The "gouging" paradox.

It might be fair to the guy whose time is worth more than their money. They may not be able to travel around the exact day a beer is released. But they have no problem dropping $38 for Darkness a week later since a lot more people passed on it.

I find it interesting how some people get caught up in places "gouging" but they have no problem trading and re-trading beer. If I traded for a Darkness it would cost me $38 by the time you factor in shipping, packing material, etc. I know these two methods are not exact comparisons, but there are some similarities and I think some interesting insight into BAers' mentality.

 

In this case, the term doesn't have a meaningful definition outside of the legal context. Do you frequently use legal terms in non-conventional ways? One could try to argue that an action is "straight-up illegal, brah" because there's a strong social stigma attached to it, but unless there is, in fact, a law against such activity, then describing it as "illegal" is simply incorrect.

Your use of "price gouging" is similar here.

Those are all factors that a seller should weigh in pricing beer. Will I be able to sell all of my inventory in a timely fashion at this price? Will this price change the perception of the product, my establishment, or my business practices? Will this price cause an angry BA to accuse me of a crime by using poorly understood economic and legal terms of art on teh internetz?

I'm not arguing in favor of sellers who try to extract a large premium for rare beers. It may in fact be a bad business practice. But it's not "price gouging", regardless of how you use that term colloquially, and it has nothing to do with fairness.

 

I certainly agree with your statement regarding the precise legal definition of "price-gouging," and I agree that anyone suggesting that such a definition would apply to the sale of beer is incorrect.

However, I don't know that anyone was really using it in that sense, so I don't know that there is really anything misleading about the statements. Many words/phrases have precise legal definitions and colloquial interpretations as well. If you are submitting a motion to a court, you should probably stick with the precise legal meaning, but if you are having a conversation with friends (or conversations on beer forums), the colloquial interpretation should suffice.

I just tend to think that getting into semantics regarding these types of issues is unnecessary.

 

Given the thousands of different beers available in every style under the sun, it's tough to justify the "no alternative" argument. Granted, you may not get the bottle of BCS Rare you wanted, but odds are the store has plenty of alternative imperial stouts (some of which may have been barrel aged) for you to purchase.

 

I agree. So to those using the colloquial definition of "price gouging", what do you really mean?

Most attempts to define it colloquially conflate things like "fairness" and "morality" with economic terms, which is problematic. In a free-market, there is nothing fair or moral about pricing.

 

Then he should have cited his sources. Being incidentally right isn't the same thing, IMO.

Of course, now Jess, you've added a whole new level to the semantics of the argument. Good job.

 

Good find, but I'd like to think most of us know that's actually the definition of a monopoly, not price gouging.

The practices complained of in this thread are not monopolistic.

 

Yes, gouging on prices is a real practice. And I won't encourage it by paying the markups. Between trading, online orders from places that charge a fair price, and many breweries expanding production, I've gotten to try beers that I never thought I'd get a chance to try. And I didn't pay an outrageous price for them.

 

Ah, this is where the old nested threads were more useful. His reply was to me in reference to "luxury goods" and not price gouging.

 

I don't think I've read of anyone accusing anyone of illegal practices. I'm not sure where you got that. In fact, it's been stated by me and others that no one is referring to the strict legal definition.

I disagree. I won't go into it again, but reference my post on the brewer/consumer relationship.

 

I think you are completely missing his point. He is not saying anyone in this thread said these actions were illegal. He was using that term as an example. As you just stated there is nothing illegal going on, so using that term in context to this would be missing using the term "illegal". Similarly, you (and a lot of people) are miss using the term gouging. Gouging has a factual and legal definition, it is misused on this site a lot.

By people saying that stores are gouging, what they really mean is "they are charging more than I would like". They also might be charging more than what the brewer wants, but that is their choice. If the brewer does not want them to sell their beer anymore, that is the brewer's choice. No one is under any obligations here. You do not have to buy at any price. The store does not have to sell at any price. And the brewer does not have to sell the beer to the store (they do have to charge all places the same typically).

 

I have another perspective in terms of "gouging" If you are going to say these places are gouging on prices, can I not say that places that sell these beers at much lower prices are gouging on my time? These beers now sell out so quick I have to spend more of my time getting these beers.

There are two things you can spend, money and time. For different people these things hold different values. You may think a store is charging a lot, however someone else may think the price is great because they didn't have to spend much time to get it. With different pricing scales and the beer selling at different time intervals you are able to satisfy a wider range of people.

If something cost too much money for you, then you need to spend more time on obtaining it. If something takes too much time to obtain, you need to spend more money on it. And not always will you be satisfied with either cost.

 

I didn't miss the point at all. I'm capable of understanding someone's argument other than my own. You're right, I have no logic in my argument. I have no regard for the "real" and legal definitions. I haven't accepted that some will disagree with me. I clearly don't understand the real world, so let me just move along in my wonderland.

 

You seem to be conflating morality with economics. Except in very limited circumstances, those two principles don't have a lot to do with each other.

As for the brewer/ consumer relationship, there are two distinct contractual relationships there: brewer-retailer, and retailer-consumer. If the brewer has an interest in controlling the resale price of his beer, then he is fully within his rights to negotiate for that in his contract with the retailer (or distributor, or any other middlemen). If the brewer fails to do so, then the retailer is fully within his rights to negotiate any price he feels the beer can fetch among consumers. And even then, if the retailer pisses the brewer off, the brewer can simply stop doing business with him.

These are all voluntary arms-length transactions for which there are remedies at law if a contract is broken; retailers don't have a fiduciary relationship with the brewers whose products they're selling, nor do they owe consumers a price under some arbitrary % of markup.

Same goes for the retailer-consumer relationship. The retailer is fully within his rights (and must if his business is to survive) consider supply and demand when pricing his inventory. For rare beers (or any scarce commodity), demand is high relative to supply, and the price reflects it. If you balk at the price, you're free to simply not purchase it; indeed, that implies that, for instance, you value $35 more than 12 oz of PTY, so you shouldn't part with the money. Others will value that rare beer differently. If the retailer has misjudged the market-clearing price, he will be left with excess inventory (and perhaps some grumpy BAs), which will hurt his bottom line. No moral aspect to any of this.

You've yet to explain how a retailer charging X price for any product is "unfair" to you as a consumer.

 

But in many (if not most) states, the brewer must sell the product to a distributor, and the distributor then sells the product on to the store. So the brewer has relatively little control over the product after it leaves the brewery. This is what I was referring to above when I suggested that it is difficult to apply "free market capitalism" arguments to such a regulated industry.

 

I've bolded a couple of sentences you've made. Aren't the two in contradiction? If there's no other store within 40 miles, isn't there, by definition, either a supply issue or a demand issue? And if there's enough of a demand for $40 Bud, isn't that an incentive for someone else to open a store and sell (possibly) lots more Bud for $39? or heck, even $8 Bud?

What could be argued as unfair (and hopefully is illegal) is if the owner of this store twisted arms/bribed people to make sure he/she was the only one in town allowed to sell Bud.

 

very true. I feel the government is the one interfering with the natural balance of the market (pretty sad seeing how they are suppose to be helping capitalism but they tend to mess with it).

I do not have a problem with how much a store charges for a beer. If it cost more than I want to spend I pass on it. I have to be the one to judge how much my money, my time, and this beer is worth. I feel the stores charging high prices are catering to a necessary market, even if 95% of us are not in it, there obviously are others who utilize it, otherwise the bottles wouldn't sell.

 

The fair price is what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to.

 

This is what I have always maintained. A "fair price" to me is one at which I can obtain the goods (in this case beer) without dedicating exorbinant amounts of time to obtaining the good. Driving all over town to find a bottle of Bramble Rye is not a productive use of my (or anyone's) time. Price it at a price where it's on the shelf for a week instead of 2 hours and almost everyone wins. Yes, that leaves some people out, but so does charging $20 for it.

 

Seems you answered your own query, and accurately so. Apparently said "gouging" is unfair because it means a beer someone is entitled to costs more than they'd like to spend.

There's nothing unfair about pricing of luxury goods. Sure, there are instances where people get annoyed at luxury prices, but that's a far cry from anything being "unfair". And re-defining terms like "gouging" isn't going to change that.