It's just surge pricing to manage demand, not "price gouging". Being able to buy RAM at high prices is a lot better than being unable to source it at all because everyone else is panic-hoarding.
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.
This is patently false. Every oil reserve around the world has a cost per barrel of extraction. At $60/barrel many of them are shut down.
If you fix the price at $60 and demand goes up, you’ll end up with shortages and producers won’t be able to fill the gap.
It is very rare to have a market of physical goods where the cost of production is fixed and supply is effectively limited. For every other market, the price needs to go up to entice investing in making more supply.
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.
Putting this in view to the idea that people don't "afford" things equally: by your assumption, this implies people can indeed "afford" other non-ram things better when it comes to the more important alternatives they could buy with the ram-equivalent funds. Not only do ram-equivalent funds compete with alternate uses, but ram as a factor of production competes with other factors of production. And all factors of production compete, by way of the so-called rich bastards, for your and my dollars. In other words, if ram is more expensive, it is to support alternate uses of ram whose products are valued more highly by consumers than the direct use of ram. And, most importantly if one were to try to get around this higher resulting price for ram, it would cause higher prices for the products of those alternate uses of ram. People would be less able to get the thing they value more highly than ram because ram competes with all our needs, and less ram can be used for its indirect use.
All of that is to say that efforts to combat so-called price gouging bounds those who can less afford ram to be in a worse spot than otherwise. They can't afford ram as before, that much is true. But they prefer the alternatives to ram. If they would be better off by having ram, they would purchase that. Waving a magic wand to redistribute ram to them will give them ram, but now they lose what they valued more highly than ram.
The money OpenAI is using to starve the rest of us of RAM is coming from pumped up valuation through circular investments, investor FOMO, cheap debt and often straight up gambling. Rich bastards know that they can pump money into the bubble to grow it and hopefully cash out before it bursts. Nowhere in that process did any regular person value AI datacenters over other uses of RAM.
This is incorrect. Anything that is bound by something like TSMC production is only made scarce when nvidia realizes they could sell out the entire run at $1000/card or whatever.
They were supply limited for years during the crypto boom. The way you know it was a supply problem is that you couldn’t even buy new cards because they were so frequently sold out.
Nvidia cards became really valuable overnight in the same way as any other asset. You trying to scream at “rich bastard” buyers will not change the fact that there is a shortage of cards so the price is going to go up across all sellers until the supply and demand curves intersect.
This is basic econ in action and history is fraught with attempts to try to fix supply shortages by capping the price.
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.
These two exchanges are not disconnected either: phone prices are affected by revenues of companies which use ram for production. And those revenues are determined by purchases of phones. The person demonstrates through their choice that the use of ram for an indirect purpose of making phones (however indirectly that might effect it) is more valuable to them than the direct use in their computer. The person is not excluded from "having" the ram in the most general sense: they have it indirectly because they benefit from its use in production whose products they value more than the direct use of ram. The person, along with all other consumers, participates in organizing production in the manner that best benefits them, according to their needs, which may not necessarily involve them directly owning the thing.
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?
And a "scrappy but innovative" startup has an obvious interest in being able to source the DRAM or other goods they require, even at higher prices.
If you force companies to price products lower than what they want, then you have a price ceiling by definition.
> Neither approach increases supply.
I didn't mention or allude to supply at all, although it's true that price ceilings also decrease supply (less so if there is monopoly or collusion, but they still do).
I was talking about resource allocation. The person who needs a new system because their previous computer broke will be willing to pay the extra money, but the person who already has a DDR4 system with a 5950x that runs their games well enough will be content to hold off on their AM5 upgrade to DDR5 because the marginal improvement isn't worth the extra $400.
If you have a price ceiling like what you proposed, the person with the DDR4 system may buy the DDR5 that they don't really need 1 day earlier than the person who actually needs the DDR5, creating a misallocation of resources.
(that's an example of the more abstract principle at play).
Theoretical arguments aren't even needed here. The empirical history of price ceilings is there for you to google.
If you didn't know that what you were proposing is a price ceiling, and you thought that I was talking about supply instead of resource allocation, then I mean this with no offence intended but you should study elementary economics before forming confident opinions on the subject. Society is in a vulnerable point with cost of living pressure and we don't need more energy behind these harmful populist ideas.
Price ceiling definition: a government-imposed legal maximum price
My original comment: First come first served is a better <snipped for brevity>
This is not a legal maximum price, this is a legal maximum in the derivative of price.
> I didn't mention or allude to supply at all
>> get what I need with 100% chance than get what I need cheaply with 5% chance
How do you square these two statements? One claims 100% supply certainty when no such thing exists in this context. Without making certain assumptions (unstated, but ludicrous, assumptions are rife in economics discourse), you can't state much of value about which buyer will get the goods in the surge pricing model, you especially cannot say that the buyer with the larger wallet will always win. Think for a second what assumptions you've made to this point in the conversation - you're still down the rabbit hole of price ceilings in the comment chain thus far.
>> The empirical history of price ceilings is there
Not disputed but as per your call out of definition above, not relevant.
To make the point further - the name for a limit on rate of change of price is not a price ceiling, anymore than the 0-60 time of a car is its top speed limit.
>> you thought that I was talking about supply instead of resource allocation
My challenge to you is to name the assumptions you've identified in your reasoning around resource allocation. I'm confident i can point out the deficiencies in your model because that is the nature of models.
>> you should study elementary economics
That's a great idea, a really good follow on from that is to identify logical fallacies you discover i. that process, especially those so accepted that it's not a stretch to say they are underpinning the discipline. A good example of that would be the conjectural origin theory of money but i digress.
Retailers are first come first serve. The first customer to buy product gets the next unit of inventory.
If you’re trying to argue that retailers need to be forced to set a retail price for each unit of in-stock inventory and then be forced to sell each unit at that price later no matter what the market rate does in the mean time, that’s an awful idea.
I’m sure you don’t mind when retailers decide to give discounts or put things on sale, do you? If the market price drops, they reduce selling price. Same thing when market rate goes up.
Forcing retailers to price things how you want doesn’t change supply and demand. It would only force retailers to add extra margin into their prices to account for the added risk of the government forcing their hand in sale prices.
What is it then? If you allow the price to increase, there is no need to enforce a different rationing mechanism. The only reason to think of implementing the alternate rationing mechanism is if the good isn't being rationed. If you insist on the previous, lower price, then that is a price ceiling in so many words, with the consequence of needing your rationing mechanism. If you allow a higher price, then your alternate mechanism is unnecessary.
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
Are you just angry that retailers are making a little extra temporary profit on their in-stock inventory? Is the goal to punish them for behaving rationally and understanding basic economics?
>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.