They finally got what they deserve

[MartyZ 686]

Cheaper Than Dirt, that is. Texas AG just ordered CTD to refund it's customers over $400k for price gauging during the pandemic. We have all known CTD for being price gaugers for a long time. Looks like they finally got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Karma is a bitch!!!

 

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2020/12/16/gun-website-price-gouging-pandemic/3932523001/

 

[EdF 318]

So . . . Do we like regulation when is helps us and only condemn it when it hurts us?

It's shouldn't be up to the Texas AG to interfere in private transactions between citizens and legal businesses.  It isn't "gouging" if the two parties agree on a price.  Prices are set by supply and demand and shouldn't be held in place by those in the state house, congress or the White House. 

[RUTGERS95 875]

meh, unless it's essentials, gov't shouldn't do this as the mkt corrects itself.  If you are upset at their prices, shop elsewhere is what I say

[MartyZ 686]

As per the article, ammo is essential in the eyes of the Texas AG. And i'm not asking the government to step in to set prices. What I am saying is that CTD finally got what they deserve for years upon years of price gauging. I have not bought a single item from them since 2007 and never will again. The point is, they race prices on ammo, and other accessories, everytime there is a shortage. And they don't raise the prices by a little, they raises them by 300% or 400%.

So in the eyes of Texas, what a wonderful state, ammo falls into the same category as food, water, and medicine.

[Nu2gunz 22]

6 minutes ago, EdF said:

So . . . Do we like regulation when is helps us and only condemn it when it hurts us?

It's shouldn't be up to the Texas AG to interfere in private transactions between citizens and legal businesses.  It isn't "gouging" if the two parties agree on a price.  Prices are set by supply and demand and shouldn't be held in place by those in the state house, congress or the White House. 

Except state law prohibits price gauging during a time of "emergency". I posted a link to the statute in another thread. 

[RUTGERS95 875]

1 minute ago, MartyZ said:

As per the article, ammo is essential in the eyes of the Texas AG. And i'm not asking the government to step in to set prices. What I am saying is that CTD finally got what they deserve for years upon years of price gauging. I have not bought a single item from them since 2007 and never will again. The point is, they race prices on ammo, and other accessories, everytime there is a shortage. And they don't raise the prices by a little, they raises them by 300% or 400%.

So in the eyes of Texas, what a wonderful state, ammo falls into the same category as food, water, and medicine.

well if ammo is essential in Texas then giddy up!

[Nu2gunz 22]

7 minutes ago, RUTGERS95 said:

meh, unless it's essentials, gov't shouldn't do this as the mkt corrects itself.  If you are upset at their prices, shop elsewhere is what I say

In TX it is considered essential and there are state laws prohibiting gauging in time of "emergency". And also, there is a trickle down effect. 

[vladtepes 1,060]

eh.. I just want the government to leave me and everyone else alone.. I dont want them to "help me" LOL 

[EdF 318]

Just now, Nu2gunz said:

Except state law prohibits price gauging during a time of "emergency". I posted a link to the statute in another thread. 

That's the point . . . I don't give a crap what the law says.  That's not the point.
The law here in NJ says that we can't open carry and we can't get carry permits.  Are you going to post a link to story of someone getting busted on one of those charges and say, "They got what they deserved . . . "

It's a matter of standing up for what's right.

Let's say that CTD didn't raise their prices and a few fine Texas citizens swooped in and bought up all of the .223 ammo so that none was available for anyone else.  Is that OK?  By raising prices, CTD actually ensured that MORE customers would be able to get ammo rather than fewer.  

So, the law doesn't make sense from any point of view.

[Nu2gunz 22]

3 minutes ago, EdF said:

That's the point . . . I don't give a crap what the law says.  That's not the point.
The law here in NJ says that we can't open carry and we can't get carry permits.  Are you going to post a link to story of someone getting busted on one of those charges and say, "They got what they deserved . . . "

It's a matter of standing up for what's right.

Let's say that CTD didn't raise their prices and a few fine Texas citizens swooped in and bought up all of the .223 ammo so that none was available for anyone else.  Is that OK?  By raising prices, CTD actually ensured that MORE customers would be able to get ammo rather than fewer.  

So, the law doesn't make sense from any point of view.

I don't agree with the Laws here in NJ, but as a civilized society, we agree to adhere to the Laws where we agree to live. If you knowingly and willingly break the Law, you shouldn't get busted? Is that what you're saying? You can certainly argue the 2nd Amendment in court, but you will likely lose. 

This isn't about just ammo in TX. If you went into a 7-11 in TX and Milk was suddenly $20 a gallon, would you be okay with that? Food, Drink and Ammo are considered "essential" in TX. Rightfully so. Do you want Government protection from price gauging on anything or nothing?

[MartyZ 686]

9 minutes ago, EdF said:

That's the point . . . I don't give a crap what the law says.  That's not the point.
The law here in NJ says that we can't open carry and we can't get carry permits.  Are you going to post a link to story of someone getting busted on one of those charges and say, "They got what they deserved . . . "

It's a matter of standing up for what's right.

Let's say that CTD didn't raise their prices and a few fine Texas citizens swooped in and bought up all of the .223 ammo so that none was available for anyone else.  Is that OK?  By raising prices, CTD actually ensured that MORE customers would be able to get ammo rather than fewer.  

So, the law doesn't make sense from any point of view.

Yes, I would rather someone buy out all the ammo, or they could have limited how much each customer could buy. OR they could have raised the price by small percentage, but 400% is way over the line.

Would you say the same if your local shoprite raised the price of a gallon of milk to $20?

[Dave Archibald 303]

I haven't bought from them for 16 years or so. You don't like their price, buy elsewhere!

[EdF 318]

The article linked doesn't say anything about raising prices 400%.  You haven't bought anything there since 2007.  That's your choice.  It's everybody's choice.  But, it seems to taint your opinion.

Here's how you tell if someone is charging too much:  Did the item sell?  If it didn't, they are clearly charging too much.  If it did, the argument can be made that they could have gotten more.  If they raised prices 200% and someone paid for the item there's nothing wrong with the transaction.  The buyer wanted the product more than they wanted the money and the seller wanted the money more than they wanted to sit on the product.  If it were really gouging, the buyers would go elsewhere and the product would sit on the shelf.

If Wawa was selling mild for $20/gallon, the 7-11 down the street would sell it for $17, ShotRite would have it for $15 and so on.  Cheaper Then Dirt was NEVER the only choice for guns or ammo.  

This is pretty basic economics.

In a civilized society, the laws are not all created equally.  I said that the AG of Texas has no business setting the prices for ammo.  Or milk or bread or anything else.  This is exactly the same a saying that the AG of NJ has any business telling where I can and can't take my guns as long as I don't do anything illegal with those guns.  

If you don't understand the need and the RIGHT to fight back against improper laws, you haven't spent enough time studying the founding of the country in which you live.

Now . . . Cheaper Than Dirt was busted for raising prices in a crises.  The "needs" listed in the law are arbitrary.  The definition of crisis in the law is arbitrary. Did they get what they deserve?  Only if the law is proper.  If the law is improper, as in this case, what they deserve is to win on appeal and overturn the law.

 

[EdF 318]

"As per the article, ammo is essential in the eyes of the Texas AG."

If ammo is essential, the government of Texas should be supplying ammo to those who can't afford it. 

[MartyZ 686]

I haven't bought anything from CTD since 2007 but everytime I did a google search for specific ammo their site came up in the search results. That's how I know they hiked their prices 400%. Price gauging for essentials during an emergency is illegal in every state, the only difference is what each state considers as essential. In this case, the price is just. If they were price gauging unnecessary accessories I would agree with you. But price gauging ammo or any part of a firearm that is required for it to function should be illegal in every state.

And keep in mind, anti price gauging laws are not price setting laws. Price gauging means significantly raising prices due to shortages. The Texas AG never said they are only allowed to charge a set amount.

[Nu2gunz 22]

6 minutes ago, EdF said:

In a civilized society, the laws are not all created equally.  I said that the AG of Texas has no business setting the prices for ammo.  Or milk or bread or anything else.  This is exactly the same a saying that the AG of NJ has any business telling where I can and can't take my guns as long as I don't do anything illegal with those guns.  

In general, I agree with what you said. However, the law is specific to times of "emergency". And on that, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

6 minutes ago, EdF said:

"As per the article, ammo is essential in the eyes of the Texas AG."

If ammo is essential, the government of Texas should be supplying ammo to those who can't afford it. 

So the Government should give people food if they can't afford it? Who is going to pay to feed all these people? I'm not sure I follow your logic. 

[EdF 318]

The very fact that you put the word emergency in quotes shows that it is defined arbitrarily.  As I have already noted, rising prices in times of shortage ensure that a product remains a readily available to the most people for the longest time.  

 

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

1 hour ago, EdF said:

So . . . Do we like regulation when is helps us and only condemn it when it hurts us?

It's shouldn't be up to the Texas AG to interfere in private transactions between citizens and legal businesses.  It isn't "gouging" if the two parties agree on a price.  Prices are set by supply and demand and shouldn't be held in place by those in the state house, congress or the White House. 

^^^^^    this

[EdF 318]

"So the Government should give people food if they can't afford it? Who is going to pay to feed all these people? I'm not sure I follow your logic."

Where have you been?  The government DOES give people food . . . Not just people who can't afford it in fact!  

You live right here in Cherry Hill where there was a stink last year because the schools were going to give tuna fish sandwiches to the kids of parents who didn't pay their lunch bills.

[Nu2gunz 22]

Just now, EdF said:

"So the Government should give people food if they can't afford it? Who is going to pay to feed all these people? I'm not sure I follow your logic."

Where have you been?  The government DOES give people food . . . Not just people who can't afford it in fact!  

You live right here in Cherry Hill where there was a stink last year because the schools were going to give tuna fish sandwiches to the kids of parents who didn't pay their lunch bills.

I think you misunderstood me. I know what the Government does do. My question is, in your opinion, SHOULD they. Because it isn't the Government giving people anything. It's US. The taxpayer. 

6 minutes ago, EdF said:

The very fact that you put the word emergency in quotes shows that it is defined arbitrarily.  As I have already noted, rising prices in times of shortage ensure that a product remains a readily available to the most people for the longest time.  

 

It's not arbitrary at all. It is stated as such by the state officials. It has to be declared. How is that arbitrary?

[124gr9mm 757]

7 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

I haven't bought anything from CTD since 2007 but everytime I did a google search for specific ammo their site came up in the search results. That's how I know they hiked their prices 400%. Price gauging for essentials during an emergency is illegal in every state, the only difference is what each state considers as essential. In this case, the price is just. If they were price gauging unnecessary accessories I would agree with you. But price gauging ammo or any part of a firearm that is required for it to function should be illegal in every state.

And keep in mind, anti price gauging laws are not price setting laws. Price gauging means significantly raising prices due to shortages. The Texas AG never said they are only allowed to charge a set amount.

So where's the line and who determines where the line is and when it goes into effect?

Is it 100%, 200%, 300%?

If you go online right now there are dozens of retailers selling at exponential increases over pre-COVID prices, so why is CTD treated differently.  They're pricing at the top of the (current) market, but they don't control it.

[Nu2gunz 22]

7 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

^^^^^    this

Raising the price 400% means only a very select population would be able to afford that price. And since it's deemed "essential" are you okay with that? If only the top 5% could afford milk because the price is inflated, would that be cool with you?

Just now, 124gr9mm said:

So where's the line and who determines where the line is and when it goes into effect?

Is it 100%, 200%, 300%?

If you go online right now there are dozens of retailers selling at exponential increases over pre-COVID prices, so why is CTD treated differently.  They're pricing at the top of the (current) market, but they don't control it.

Because they chose to do business out of TX where doing that is illegal. They should move to a different state if they are unhappy with the Laws in their state. Isn't that what we are told about the gun laws in NJ? Move out!

[EdF 318]

Take the example as given and don't slide off into another subject.  It doesn't matter if the government SHOULD feed people.  They DO feed people . . . because food is a necessity.  If they give people food because it's a necessity and they consider ammo a necessity, they would be giving ammo to those who can't afford ammo.  They do not, therefore they don't really consider ammo a necessity.  

They added ammo to the list to get votes.  They LOOK like they are supporting the Second Amendment but they are doing nothing of the sort.  They are supporting a larger, more intrusive government.  

If it's illegal to CHARGE more during an "emergency" shouldn't it also be illegal to PAY more?  If the transaction is illegal . . . Shouldn't BOTH parties be libel?

[EdF 318]

6 minutes ago, Nu2gunz said:

They should move to a different state if they are unhappy with the Laws in their state. Isn't that what we are told about the gun laws in NJ?

They are told no such thing by me . . . I'm all for making this a fight.  Moving helps no one when the national laws are about to be changed.

[Nu2gunz 22]

3 minutes ago, EdF said:

If it's illegal to CHARGE more during an "emergency" shouldn't it also be illegal to PAY more?  If the transaction is illegal . . . Shouldn't BOTH parties be libel?

LOL, you just did what you asked me not to do. Take the example as it is and not slide into another topic. So let's keep on track!

2 minutes ago, EdF said:

They are told no such thing by me . . . I'm all for making this a fight.  Moving helps no one when the national laws are about to be changed.

I am told this every time I complain about the gun laws in NJ out there in the non-internet world. 

[MartyZ 686]

Oh, and you all seem have have glared over the part about CTD showing one price on their site but then increasing it at time of checkout. So those people that didn't pay close attention when checking out got screwed even more. Should CTD be allowed to do that also, is that how the market works? 

[EdF 318]

2 minutes ago, Nu2gunz said:

LOL, you just did what you asked me not to do. Take the example as it is and not slide into another topic. So let's keep on track!

I am told this every time I complain about the gun laws in NJ out there in the non-internet world. 

No . . . I'm still talking about the same transactions that started this thread.  You were moving over to a "if you don't like it, move" discussion.  

I don't really care what other people tell you.  There are few people who actually understand what their rights are, what is being done to crush those rights or what may be required to retain or recover those rights.  The blissfully ignorant rarely provide good or sound advice.

 

[EdF 318]

8 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

Oh, and you all seem have have glared over the part about CTD showing one price on their site but then increasing it at time of checkout. So those people that didn't pay close attention when checking out got screwed even more. Should CTD be allowed to do that also, is that how the market works? 

Actually I didn't.  That's a software issue.  Storefront software either sets the price when the product is added to the cart or when the cart is processed.  Cheaper Than Dirt didn't write their own software and this "problem" would occur if the price change was 1% or 400%.  It also very likely did not have very many "victims" . . . Only those with items in their cart when the price change was made would be affected at all and I seriously doubt that CTD was even really aware that it would be happening.

By the way . . . You didn't bother to mention it in your opener either.

Edited December 18, 2020 by EdF
Addition information added

[MartyZ 686]

Just now, EdF said:

Actually I didn't.  That's a software issue.  Storefront software either sets the price when the product is added to the cart or when the cart is processed.  Cheaper Than Dirt didn't write their own software and this "problem" would occur if the price change was 1% or 400%.  It also very likely did not have very many "victims" . . . Only those with items in their cart when the price change was made would be affected at all and I seriously doubt that CTD was even really aware that it would be happening.

Do you have stock in CTD? You are making excuses for them without knowing exactly what happened? The article SPECIFICALLY stated that they were manually increasing prices. Not a software issue.

[EdF 318]

Just now, MartyZ said:

Do you have stock in CTD? You are making excuses for them without knowing exactly what happened? The article SPECIFICALLY stated that they were manually increasing prices. Not a software issue.

Where the hell do you think that they were changing price?  Paper tags on the boxes?  They were doing it in the god damned storefront software exactly like I was talking about in my post.

No, I don't own software in the company.  I don't even give a shit about the company.  My complaint here from the very beginning has been about the Texas AG and freakin' Texas law.

What the f got the bug up your ass about Cheaper Than Dirt?  Did some talk mean to you on the phone?  You haven't bought from them in 13 f'ing years.  Why are you so invested?