'Cyber Grinches' Snatching Toys Should Be Stopped, Lawmakers Say (bloomberg.com) 89
Lawmakers including Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chuck Schumer introduced a bill to crack down on "cyber Grinches" using bots to quickly snap up entire inventories of popular holiday toys and resell them at higher prices. Bloomberg reports: "This bill seeks to stop Cyber Grinch greed from ruining kids' holidays," Blumenthal says in a statement. "New tools are needed to block cyber scammers who snap up supplies of popular toys and resell them at astronomic prices. Price gouging hot toys by Grinch bots should have zero tolerance." The legislation, also introduced in the House of Representatives, would apply to e-commerce sites to ban bots from bypassing security measures on online retail portals. However, with Congress facing urgent deadlines to avoid a federal government shutdown and a debt limit default, it's unclear the bill will move in time to save Christmas.
Nothing to see here... (Score:2, Insightful)
I love the smell of capitalism in the morning...
Re: (Score:2)
Proper capitalism would have the stores selling at market value to begin with, not at an artificial price that can be raised by third-parties since it is below what the market can bear.
Re: (Score:2)
When there's artificial scarcity of this sort, demand goes up as the price goes up. The usual "what the market can bear" doesn't apply in such cases.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the cyber grinches are rent seeking. That is, creating an artificial scarcity and reaping profits based on that scarcity. No economist has ever thought that was good for an economy. Put another way, the rent-seekers are not doing anything productive and so their profits are not deserved.
As for the rest, in theory, competition in a healthy market should be forcing the price DOWN towards the marginal cost of production. Either the market is nothing like healthy or the cornerstone theories of economics are just plain wrong, take your pick. Personally I lean towards the unhealthy market theory.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be a matter of a well functioning market, not a property of capitalism.
It's like blaming your car's engine because you can't switch gears.
Re: Nothing to see here... (Score:2)
Indeed. If we couldn't charge whatever we wanted for health care, water, food and housing, we would have anarchy!
Finally something who sees Martin Shkreli as the hero he is! /s
New law, You will not be an a-hole! (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, tough crowd.
Repost... (Score:5, Informative)
The original story is still on the front page for fucks sake.
Re: (Score:1)
Making capitalism illegal in the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Buy low and sell high is literally the basist of the entire economy. If you guys think a playstation shortage is bad wait until I tell you about insulin prices.
I'd like to see Buy Low and Sell High play base guitar for The Entire Economy, but I hear their concerts are still delayed into 2022.
Also - more seriously - the economy is actually based on each entity who touches a product adding something at their stage. Things go from raw materials to packaged goods and each participant adds markup but also adds to the end result. Even stores which don't transform the product do add something, in the form of convenience of hands-on comparison between products. Scalp
Re: (Score:3)
Scalpers add nothing except markup and inconvenience and potential to be scammed.
Not quite. If this method works (buying X playstations at retail price, then selling them for more on ebay) it simply means that the retail price is artificially low (lower than what the market is willing to pay). The reason this phenomena exists is simple - supply is lower than demand. Some people are willing to pay a higher than standard price to get it. And these "scalpers" are profiting by redistributing the goods towards where the price is high. Which is a "service" for those who are willing to pay mor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling low can have more profits, if you can sell more of them. I see this in online MMO games a lot; one person buys at a huge price then suddenly everyone is selling at a huge price but there are no more buyers, until you undercut them (and then they whine that this artificially broken economy isnt working).
Also the supply is being artificially decreased by buying up all the stock, and demand is being increased by selling these back very slowly. That's a common tactic on ebay and some other places - arr
Re: (Score:3)
Except that, under certain conditions, there's an inversion of the usual marketplace logic. There are situations in which, as price goes up, demand goes up, due to the perception of desirability. The value of things like diamonds, stocks/shares, bitcoin, etc is almost entirely based on this particular phenomenon. It looks like the scalpers are utilizing this property to inflate the cost well above what the market would normally bear.
Re:Making capitalism illegal in the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
The supply is low BECAUSE of the scalpers snapping up the product and sitting on it.
I sincerely hope at least some of the producers manage to vastly overproduce and leave the scalpers drowning in red ink.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Buy low and sell high is literally the basist of the entire economy.
Usually, middlemen add value in some way: select the good stuff from the bad, transport it to a place closer to you, do some kind(s) of processing that end users prefer to have done for them, re-package from bulk into smaller consumer packaging, etc, etc.
These guys add nothing & are just leeches.
The obvious way would be to just ignore these guys & not buy from them. But that doesn't work if they have significant part of the stock of a scarce item, buyers have limited options but money to piss a
Re: (Score:3)
Well one compare this to the energy markets as well.
Both in the case of electricity and gas, speculators buy up all the supply days before the need. I'm not sure how this helps the consumer, but it surely makes gas prices higher in times of "economic prosperity" and cheaper when the market is tanking. Even if the number of cars hasn't changed that much.
So if they are going to allow scalping with petroleum and electricity, then why not toys?
(I'd prefer both to be limited from abuse)
Re:Making capitalism illegal in the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of is the same thing in a lot of ways then OPEC decides to limit their output. Historically, nothing really got the Republicans and Democrats talking together faster than an oil embargo. And that's what is happening here; a lot of one product is bought up quickly but then sold back slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious way is the right way here. People don't "need" PS5s or xboxes. In fact, stores/Microsoft/Sony should just charge more for them until there is more stock. The "problem" right now is stock is limited but prices are artificially limited as well, so there's room for people to do this shit.
If this was a problem that could harm people or society I'm fine with government intervention. Medicine, power, even gas. But fucking video games? Silly, fuck off with that nonsense and stay out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
It has a big economic effect though. Maybe it hurts only hurts a couple of manufacturers, but there is more fallout after this. Less money being spent on holiday gifts, leading to a smaller market to sell games for it, less word of mouth about how the new consoles are great in the lower and middle income markets, lowered reputation for the manufacturers, less money spent on maintenance and subs, more toy store owners not getting their profits into the black, few computer chip sales, etc.
Politicians are ge
Re: (Score:2)
None of that makes any sense, though. Manufacturers sell everything they make. Less money isn't being spent, in fact more is as the scalpers take a cut. There isn't a smaller market for games, all of the consoles are still selling out and being sold to people it's not like scalpers are hoarding them for months. Toy store owners are still selling all the consoles, so they are getting their cut.
The only people this really hurts are end-users paying more for non-essential luxury goods.
Re: (Score:1)
100% wrong: they add a liquid, longer-term market to one that would be much more time limited, and that's exactly what consumers are paying them for. They also help send an unambigous, immediate pricing signal to the producer that their goods are inappropriately priced.
I'm not an economics expert. Can you explain what value a "liquid, longer-term market" would bring to consumers that they would be happy to pay for?
As far as I can see they take products that can be had at a reasonable price right now, to something that takes longer to acquire for a higher price.
Sending a pricing signal to the producers does nothing. Sony knows what people will pay for their consoles. They don't want to make as much money as possible from their hardware, they want as many consoles in consu
But it's better on guitar. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except Liberty quit and Rigged Markets took over.
Re: (Score:1)
1000 units for $60? I wouldn't call that bad for insulin.
Re: Making capitalism illegal in the US? (Score:2)
Still about 3x the cost of buying it in The Netherlands, where it's probably more expensive than in countries around us.
Which is what the market will bear, because they have no other option. Just the way the mafia likes it.
Re: (Score:1)
You're not accounting for the fact the Netherlands has ALREADY subsidized the cost of insulin through tax payer money. The cost is hidden, it's still there, and it's probably higher.
Still, in the Netherlands, the average cost is about 100–150 euros for ~1000 units if you don't have private insurance (1000 units = a 30 day supply for most cases). If you want a pen it's like EUR 60 for 5 doses.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it's the entire basis of an unhealthy economy.
In a healthy economy, the cost of a product is driven towards the marginal cost of production.
THIS IS A DUPE (Score:3)
So is the Spider Man NFT article. BeauHD is straight garbage.
Two dupes in a row. Care to make it three?
Quid-Pro-Quo (Score:1)
America: The land of the free (Score:1)
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Glad to see Congress is workin on the most pressing issues.
How about securing the border, assholes!?!?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You should offer them to live with you in your house. They have as much right to live in your house as you, or are you a racist xenophobe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't cross any borders to get here.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's a great example of what happens when you DON'T secure your borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet here in California I still see people telling hispanics to "go home", despite them being born here, or their parents born here, or having ancestors here before the gold rush or even before the Spaniards arrived. If other groups can be disparaged all the time for being immigrants even though they were born here, then why can't WASPs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great (Score:2)
Are you seeing this at Walmart?
Maybe the store is closing....but then again, they don't have to go home...they just can't stay there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you don't even live in a state that borders Mexico.
Re: (Score:1)
Mexico isn't the only border the U.S. has - and even so, I don't know why it matters. It's not like all the invaders stay in border states.
Re: (Score:3)
Mexico isn't the only border the U.S. has
Yeah? You worried about refugees coming from Canada? The only thing they have to flee from there is poutine-related heart disease, and they're not coming here to deal with that unless they're wealthy and can afford to use our medical services... in which case you probably want them here anyway, spending money.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me, no Canadians are fleeing to this country.
Re: (Score:2)
He lives in a flyover state, complaining because there's nothing better to do there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are the English still fighting the Spanish? Didn't all those ships sink already? Euro-on-euro violence is always bad.
Hey Beau (Score:4, Insightful)
Beau,
Stop watching your Bitcoin prices and pay attention to your job.
Quality (Score:3)
This is Slashdot, if it’s not low information thinly veiled advertising hidden behind a pay wall then duped and two days late we demand our money back!
Re: (Score:2)
Wish they would.
Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there nothing our federal saviors can't do?
It's amazing that all we had to do was to vote ourselves happy! How could we have been so blind??
Re: (Score:2)
They can't stop dupes.
It's the Mind (Score:2)
Tonight, on "It's the Mind", we examine the phenomenon of deja vu.
https://www.dailymotion.com/vi... [dailymotion.com]
Scalping is not seasonal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue of "toys at Christmas time" is simply a variant of "Think Of The Children!"
It allows the Party to maintain the illusion of being two separate organizations while allowing them to do nothing of importance.
Re: (Score:2)
Toys at Christmas time is also a concern for many retailers who really don't make a profit until now, thus the "black Friday" meaning that their accounting books turn from red to black. This is not just about toys, it's about the economy.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand why we need scalping regulation at all. They provide a valuable service - the ability to trade dollars for time. Most of us do not have the time or motivation to follow trends, products, manufacturing and trade flows, and various other logistics. We just want to be able to buy what we want when we are ready to buy it. The failure is from the manufacturers keeping their MSRP artificially low. I would much rather give an extra $200 to Nintendo, but since their logistics are shit, I gue
Re: (Score:2)
This is a specious argument at best. With online shopping, there is no more difficulty for any individual to access one of these "scarce" products than anyone else.
This is not like before online shopping where if your local store was out of stock it was actually beneficial for someone else to buy stock from a different location and bring them to the local area which actually did make it easier to get a product.
The current state of scalpers is fully parasitic - it does not make it easier for the average cons
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This isn't price discovery - it's like if you went into your local grocery store and bought out an entire shelf of retail goods, then sold it at 2x prices.
What do you think price discovery is? In your example, the store was clearly pricing the items too low, since they sold just fine at 2x the store's price. This implies that some early buyers were able to get and consume the items at half price while others who were willing to pay more (but shopped later) faced empty shelves. Scalpers also get the items at half price but they don't consume them; they instead make them available to others who are willing to pay the higher price and are either unable or unwill
Re:Scalping is not seasonal (Score:4, Insightful)
That's only the case all else equal.
There's a difference between true scarcity and artificial scarcity - you can create artificial shortages by buying up all of a good, and then yes of course people are going to pay more for it - not because they want to but because they have to.
Put another way - this is market manipulation, or abuse of the market, not a free market.
Re: Scalping is not seasonal (Score:2)
Then you put yourself at risk of buying a dud. That's a valid aggressive yet risky business model.
Video game systems ARE a limited resource. That's the point. That's why these MSRPs-as-word-of-God are bad for the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scalping happens year round and it's been especially bad for the last few years for computer components and consoles. And they're only just now thinking about addressing the issues because of toys at Christmas time?
Scalping is quite often seasonal, with them often manufacturing an entire marketing campaign around the concept of "hot" holiday toy that is purposely released the day after Thanksgiving. And as the "Grinch" moniker implies, scalping is especially FuckYou'ish around Christmas. One of those few times they can run with Think of the Children as a less-pathetic-excuse.
In reality, some Senator Karen probably got especially pissed off and tabled the idea of Taxpayer Force Bravo to go after CyberGrinches because
Distraction (Score:2)
2) maybe you should consider this with financial instruments if you're concerned about impact
3) Our good friends in congress have less financial oversight than someone working as a low-paid facilities person employed by a financial institution
Never gets old, does it congress?
bricks & mortar (Score:2)
Maybe the problem of scalperbots exposes an advantage of brick-&-mortar stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: bricks & mortar (Score:1)
Another opportunity to outsource? Uber for Christmas shopping...
Why are toys so important? (Score:1)
Why isn't price gouging in all situations (real estate, medical care, stocks, event tickets, etc) illegal? Oh, because they benefit indirectly from those.
But they think they can get elected again from the PR of saving Christmas with this crap.