I see lots of posts on marketplace and Gumtree people selling hand sanitiser for $20 and have asked few said they have 200 in stock and heaps of people started buying hundards of masks and selling them 8x of the original price.
Really sad to see this and I think there should be a consequence for these what you think?
I think it should be illegal so as pumping and dumping stocks etc.
The countries that operate the way OP envisage are also having shortages. In fact, the original cause of the shortage, the virus, came from a country operated that way.
China is not a socialist country. Nor do they prevent scalping in the secondary market. You do realize Chinese citizens are the ones buying our baby formula for $300 a tin right? Being sold said product by Chinese scalpers operating in Aus.
@[Deactivated]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism
Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.
What is communism?
Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production, such as mines and factories, are owned and controlled by the public. There is no government or private property or currency, and the wealth is divided among citizens equally or according to individual need. Many of communism’s tenets derive from the works of German revolutionary Karl Marx, who (with Friedrich Engels) wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848). However, over the years others have made contributions—or corruptions, depending on one’s perspective—to Marxist thought. Perhaps the most influential changes were proposed by Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, who notably supported authoritarianism.
Which countries are communist?
At one time about one-third of the world's population lived under communist governments, most notably in the republics of the Soviet Union. Today communism is the official form of government in only five countries: China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam. However, none of these meet the true definition of communism. Instead, they can be said to be in a transitional stage between the end of capitalism and the establishment of communism. Such a phase was outlined by Karl Marx, and it came to include the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat. While all five countries have authoritarian governments, their commitment to abolishing capitalism is debatable.
How is communism different from socialism?
Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate. Karl Marx used the terms interchangeably. For many, however, the difference can be seen in the two phases of communism as outlined by Marx. The first is a transitional system in which the working class controls the government and economy yet still pays people according to how long, hard, or well they work. Capitalism and private property exist, though to a limited degree. This phase is widely regarded as socialism. However, in Marx’s fully realized communism, society has no class divisions or government or personal property. The production and distribution of goods is based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Looking at the definition of communism, China doesn't actually meet those requirements. There's definitely private and state ownership and a profit based economy.
Looking at the definition of communism, China doesn't actually meet those requirements. There's definitely private and state ownership and a profit based economy.
It may not fit the Marxist model of communism but China has significant state ownership of businesses and assets, significant regulation and involvement in private businesses and their leadership structure is authoritarian.
It's like communism lite. It may not be the full glass of shit, just a nice dollop stirred into a glass of lime that we will call a Mojito.
(I still wouldn't drink that mojito)
And yet, here we are with a shortage of facemask and hand sanitiser.
the reason you have these high prices is because of the shortages. No virus, no shortages, no reselling.
Sure, it's not illegal but between the people that cause these shortages and OP wanting something done to prevent shortages, the former are the ones that annoys me more.
What caused the shortages is the virus, which is not the doing of the scalpers. The reason people are hoarding is because of fear and irrationality. But the hoarding is what led to scalping. There is a perception that there isn't enough stock to go around for everyone, with or without scalpers.
Yeah same. Execution without trial is where it's at!
Good luck selling hand sanitizer for $20 a pop on Gumtree. The people who use that site are the biggest tight asses and I'm surprised they aren't perpetually constipated.
Yes, the consequences for such profiteers are they have to deal with gumtree users.
That is brutal.
Tight ass has nothing to do with constipation. Constipation is usually caused by slow peristalsis of the bowel.
There shouldn't be a fine but there should be an ATO investigation.
I have no doubt the type of person who does this also has a significant grey market income.
What about morons clogging up emergency departments with colds? How do we dissuade these people?
add a $20-$50 copayment to emergency visits. That will get rid of all the colds. The doctors would actually prefer this if it gets rid of time wasters who clog up the system from people who genuinely need it.
Will never happen though because it's political suicide.
I don't think you speak for all doctors
I'm proud to work in a healthcare system where access is free and you can always get good medical care no matter how sick you are or your station in life.
I'd rather deal with more minor problems than have people come in too late and die because the choice was between getting their severe tearing back pain checked out or paying rent
If you want to live in a society where the government interferes to this level, consider China.
Think of the bright side. Those people stocking up are providing valuable economic stimulus by participating in retail purchasing in a time when tourism and consumer confidence is low!
Pretty disappointed with some of the comments here. While what is happening is simply supply and demand, there's something to be said about individuals capitalising on a crisis using lowbrow reselling tactics for their personal gain.
Everyone agrees that its a scummy move, but still shouldn't be illegal.
I'd be more sympathetic if it was actually life saving or other necessities of life.
But face masks and hand sanitizer? Com'on. No one is even being harmed, much less remotely at a risk of dying, because they can't find these to buy.
Like with Daraprim https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/drug-made-famous…
Questions is, is there a point when the government should step in?
is there a point when the government should step in?
I can't think of any but if you do, I would be keen to hear it.
The issue with government stepping in is that the total amount of product doesn't change. It would change the distribution but that is a means to itself.
Sure, some will argue that the rich would have disproportionate access to the item in short supply but if the government steps in, the desired voting block would then have that privilege. Either way, fair will never exist.
I'd rather have a fighting chance using my own resources/leverage than be at the mercy of the government.
Second reason against government control is that it removes free market drive for increased production where a shortage is evident. Why would anyone bother to take a risk and enter into an industry if they cannot utilize the high demand/high price to offset that risk? Worse still, after taking all that risk, I may be forced to sell at a price dictated by a government that is too inept to mitigate these shortages to begin with.
I can't think of any but if you do, I would be keen to hear it.
Essential products for survival during a health crisis, state of emergency, etc. Ever heard of rationing?
The problem with leaving distribution of essentials (in an emergency) entirely to the free market is that you'd have less of a fighting chance of getting what you need when supplies are low. It incentivizes people to further restrict supply because the demand is already there.
Which is what is being discussed here.
Second reason against government control is that it removes free market drive for increased production where a shortage is evident. Why would anyone bother to take a risk and enter into an industry if they cannot utilize the high demand/high price to offset that risk?
Ignoring the contradiction between high demand & high risk, this has nothing to do with production or market price controls.
It's about how freely new (gumtree) middlemen should be able to hijack existing markets by artificially restricting supply.
The only ones taking a risk here are dudes buying up all the hand sanitizer they can find and sitting on a garage full of retail-cost product, and hoping that supply doesn't increase. And unless that garage empties out as fast as they can fill it up, if anything they'd distort the real demand for actual producers.
Essential products for survival during a health crisis, state of emergency, etc. Ever heard of rationing?
I have thought and heard of it and I am unconvinced it is the right thing to do. Firstly, it requires the implementation of the state of emergency. This gives the government absolute power. I am never in favour of absolute power. Absolute power corrupts.
North Korea is the perfect example of why a state of emergency and rationing is dangerous business.
Secondly, it creates a black market for rationed goods. When black market economies happen, criminality scales alongside. Distribution eventually skews and the purpose of rationing is quickly defeated.
Lastly, the enforcement of rationing opens yet another avenue for corruption at multiple levels - those who make the decisions down to those that distribute the rations to the final destination.
It's about how freely new (gumtree) middlemen should be able to hijack existing markets by artificially restricting supply.
You're speaking of a monopoly or a cartel scenario. Ultimately, there are too many vendors, too much supply and too little organization for a monopolistic cartel to exist for any meaningful period of time.
if anything they'd distort the real demand for actual producers
The check and balance between distributors, vendors and manufacturers would all but eliminate this as a real issue. I would be interested to know if such a phenomenon has ever occured - one where a basic product supply has had the demand artificially inflated as to cause the production to grow just to implode when hoarders/cartels dump their inventory.
@[Deactivated]: oops, I didn't mean a literal state of emergency in that sense where the gov gets that level of control, but where there's too much uniformly distributed adversity for the current state of supply over some longer period of time.
But your concern is about concentration of power. I'd suggest that in such an adverse situation, access to limited essentials would be power. You'd be right to be concerned about concentrating it in government, but my concern is about leaving it open for others to take for themselves.
Black markets arise anyway, which is basically this gumtree thing.
You're speaking of a monopoly or a cartel scenario.
I wasn't, but you're talking about North Korea. Neither are going to happen at such an extreme level without some fundamental breakdown.
I was talking about scattered individuals capitalizing on high demand for products that would normally be readily available in a way that makes them even less readily available.
This happened with baby milk powder. An example might be someone buying up the last few cans at Coles to sell for profit, not to China but to a mum in their own neighbourhood who could no longer get it at Coles.
And then more specifically whether there is a point/product where that should be restricted as it harms those in need. Which also already happened with milk powder at supermarkets (limited sales per person) and happens with medicines, with chemists restricting purchases based on government and their own guidelines already.
That level of restricted distribution is more along the lines of what I'm talking about, not the government literally taking over as sole distributor.
And it'll happen anyway. If the shelves aren't full of toilet paper in a week I'd expect supermarkets to limit sales to 18 rolls per customer or similar. And if that still doesn't happen for another week, then I'd expect some rumblings from the gov about addressing the tp shortage.
The only real difference that government intervention would make is limiting the window for people to capitalise if the market is too slow to adapt.
An example might be someone buying up the last few cans at Coles to sell for profit, not to China but to a mum in their own neighbourhood who could no longer get it at Coles.
Mom should have bought it when it was available. The opportunity to purchase was equally available to her as it was to the reseller. Also, it is not a necessity in the true sense of the word, nor are there a lack of alternative brands.
Which also already happened with milk powder at supermarkets (limited sales per person) and happens with medicines, with chemists restricting purchases based on government and their own guidelines already.
I do support businesses taking that step to limit the scalping. Some things must happen at a voluntary level. If coerced, the purpose is self defeating.
I still disagree that the formula scalping is anywhere near life threatening (if at all). There are literally zero cases of infant death from lack of choice brand formula. Zero.
As for medications, it is being restricted because the medications are subsidized or are a controlled substance used in the manufacture of an illicit substance so the reasons are entirely different scenarios. I am sure you can appreciate the difference so I'll leave it at that.
The only real difference that government intervention would make is limiting the window for people to capitalise if the market is too slow to adapt.
The reason for capitalism is because governments naturally and inevitably fail at controlling the market. They simply cannot coexist outside of tyranny.
The opportunity to purchase was equally available to her as it was to the reseller.
Not if he got there first.
There are literally zero cases of infant death from lack of choice brand formula. Zero.
Wasn't suggesting anything close to this. Only that it was a analogous example of people buying up readily available goods in order to capitalize off the scarcity they just created, and where demand may remain high due to something approximating necessity, ie the inflexible food preference of babies and their paranoid mothers.
The reason for capitalism is because governments naturally and inevitably fail at controlling the market. They simply cannot coexist outside of tyranny.
But we already have both coexisting, and they are useful at keeping each other in check. We aren't living in tyranny.
Businesses operate within government regulations which need to be justified, and can change the regulations when justified. But both sides should be expected to justify themselves, because ultimately both sides should be serving public interests. But they should be in opposing ways, checks and balances etc.
You keep making the leap from any government action in a hypothetical medical emergency straight to abuse of power, oppression, tyranny and North Korea, and ultimately an inability to provide adequate medical care. It's an absolute extreme, which you are then comparing to an moderate ideal capitalist world of a fair market that balances supply and demand to provide the best service at the best price for everyone.
And not to the extreme end of capitalism, which is either a few rich people manipulating regulation to monopolize the availability of medical care and emptying the bank accounts of everyone who gets sick, or a bunch of random people taking advantage of zero regulation to call themselves doctors and sell fake medical products.
There's a middle ground. Either stop pretending otherwise, or explain why captive markets and zero safety or consumer protection regulations are good things.
There's a middle ground. Either stop pretending otherwise, or explain why captive markets and zero safety or consumer protection regulations are good things.
This is the middle ground.
The government sets the rules and plays the referee.
The rules are already there. There is GST and income tax. This prohibits major scalping as the income would become detectable and the tax would be exorbitant as it would be difficult to explain as scalpers wouldn't have an ABN to file the taxes properly.
Other check and balance is the cost of opening more lines of supply and manufacturing. Apart from controlled substances, if the price as the result of scalping/hoarding rises above a nominal point, it becomes more lucrative to increase production.
You are proposing that the middle ground be shift towards more regulation. That shift requires new definitions and new powers be given to government. It is not extreme to believe that governments can utilise these newly found powers to tip the electoral balance and perhaps even seize parliamentary majority.
Some extremes like North Korea happen overnight. Some take longer - Malaysia had several laws that seem innocuous. The results are in. Although appearing innocuous, their ruling party has become unstoppable.
Just because you are suggesting some small changes with good intentions doesn't mean the outcomes will be so.
One difference with that is Shkreli said he would basically give it away for free to people without insurance. What he claimed to be doing was exploiting insurance companies who would pay whatever he asked, just like they do with other pharmaceutical companies.
This takes advantage of the messed up US healthcare system, but not the people who actually need the medicine or a market with high demand. Just the insurance companies handing out blank cheques.
It's obviously a scumbag move and raises hurdles, and I'd be skeptical if he actually followed through. But not quite the same.
There are people who definitely will be at risk of being harmed or dying by not having access to face masks. While they're not being recommended for the general public, they are recommended for those who are infected and those living with someone who is infected, and these people won't be able to find them when needed.
these people won't be able to find them when needed.
Because the general public is panic-buying. The price at which they are doing so is a moot point.
Sorry but no. If you're already infected, no amount of face masks or hand sanitizer will help you, only hospital treatment (and/or antiretrovirals).
Likewise, if you're living with someone who's infected, it also won't help you - you will contract it sooner or later. The only people who need these items are in hospitals, and there's no shortage there.
And if there were, I'd have no objections to the government seizing (compulsorily acquiring for just value) private caches of these items. But we're not there yet.
@HighAndDry: Literally everything you have just said is wrong - this is exactly how disinformation spreads.
If you're infected you need to wear a mask in order to prevent infection of those around you.
If you're living with someone that is infected, there is no guarantee that you will contract it sooner or later in fact current research shows likelihood for household member infection to be only 10.5% if proper precautions (such as wearing a mask and practicing proper hygeine) are made.
There is a shortage of masks in medical settings right now (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-05/coronavirus-covid-19-…).
@bargainzz: You said this:
There are people who definitely will be at risk of being harmed or dying by not having access to face masks.
Then gave the example of:
they are recommended for those who are infected
So no, those who infected aren't going to be at greater risk of being harmed or dying by not having access to masks, they're already infected.
As to their family members - if you know a relative is infected, they should be in hospital, not still at home.
And from your article:
too few government supplies are getting to clinics and traditional stockists have sold out.
That's an issue with government supply chains and stockists, not with people buying on the consumer market.
@HighAndDry: No, the family and carers of those infected, and those who need to be in close proximity of those who are infected, are the ones who are at risk of being harmed or dying. When someone is sick they need to wear a mask to stop their own droplets spreading to others, and those around them need to wear a mask to stop themselves from getting sick.
Those who are sick aren't necessarily going to be in hospital. Look at what is happening all around the world. People are affected by the virus to varying levels, some people no more than a typical cold or mild flu, and unless someone needs critical care they are being told to stay home, rather than take up a hospital bed. The fact that someone might be well enough to stay home doesn't mean that anyone else in close proximity to them will have the same mild symptoms, hence the need to prevent spread.
Your comment prior said there was no shortage of these items in a medical setting, and I linked that article to show you there is, but you seem pretty stuck in your ways and unable to comprehend what I'm trying to tell you so I'm not going to waste more time.
WHY WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE TOILET PAPER
I could, I'm immunesuppreseed, people/friends who work/visit cancer patients or patients having to visit outpatient or doctors a few times a week are (profanity) as no masks or sanitizers. I understand a few weeks ago i would be in the same reaction as you but suddenly forced into ICU and visitors stealing masks, gloves, toilet paper and sanitizers leaving nurses and patients in real danger
and visitors stealing masks, gloves, toilet paper and sanitizers
This is a whole other problem from people buying and selling things.
bargainzz,if you are disappointed now,wait until something REALLY SHTF happens….this is the tiniest peek at what will occur ("lowbrow" will be killing a pharnacist / Dr / nurse simply because they MIGHT have access to vaccinations / antibiotics / iodine tablets).
Honestly the “health aids” are bollocks. You only need the hand sanitiser if you don’t have access to soap and water; which is the preferred way to clean your hands. I’ve got a couple of old hand sanitiser things lying around in my bags for when I can’t wash properly, but they are barely in use. If you are buying a mask, and you aren’t vulnerable health wise or already sick and trying to prevent infecting others, you are not thinking rationally. Get a freaking grip.
username checks out…
I want to laugh at these people when all this shit blows over in a few weeks and they have 4000 rolls of toilet paper and 30 gallons of hand sanitizer that they can't sell. :D
Capitalism KKona
People are defending the resellers jacking up prices etc, but what happens when it's not just a bit of panic buying over a mild flu? What if things get really bad, or some unrelated thing happens in a few years that makes availability of face masks and hand sanitizer a much more acute health risk?
Or more simply, what if this mild situation drags on for a while and there's like 6 dudes who keep buying up all the toilet paper in your neighbourhood. It's funny for the first week while you've still got half a roll of paper towels as backup, but what next?
happens in a few years that makes availability of face masks and hand sanitizer a much more acute health risk?
We would have more manufacturers, more distributors, more vendors and better products.
"Necessity is the mother of innovation."
6 dudes who keep buying up all the toilet paper in your neighbourhood. It's funny for the first week while you've still got half a roll of paper towels as backup, but what next?
These 6 dudes would have a massive cost of storage, pest and pest related loss of inventory, security costs and a whole lot of money tied up in a commodity that is still rapidly increasing in quantity.
Once the market price increases beyond the cost of creating a new line of supply/increase manufacturing capacity, the business model of hoarding will collapse… unless of course the manufacturing is restricted by government/cartel. That's the same kind of power it takes to implement rationing/price capping to begin with.
We would have more manufacturers, more distributors, more vendors and better products.
Sure, but not immediately. If you need a face mask, you probably need it very soon.
These 6 dudes would have a massive cost of storage, pest and pest related loss of inventory, security costs and a whole lot of money tied up in a commodity that is still rapidly increasing in quantity.
Yea but you got a dirty bum and nowhere else to go. They might have a big empty house, and pests are unlikely to render product unusable.
Toilet paper is a crap example anyway. Everyone uses too much of it, so the main threat to hoarders is that everyone can simply cut back a bit and kill demand compared to current supply. Face masks are a bit different since demand+supply are basically starting from zero.
Slightly related story. I'm currently in Tokyo, land of the regular face masks, all sold out now. Last week I met a nurse in a restaurant who said her clinic had limited the use of face masks to 1/day (they don't last that long). I dunno what the solution should be or the point of this anecdote, but the restaurant owners gave her some of their own spare masks in the meantime. I'm sure manufacturing will catch up soon, until then even medical staff are sourcing from the community apparently. I'm almost certain it was free though
A major contributor to the face mask problem is the world had all its eggs in one basket.
Many factories were in Wuhan and are non operational. Much of the supply are being restricted within China as their demands are obviously significantly higher.
The even without scalping, the price would have increased. Supply was and is affected.
The price of the masks started increasing in mid January,before the virus made headlines. Many on the forum only see the cost on the shelves and drew conclusions about scalping and retailer gouging.
You, like them, are looking at the problem like the average consumer. You see the end result and you think the solution is getting government to regulate the sale.
What you don't foresee is the same regulation will further cripple every level of supply with unnecessary bureaucracy and cost.
I do not like what's happening. I consume masks at hundred fold what the average crazy person does so this price increase hits me hard but I rather pay the market price than have things rationed and run out.
@[Deactivated]: Hang on, I'm not making any comment about increased prices or limiting sales, or even scalping in general. I agree with letting businesses set their own prices etc, even with people hoarding for personal use.
I'm saying that a more serious emergency could create opportunities for predatory scalping, which would then make it harder for businesses and suppliers to serve actual market needs, while also causing actual harm to other people. Maybe not in the long term for the reasons you say, but there might still be a profitable window before larger market forces can react.
Many on the forum only see the cost on the shelves and drew conclusions about scalping and retailer gouging.
No, this thread is specifically about people on gumtree taking advantage of a global health crisis for financial gain, in a way that kinda increases health risks to the community.
@crentist: This was my point earlier. But he doesn't seem to understand it. Woolworths has released an email saying they will restrict purchase of toilet paper hand sanitisers and rice.
@lonewolf: I don't think he is against supermarkets having purchase restrictions, but against the government in charge of dispensing rations.
@ozhunter: I didn't mean the woolworths part to connect with my other statement. I was just adding on that woolworths has started putting in restriction to control this madness and make sure everyone has access to things. Maybe I should have put it in as a separate comment.
No, this thread is specifically about people on gumtree taking advantage of a global health crisis for financial gain
No. This thread is about setting regulations that have further imposition civil liberties.
"Should There Be a Fine or Prison for People Selling Corona Health Aid Higher?"
If it were truly about gumtree, that law would be as robust as the option of marketplace. People would just move away from gumtree to the next thing.
There is always a next thing.
I do not disagree that it may increase health risks or they it is distasteful. It is simply a bad move to give government the ability to fine or imprison people for what is essentially business as usual.
The current law of economics and capitalism has brought us incredible affordability and innovation. You're willing to gamble this incredible system for what you perceived would be better distribution. I am not.
I think we need wartime manufacturing and control until the panic stops. All factories making plastic toys and throw away shit should be converted to community needs. You should have to register at local supermarkets and you can only buy what or little more than you need. I'm stuck in ICU so I maybe reading too much media and don't know what is happening on the outside besides the news and stressed nurses that supplies are being stolen
Machines do not have a toy/medical supplies setting. Tooling up, recalibrating machines and retraining staff takes time. Then there are distribution systems to work through - who is going to move which stock and how much goes where.
Having to register requires supermarkets be able to log and keep track of purchases. Which software company is going to profit from this or are we also going to force IT companies to surrender their services and goods.
All registers would need to be on cloud for it to have any meaning or shoppers will just hop from store to store. This means the register needs to be reliable and those with access to the register needs to be trustworthy. As is, we have an issue trusting My Health. You can't reasonably expect a checkout person with much less to lose to uphold the integrity of the system.
Agreed, unethical resellers are jacking up the market for these particular items. If these items were classified as restricted due to pandemic issues they should suffer jail time IMHO. Comments about free market and supply and demand manage to completely blow over manufacturing capacity and distribution.
OP:
"I see lots of posts on marketplace and Gumtree people selling hand sanitiser for $20 and have asked few said they have 200 in stock and heaps of people started buying hundards of masks and selling them 8x of the original price."
Reaction:
"How dare you!"
Media and supermarkets are making a killing anyway… this is miniscule.. and you want to send them to prison.. lols
I think the government should penalize people who are told to be in self isolation and carelessly go out to public places potentially infecting lots of people.
survival of the fittest
Profiteering is theft. These greedy maggots should be convicted and all their assets confiscated by the state under "Proceeds of Crime" legislation.
I know Florida has a law against price gouging after a natural disaster. We need similar legislation to deter capitalist crooks from enriching themselves from other people's misfortune.
The only good capitalist is a dead one.
😂
and now many investment properties do you own?
Profit drives innovation and productivity.
At the most basic level, workers wages are profit because their inputs (food, water, shelter, clothing) are far less than what they're paid for the time they're working.
The only good capitalist is a dead one.
Name a successful socialist state. The biggest example of one is Venezuela, and what a spectacular failure it is. A burger there literally costs more than your car.
Why are we wasting air answering this forum…..
We are wasting internet commenting on this thread.
The Entitlement of people here is incredible
What a bunch of spoilt brats!
Don't get me wrong - I think these Brodens deliberately going and buying up items in stupid quantities to onsell and retailers (whose cost prices haven't changed but have pumped up prices due to increased demand) are acting poorly & somewhat immorally.
BUT jail?
I can picture these couple of hardened crims sitting around with a new comer who looks very bookish. "I'm in for armed robbery and GBH - what about you?" The other hardened crim says,"Drug distribution, possession of a firearm and assault - what about you new boy?"
The pale middle aged guy looks them in the eye and in a deadpan voice says,"I bought a pallet of hand sanitiser at Costco, upped the price by 10 fold each and flogged them on a Facebook page and Gumtree."
The hardened crims each take a deep swallow, look at each other and then very, very slowly inch away from the newcomer. RESPECT.
They are selling Corona in bottles
…you can't really fine someone for trying to profit from it as that is consider doing business and not a crime but "they" the sellers/distributors can impose restriction on one per customer (e.g. like the costco A2 sold out milk so ridiculous for a perishable good)
However we should fine, imprison, cancel visa/pr for those who dont notify customs/health authorities that they just came back from corona virus red zone areas or have show synthoms of the disease.
I realised Australia government is slow to take measurement of banning possible red zone countries or 2 weeks self quarantines for potential red zone countries as they rather have a wild goose chase when the person that shows no synthoms spread to others.
When I was climbing Mt Fuji, I used companies business cards to clean the bottom. Toilet paper Hoarding is for the losers. Winners improvise.
Every day my letterbox is stuffed with a new supply of toilet paper. It's colourful too.
For what these supplies are, I'm hoping they go the way of the Mini NES and SNES - this window for broden'ing is short lived and they just fail to sell their hoarded stock.
Lol the price is whatever someone's willing to pay. Do they owe you a mask?
The problem with 'let the market decide!' and 'supply and demand!' is you're legitimizing these two situations:
Ticket scalping. Hot show everyone wants to see? Well let me get my 10 Ticketek accounts, buy up as many tickets as possible, and resell them for triple the price.
USA health care. Diagnosed with some horrible disease and you don't have full time employment with great health benefits? Okay, sign here to hand over your house and car, and we'll begin treatment.
If things really turn south and people start selling P2 masks for $50 because, lol, you're desperate, don't be surprised when desperate people take matters into their own hands.
These are really good arguments. Thanks.
Ticket scaling - when these events become lifesaving or necessities in some way, we can have a chat. Otherwise nothing stops anyone else from doing the same thing as ticket scalpers to get tickets.
USA healthcare - we're not talking about healthcare or necessities here, or the US, or healthcare (no, hand sanitizer is not healthcare).
Funny that your concerns are about "legitimating" bad things, and yet:
don't be surprised when desperate people take matters into their own hands.
You're legitimating and rationalising actual assault and robbery, crimes which directly cause harm.
Nothing stops people ticket scalping? The law disagrees: https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/news-and-updates/news/new…
Going to a concert is not a life necessity, yet enough people were annoyed at the unfair actions of others that laws to prevent such profiteering were implemented.
As for the USA healthcare part, it's interesting that I was referring to critical health care and my post was about P2 masks, yet you changed the narrative to hand sanitizer. Why?
My example referring to desperate people taking matters into their own hands was directly tied to someone asking extortionate prices for a product in a time of great need with the attitude of 'well, if you can't afford it, go and get sick and die'. It's the same case where patients in the USA are forced into bankruptcy to pay for life saving treatments. Sure, they don't need to buy those treatments and can live the rest of their life without them, it just happens that the life will be just a little shorter…
People in the USA 'take matters into their own hands' when drugs are far more expensive there than across the order in Canada or Mexico by crossing the border and bringing those drugs back to the USA. That's an illegal act. Not in Mexico or Canada (unless the person is taking advantage of tax payer drugs), but due to USA law that makes it illegal to bring in drugs to the USA that are sold in the USA. This helps keep the prices high there. I guess, that's a glorious free market and we should encourage price gouging. An EpiPen costs US$300 in the USA. In Canada it's $100, and in the UK $38.
I was using the USA as an example of the market setting a price and therefore everyone having to be happy with that, and why it doesn't work in some circumstances. But anyway, enough about the USA and back to our market.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/doctors-need-6-9-mil…
Doctors are asking the government for help in securing P2 face masks as it's hindering their ability to provide health care. In a completely free market the wholesalers would be able to dangle the masks above the doctors and say 'well, you really need this? How much are you prepared to pay?'
Ticket scalping. Hot show everyone wants to see? Well let me get my 10 Ticketek accounts, buy up as many tickets as possible, and resell them for triple the price.
Unfortunate facts of life, and no different from brodening a good deal and reselling.
If things really turn south and people start selling P2 masks for $50 because, lol, you're desperate, don't be surprised when desperate people take matters into their own hands.
If they actually sell at this price, then it is a fair reflection of its market value. It means whoever bought them couldn't find it cheaper anywhere else. If they don't sell, then no profiteering took place.
I can't comment on US health care because I don't know enough about it. They get free health insurance paid by their employer which I kind of envy. I presume those without jobs can purchase it privately like we do.
I wonder if OP has anything against Uber etc. Isn't that the whole premise of their business model? Pay more when more people want the lift?
I wouldn't purchase masks off some random, could be exhausted already.
This is getting crazy. I am glad I’ve been buying extra TP to get to my limits to get points. Toilet paper is something you don’t want to run out of. There was some left at Costco, but not a lot, and the Coles around the corner was denuded. They were, also, out of most rice, some noodles, etc. Personally, I would be stocking up on frozen vegetables and start making from stews, spaghetti sauces, etc for the freezer. But I do that, normally, anyway. I’m not sure why people are doing this, are they concerned about the supply chain?
Freezers are selling out. If you go to appliances online, you will see many are not available until delivery in April may.
I think we should all panic like crazy as it impacts the market…and people will benefit from that… then we should get stroppy if we didn't benefit from the unforseen impacts that the wide spread irrational human need to panic causes. We should request to change the law and post on internet forums about people putting $ ahead of lives but exist in a capitalist corporate world where that is being taught as the norm.
My bigger issue with it, outside the fact its a cu*&y thing to do or way to make money is that its undeclared income and no tax will be paid.
Just like all the sh!t that is bought by locust (diagu) locally and sent to China, the income thats not declared is more of an issue.
Australia isn't a place to live for many of these people, just somewhere they can make money easily and without contributing anything of value to this country.
Yep. I don’t understand how if we have a free trade deal with China, why companies aren’t selling direct.
Welcome to first world country finance 101:First lesson is supply and demand.This "profiting" off others is how companies/ services / manufacturers of anything have made a buck since the bartering system died…does the fact that it will cost you a c#@p load more to get some aircon bought and put in when it is 40+ degrees outside than it would during a winter's day of -3 make it "illegal" ? Does the fact that in a few years time,Holden parts will be on par with some European spares to buy…simply because they won't be made anymore,but people will still be driving those Holdens,make that illegal ? No,it is consumerism as it always has been,it's just that people are all in an uproar about it because it is people's health being discussed….which brings me to the second lesson in basic economics - lack of prep on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Right ion
Firstly, GM will still be making all of those parts for left hand drive cars. Also, you exaggerate the air conditioning thing. Many companies install them for fixed prices all year. Have you hear of heating?
Secondly, Why would you want to live in a country based on pure capitalism? Capitalism is an effective economic system but has many problems. Allowing people to hoard sanitary and medical supplies whilst other go without is unAustralian.
I think people should be fined for selling baby formula back to china.
If they're not selling to China, where to you think the shareholders of the milk powder company get it payrise.
For the 56 of you that said yes, you're a bunch of totalitarian Commies!
Maybe we should be allowed to abduct you and sell your organs, that’s capitalism after all.
Says the commie that wants to kill me for having a different opinion. 🙄
Capitalism is not that, obviously.
That's China, a totalitarian communist state.
Hahaha, wants to kill you? Says the anarchocapitalist that wants to be able to kidnap me, chop me up and sell me to the highest bidder
@Emerald Owl: I don't have a bigger word. I guess you win.
But I'll die rich and with mountains of toilet paper. You will die of dysentery. Obviously
Make your own sanitiser.
DIY Hand Sanitizer
1 Cup of Alcohol (Methylated Spirits or Isopropyl)
1 Teaspoon of Tea Tree Oil
2 Teaspoons of Glycerine
What does the Glycerine assist with?
Also I think water should be added. Isopropyl alcohol is more effective diluted to around 75% purity so it doesn’t evaporate too quickly. It needs about 15secs full exposure to have optimal effect.
I tried to get Isopropanol to blend with aloe Vera gel yesterday but it ended up a mess, it broke down the gel into a fiberous material. I also tried to thicken Isopropanol with Xanthum gum with much the same result.
Used to prevent the alcohol from drying out your hands. I got this from Shannon Lush.
The countries that operate the way OP envisage are also having shortages. In fact, the original cause of the shortage, the virus, came from a country operated that way.