer to sell me a beer for $10 and I'm willing to pay $10 I'll probably say "sure, I'll buy it. That's a fair price." Yet if you price it at $30, I might not say that it's fair price, but wouldn't call it unfair that you wanted to charge that much for it. "Unfair" implies some injustice is occurring.

edit: my response is not so much to your "don't buy it" comment, but to the "sad but true" aspect.

 

Take what that far?

I stated that prices are prices. If you dont like the price dont buy it. That is taking it "far"?

 

The person you responded to asked "is there no such thing as a fair price." you replied "that is it. Sad but true."

I'm saying I wouldn't say fair prices don't exist.

 

Ahhhh ok. Ya I was more replying to his second question.

I do believe fair prices exist. I also think a fair price can also be a matter of opinion. I mean I hate ebay. I dont believe most people who sell beer on there are looking for fair prices. Some might believe prices on ebay are fair though. Look at Black Note. Some are selling it on ebay for $150-$200. Some may believe that is a fair price for Black Note. They may think that paying $150 is better than traveling far to go to the Bell's release or fly to the release or even trade for the bottle.

 

I think using Utopias and Younger are a bit out of bounds. These are in case A a 29% beer that comes in its specially made vessel and gives you access to one bad ass glass for free w/purchase. Case B is a once a year specialty DONG or DONB. Its easier to gauge gouging if we talk about normal beers. Lets say in CA where a $10 bottle of Speedway was to go for $30-40. That I have seen before and that is even more of a slap in the face.

Cheers!

 

what definition?

 

I think it is a stretch to apply "free market capitalism" arguments to a heavily-regulated (specifically with respect to the "three-tiered" system) industry.

Regardless, what is the problem with someone complaining about "gouging" (or whatever word they choose to apply) at a particular store? Isn't part of a free-market system the ability of consumers to make an informed decision on whether they choose to make a purchase at a particular store? I agree with the "if you don't like the price, don't pay it" argument, but by outing stores that are selling a product at what one may percieve as an unfair price, customers may be able to make an informed decision on whether they will do business with that store. Focusing on whether the practice is "gouging" within various definitions of the term is really just playing with semantics.

 

Most of the tension in this thread has arisen from improper use of the term "price-gouging". Some people use it colloquially to describe the practice of a seller charging a higher price than one thinks is fair for goods or services. This definition is both imprecise and misleading (to which the bickering here can attest).

The precise legal definition of "price gouging" is a crime whereby a seller of essential goods or services sharply increases prices in anticipation of a civil emergency. The earlier cited example of a grocer jacking up the price on milk and bread before a hurricane is illustrative. Such laws are not constitutionally justified due to "fairness", but as a valid exercise of a state's police power to preserve order in times of emergency.

Beer is not an essential good, so states cannot justify regulating its price in the interest of maintaining order during civil emergencies. Without such extraordinary justification, most types of price regulation (including the type some in thread seem to be advocating) are unconstitutional in America.

Every beer has a market-clearing price. Selling significantly above or below said price is bad business for the seller, and his profit margin will bear the consequences. If a brewer feels it's in his best interest to control the price at which his beer is resold, he'll bear similar consequences. These are all voluntarily transactions, after all.

Fairness has nothing to do with it.

 

You don't get to make up your own definitions of words in order to 'win' an argument. You used the term incorrectly, and when you were corrected, you should have accepted as such and drawn the proper conclusions. In this case, beer is a non-essential good, so by definition it can't be subject to price gouging as laid out by whiskeyjack above.

 

Except we aren't in court. Would you use only the precise legal definition of Ale in Texas (as of a few months ago) while giving a lecture on the history of Ale? Legal definitions are often limited.

I'll fall back to my perception as reality argument. If you were a restaurant owner and were repeatedly told your restaurant had bad service, would you tell your clientele, "you just don't know what good service is"? Seems to me a lot of people view this practice as price gouging whether it fits the legal definition or not.

 

What if he used the The American Heritage® Dictionary of Business Terms' "price gouging" definition of "Taking advantage of a lack of competition and selling at an especially high price" or "The act of retailers increasing prices when no alternative is available" from http://www.businessdictionary.com/ ?