Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

ken0042 · 06-22-2013, 11:43 AM

I think this is something that might be worth of it's own thread. We have seen two images making the rounds. One is a receipt for 24 bottles of water charged at about $2 each, and the other is a liquor store charging $20 for ice.

No for the ice, that one does strike me as price gouging if the photo is legit. The one othwer possibility is that the store owner put the sign up in order to save the ice for those who need it to protect from food spoilage cause by power failures. Maybe he had a run of people buying it for parties, and decided it should be rationed?

As for the 24 bottles of water; that one bugs me a little in how viral it has become. For one thing, does that store even sell bottled water by the flat? If they do- is that the water they sell by the flat? Seems to be an odd brand; one that is usually sold by the individual bottle. Did somebody walk up to the cash register with 24 individual bottles, and they were rung in the way they were packaged?

Assuming it is gouging; it is that wrong to start charging full retail for products that are going to sell out? I bought bottled water on Thursday; not because I was out or in a panic, but because my stockpile was getting low. I always keep some bottled water as part of my emergency plan. While I'm no "doomsday prepper", I do have enough supplies on hand to live comfotably for 2 weeks without any utilities or outside help. That is also factoring in taking in another family, as I'm sure neighbours will be coming asking for supplies. So in this case, wouldn't this be an example of why you should be prepared for an emergency?

One of the arguements in favour of ticket scalping is that by allowing scalping you ensure there is always inventory available. While I understand this is different in that it's a nessesity, doesn't the gouging serve the same purpose? I think this comparison comes back into being more fair because there's also difference being the person who owns the items now didn't buy them with the intention of gouging. They just happened to be prepared.

06-22-2013, 11:43 AM	#1
ken0042 Playboy Mansion Poolboy Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout Exp:	Price Gouging Discussion I think this is something that might be worth of it's own thread. We have seen two images making the rounds. One is a receipt for 24 bottles of water charged at about $2 each, and the other is a liquor store charging $20 for ice. No for the ice, that one does strike me as price gouging if the photo is legit. The one othwer possibility is that the store owner put the sign up in order to save the ice for those who need it to protect from food spoilage cause by power failures. Maybe he had a run of people buying it for parties, and decided it should be rationed? As for the 24 bottles of water; that one bugs me a little in how viral it has become. For one thing, does that store even sell bottled water by the flat? If they do- is that the water they sell by the flat? Seems to be an odd brand; one that is usually sold by the individual bottle. Did somebody walk up to the cash register with 24 individual bottles, and they were rung in the way they were packaged? Assuming it is gouging; it is that wrong to start charging full retail for products that are going to sell out? I bought bottled water on Thursday; not because I was out or in a panic, but because my stockpile was getting low. I always keep some bottled water as part of my emergency plan. While I'm no "doomsday prepper", I do have enough supplies on hand to live comfotably for 2 weeks without any utilities or outside help. That is also factoring in taking in another family, as I'm sure neighbours will be coming asking for supplies. So in this case, wouldn't this be an example of why you should be prepared for an emergency? One of the arguements in favour of ticket scalping is that by allowing scalping you ensure there is always inventory available. While I understand this is different in that it's a nessesity, doesn't the gouging serve the same purpose? I think this comparison comes back into being more fair because there's also difference being the person who owns the items now didn't buy them with the intention of gouging. They just happened to be prepared.