This carries the same energy as company leadership insisting that a RIF is not a layoff.
Retailers raising prices in reaction to an incoming event that will take supply away from everyone is not that.
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.
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.
In reality, it is almost never a true binary of "afford" or "cannot afford" like critics of surge pricing make it out to be; people evaluate the price according to their circumstance and make a trade off. It is because of these decisions, the state of demand, that surge pricing is possible, not because of the machinations of evil price scalpers. That is why manufacturers couldn't lower prices even if they wanted to; gpu msrp being a great example of gpu vendors being caught between consumer ignorance about economics and the facts of reality that gpus are scarce enough to warrant higher prices.
Something like "GPUs are actually scarce" doesn't even make sense to say, since scarcity is more a function of demand than supply. The supply of GPUs wasn't exhausted because people suddenly needed more GPUs or because Taiwan couldn't produce as many of them as they used to, it was because a few rich bastards were buying into a bubble so they could make as much money a possible before it all comes crashing down. They didn't "need" those GPUs much more than even the scalpers. They were just a vehicle to make short-term profits at the expense of everyone else.
And yes, of course those willing to buy things are the ones enabling the peice gouging. But that's not a useful observation. You either need something, so you'll buy it even if it doesn't make financial sense, or it makes financial sense to buy it, so you will. Notice how scalpers also fall into that second category, along with the rich bastards draining the supply.
This is not true at all. It isn't left available to those who absolutely need it but to those who can pay for it. Those are two very different things.
It would have been better if people did raise prices during the pandemic for those things to prevent hoarding so I could actually wipe my ass at 2 cents a wipe instead of 1. But alas, the “price gouging” cry babies would have come out and lambasted them for “being greedy”.
Nope, governments were famously bad at this. Coffee rations and gas rations were a disaster.
(Edit: Replying here because of dumb rate limits)
>You guys are being unreasonable, we have plenty of toilet paper for everyone. Each person gets two rolls per week unless you can prove you need more until you calm the fuck down
And this is why it’s dumb. There actually was a supply shortage. You should read about it.
Toilet paper manufacturers made industrial scale toilet paper for offices, schools, public buildings, rest areas, etc.
1/3 of the entire toilet paper market for giant single ply rolls sold in bulk disappeared overnight. And that same demand flowed back into home multi-ply toilet paper that couldn’t be scaled up quickly because it came from a different mill.
Rations would have been completely stupid in reaction to a legitimate 50% increase in legitimate demand.
And no, doubling prices wouldn't have done anything. Hoarders would just hoard more because not only was supply low, but prices were increasing, so they better buy it now rather than later.
If governments actually governed, this wouldn't have been a problem. "You guys are being unreasonable, we have plenty of toilet paper for everyone. Each person gets two rolls per week unless you can prove you need more until you calm the fuck down. We're also putting the toilet paper factory into overdrive to compensate for this stupidity."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Not a claim i made
>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.
