How 'Grinch Bots' Are Ruining Online Christmas Shopping (nypost.com) 283
Yes, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer actually called them "Grinch bots." From the New York Post:
The senator said as soon as a retailer puts a hard-to-get toy -- like Barbie's Dreamhouse or Nintendo game systems -- for sale on a website, a bot can snatch it up even before a kid's parents finish entering their credit card information... "Bots come in and buy up all the toys and then charge ludicrous prices amidst the holiday shopping bustle," the New York Democrat said on Sunday... For example, Schumer said, the popular Fingerlings -- a set of interactive baby monkey figurines that usually sell for around $15 -- are being snagged by the scalping software and resold on secondary websites for as much as $1,000 a pop...
In December 2016, Congress passed the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, which Schumer sponsored, to crack down on their use to buy concert tickets, but the measure doesn't apply to other consumer products. He wants that law expanded but knows that won't happen in time for this holiday season. In the meantime, Schumer wants the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association to block the bots and lead the effort to stop them from buying toys at fair retail prices and then reselling them at outrageous markups.
In December 2016, Congress passed the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, which Schumer sponsored, to crack down on their use to buy concert tickets, but the measure doesn't apply to other consumer products. He wants that law expanded but knows that won't happen in time for this holiday season. In the meantime, Schumer wants the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association to block the bots and lead the effort to stop them from buying toys at fair retail prices and then reselling them at outrageous markups.
Yeah.... but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The shoppers are idiots, and they largely get what they deserve - anyone paying more than retail is exacerbating the problem, but god forbid your child doesn't get the latest gadget for Christmas. Anyone who has paid more than retail for a gaming system, or anything else that will eventually be available for the retail cost, is NOT A VICTIM, they are the PROBLEM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
anyone paying more than retail is exacerbating the problem.
What problem? I don't see that there is one. The toys are not going to fewer people, just different people.
More importantly, more money is being extracted from rich people who clearly have too much, and distributed throughout society to bot writers, etc. This reduces inequality and is a Good Thing.
Chuck Schumer seems to think that allocating limited goods randomly, or perhaps by rationing, is more "fair" than allocating them to whoever is willing to pay the most. That is backwards nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, more money is being extracted from rich people who clearly have too much
The flaw in your argument is "credit cards", which allows any wahoo with sufficient credit limit to drown themselves (and then complain to the government about getting fleeced).
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw in your argument is "credit cards"
Credit cards are not so easy for stupid people to acquire. Banks generally won't issue them unless you have someone (such as a parent) willing to co-sign, or a couple years of responsible behavior using a debit card backed by a bank balance.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Credit cards are not so easy for stupid people to acquire.
I got a Discover card with a $500 credit limit when I was 17. I used it to fly down to Virginia Beach and partied my ass off until it capped. Then they Discovered that I couldn't pay them back. You see, I just got out of high school. I never had a job.
I've heard rumors that people have gotten credit card offers in their pets names. I don't know if it's true or not, but I wouldn't doubt it.
Re: (Score:3)
And, if you never paid it off, Discover ate it. If you never paid it off, they may have made a bad business decision WRT issuing you a card and paid the price. Or, maybe it was a good business decision because across all the dcolins117 in the country, they made money (in interest, late fees, and swipe fees). If they hadn't issued cards to any dcolins117 in the country, they might have had a lower ROI.
I got a credit card without a cosigner when I was 18 (a LONG time ago) while I was poor (in college) and had
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Is that really a flaw (Score:2)
The flaw in your argument is "credit cards", which allows any wahoo with sufficient credit limit
But the flaw there is that you are defining people who have a lot of credit as "not rich" when access to that much credit is in fact very much a form of being rich.
In the end if they declare bankruptcy that does not mean they did not literally live like a king for a while.
Rich people lose money too (just look at actors) it doesn't mean they were not once rich, just foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
But the flaw there is that you are defining people who have a lot of credit as "not rich" when access to that much credit is in fact very much a form of being rich.
No, it's not.
In the end if they declare bankruptcy that does not mean they did not literally live like a king for a while.
Living like a king is not the same as being a king.
Re:Yeah.... but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile retail outlets and especially manufacturers are stuck in a shitty situation. They can order/produce more to meet "demand"(even though the bots may still be able to sap up all the supply) but if they overshoot they simply cannot return the "unused" product for a full refund, they have to sit on the unsold inventory until it sells(if it does).
Re:Yeah.... but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of solutions to these problems that do not require new federal laws.
1. They could change return policies on an item-by-item basis. Plenty of websites already do this.
2. They could require that scarce items be ordered as part of a larger order with a minimum purchase amount.
3. They could only display scarce items to online customers that have a qualified ordering history.
4. They could limit how many scarce items can be ordered by shipping address.
5. They could charge higher prices, and then adjust those prices downward on a daily or hourly basis until the inventory is cleared.
None of these solutions require help from Chuck Schumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah.... but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
6. Do nothing. There is no problem to be solved here. They just moved their inventory in record time.
Although, a smart retailer would do 1 and 5. If they were able to recognize this was happening soon enough, double the price for the first 30 minutes that the inventory is in stock with a giant "NON RETURNABLE ITEM" plastered all over the place. #7, profit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because not every inconvenience or problem needs a government solution, law, and regulation.
This is not an issue that should even take a penny or second of government time or attention.
As a country, we were clearly designed to create laws that takes away anyone's liberty only as a last resource. Even if that liberty is for one person to buy a billion widgets, destroy them so there is only one left, then sell that remaining one for a gazillion dollars.
We read about 1984 and big brother and then turn to the
Re: (Score:2)
Consider, a healthy market is supposed to drive price to approach the marginal cost of production. Since the toy manufacturers are NOT losing money on each unit produced, they are NOT priced too low. That is the one and only way markets can create a sane and functional economy. Scalpers disrupt that function be creating an artificial scarcity and then taking advantage of it. That is, they create market inefficiency. They reduce the health of the market.
MBA wet dreams like "value pricing" are driven out of t
Re: (Score:2)
a healthy market is supposed to drive price to approach the marginal cost of production.
That is only for commodity goods. Barbies and Fingerlings are trademarked goods, and are sold at a premium. I have a daughter, and I can guarantee you that "Barbie-like" is in no way a substitute for a real genuine Barbie.
Scalpers disrupt that function be creating an artificial scarcity and then taking advantage of it.
Nonsense. If Scalpers had no expectation of being able to resell at a higher price, there would be no profit for them. Properly priced products are not "scalped". There is no one buying milk and bread from the grocery store, and reselling it at a higher price.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark and copyright DO also damage the market, but I don't buy your argument for scalpers. It's like saying "Gee, I have a nasty flu, so I might as well shoot up with smallpox and AIDS while I'm at it".
Re: (Score:2)
Scalpers disrupt that function be creating an artificial scarcity and then taking advantage of it.
Others have addressed some of the flaws in your argument, but none of them have correctly addressed this one. Scalpers do not create scarcity, they take advantage of it. The term as first coined applied to ticket sales where the scarcity is a result of venue size and is not artificial. However, in the cases discussed in this article, the scarcity is intentionally created by the manufacturer by knowingly producing fewer than the expected demand. If the manufacturers did not approve of what the scalpers are
Re: (Score:2)
1) There aren't enough "rich people" to cause enough demand to pay these high prices. Also consider that a rich person can call the manufacturer and have a chat and try to get one allocated. I'm not rich and I've done this. In fact, I've gotten the items for free as a thank you for a nice conversation.
2) Upper middle class, I thin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since when are middle men who contribute nothing other than inflating the price and burning some oil to ship things around for no reason a good thing?
It also perpetuates inequality by transferring wealth to people who have the capital to run shopping bots.
Imagine if someone bought a fleet of tankers and went around draining every gas station, then selling you that same gas at 10x the normal price. Would you be okay with that, because after all it's just extracting money from rich people clearly have too muc
Re: (Score:3)
anyone paying more than retail is exacerbating the problem.
What problem? I don't see that there is one. The toys are not going to fewer people, just different people.
A $15 toy intended for a 5-year old is targeted for the masses. A $1000 price tag on that same toy is targeted for fucking elitist morons who are creating spoiled narcissistic little shits that society will have to deal with in a more direct manner in the future. That is a problem. The world has enough spoiled narcissistic little shits running around.
I'm also not sure how the hell you feel that scalping isn't a problem, no matter what is being sold. That's not price fixing; it's price fucking.
Chuck Schumer seems to think that allocating limited goods randomly, or perhaps by rationing, is more "fair" than allocating them to whoever is willing to pay the most. That is backwards nonsense.
No, he's
Re:Yeah.... but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
He's not talking about toys
Yes he is. Chuck Schumer is explicitly advocating that the power and authority of the federal government be used to control who can and can't sell ... toys.
EDUCATION. HEALTH CARE. CLEAN WATER.
Poppycock. None of these things are sold at below market prices, bought by bots, and then resold at proper market clearing prices. That is not happening at all, and that is NOT what Chuck is talking about. He is talking about toys.
Democrats like Chuck Schumer are the reason that Trump will be reelected.
Re:Yeah.... but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats like Chuck Schumer are the reason that Trump will be reelected.
I suspect you overestimate voters. They don't like all big important but abstract talk like deficit, climate change, or net neutrality. Most have only the dimmest of understanding what that is and prefer politicians tackle "real problems" like the pothole out front.
"Those damn hackers are ruining christmas!" is totally something that will appeal to useful idiots.
FFS, the republican side isn't running on real solutions to real problems either. "War on Christmas" resonates deeply with a lot of Trump voters, and there is (much to my dismay) no war on Christmas.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, for example, if the U.S. were to spend more money it can't afford.. meaning it would have to "borrow from the people" or in reality it's more like printing more money, then in order to avoid devaluing that money relative to the rest of the world, the rest of the world would also have to print approximately
Re: (Score:2)
They are very much luxury items. Does anyone really NEED a plastic monkey-doll that fits on the fingers?
Anyone with a bit of imagination and some arts-and-crafts supplies could probably make a more interesting doll for about $5 and 30 minutes' time.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone really NEED a plastic monkey-doll that fits on the fingers?
The "Fingerlings" come in a wide variety. Plenty of them sell for the "normal" price of around $15. It is only a few INTENTIONALLY RARE types that are selling for much higher prices because they have become collector's items.
The Democratic Party could be talking about the profound injustices of the Republican tax bill, or Trump's incompetent response to the North Korean missile launches. But instead they are focusing on federal regulatory policies for the sale of tiny toy monkeys.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a non-parent. Look its fine to say all that but the problem comes when Tiny Tim, tells Santa all he wants for Christmas this isa $FADITEM.
Well Tim did work hard in school this year, and he really has been more thoughtful about his little brothers needs like we asked... Why shouldn't Santa reward him? Its not his fault some script kiddie thru a bot together with nokigiri, cleared out Walmart.com and is now holding up Mom and Dad.
Re:Yeah.... but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
so give Tim a gift card and tell him to wait a few months. Some years ago when skylanders were big my kids wanted a rare one. It was out of stock for months and I finally bought it for them in march or april. they played with it for a few minutes and got bored. the whole time i said it was sold out and they understood
meanwhile stupid parents paid $100 or more for a $10 toy a few month prios
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm not a parent, but I have been a kid. Both "doing well in school" and "being nice to people" aren't necessarily things you want tied to rewards - they might just learn that. My parents were always very clear with me that while they expected me to do well in school, there wouldn't be any rewards for it. I knew kids who got $20 for each report card A or something and even as a kid that seemed like a bad attitude. As a side benefit, Tiny Tim won't think of his $FADITEM as transactionally due to him, h
Re:Yeah.... but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former parent of small children, it's fine to teach them about advertising and fads. If they still want X in a year, fine, otherwise there's a life lesson about marketing, peer pressure, and temporality to be taught, which is far more valuable than a Cabbage Patch doll or Pet Rock.
Sociabilisation (Score:5, Interesting)
If they still want X in a year, fine, otherwise there's a life lesson about marketing, peer pressure, and temporality to be taught, which is far more valuable than a Cabbage Patch doll or Pet Rock.
On the other hand, this lesson comes at the price of being the only single kid who received it, and being ostracized by the rest of the school's kid for being weird by not following the same trends as every body else "normal", by not having the same outfit, the same popular toys, etc.
Basically, by making the kid more aware and more immune of the above marketing/peer pressure/etc. problems, you're also pushing them into becoming social outcasts and being percieved as "that weird kid".
There's a sweet spot of weirdness were the kid actually doesn't even give a damn about not fitting in the group, is creative enough to find their own interests in life (without needing group approval) while still being a tiny bit social enough to have a very interesting clique of other non-conforming friends.
(And, personal experience, it also helps a lot when the kid happens to be quite a bit taller then any potential bully...)
But that might not be the case of everyone. Some kids might be actively trying to resist your lessons about not needing to fit in because of sheer fear of rejection by the others.
The part of the lesson about "peer pressure" actually goes much deeper than just "you'll see, in a couple of months you won't even want the toy anymore".
It is a very valuable lesson, but it take quite some work to get there depending on the kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, the problem is not scalpers or $FADITEM shortage. It's advertising. Especially, advertising aimed at the most vulnerable target: kids.
In Poland for example there's a strict ban on advertisements aimed at kids. Alas, the companies found some loopholes, and selling toys based on the newest kid movie is legal, but the problem has been greatly reduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a parent, I never had problems with my kids wanting expensive items. I have always maintained a limited budget for birthday and christmas gifts. If they really wanted something that was exceeding the budget, I would give them the budget amount in cash, and then they could save up the rest themselves. Sometimes we would tell the grandparents to give cash too, so they could combine all of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I won't outright say you are wrong, but there is a bit of a flaw there. Yes, folks willing to pay above retail do create a market and that market feels "unfair". However, it feeling "unfair" only goes as far as the person trying to buy the good. For everyone involved in the bot creation, the drop shipper, the logistics team that gets it from point A to point B and then from point B to point C. Those are avenues of income for different folks. So while end consumers are getting screwed, this is actually
Re: (Score:3)
why isn't it GOP policy to buy up the toys and force people to pay more?
Because there's no forcing people to buy non-essentials.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually all it proves is that the "Market" is a figment of the imagination of a bunch of crooks because it turns out that humans are not rational beings and in fact are completely irrational actors in the market. For example being completely conned by brand marketing (Apple) and buying children's toys at vastly inflated prices in the scam described here. Take your Austrian economists "Free Market" and shove it up your inhuman robotic backside. Humans R Us!
Re: (Score:3)
Policy for who? The GOP-controlled government? It's not government's job to engage in risky business endeavors. Companies run by GOP sympathizers? If they want to buy up toys and resell them for more, they're free to do that.
The main problem with doing this is risk: you might profit a lot if the toy is really hot at the moment, but on the other hand if it's all bought up and resold at too-high prices, it might just lose its attraction (or for other reasons), and now you're stuck with a giant pile of toy
Re: Yeah.... but.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like the China copycats (for any product) turned out to be the real heroes here.
My kids are only allowed to watch CSPAN. (Score:5, Funny)
No toy commercials and a quicker hatred of government so we can bitch about it together.
Arbitrage (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of arbitrage is only possible if the original price was far too low compared to the supply/demand. If there is demand at $1000/ea, and you are selling at $15/ea, then something will fill that void. If not bots, then just people buying and immediately reselling.
I have no idea what a "Barbie Dreamhouse" is or why it could possibly be worth $1000 to somebody, but if that's where the market values it, you can either (a) produce more to drive the supply/demand intersection point down closer to what you feel it should be, or (b) sell closer to the current intersection point, which takes the wind out of arbitrage, which also becomes very risky.
These things are matters of basic economics, and have simple solutions.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea what a "Barbie Dreamhouse" is
Wow. You and I must live in different universes. I presume you don't have a daughter between 4 and 10 years old. A Barbie Dream House is the sine qua non of girlhood. Parental refusal to buy one constitutes the worst form of child abuse. A girl without one simply has no reason to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You and I must live in different universes. I presume you don't have a daughter between 4 and 10 years old. A Barbie Dream House is the sine qua non of girlhood. Parental refusal to buy one constitutes the worst form of child abuse. A girl without one simply has no reason to live.
I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence. Unfortunately, helping them end their life is considered filicide, and not a viable option in the current socioclimate.
I opt for teaching the tykes through practical exercises that greed does not pay off:
"You get to wish for one major present which you will get if it fits within the household gift budget. If it's too expensive, you get nothing, nada. Not something cheaper instead, but nothing, because we don't reward greed. You get to decide what you ask fo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I presume you don't have a daughter between 4 and 10 years old
My daughter is 18, and I've never heard of a "Barbie Dreamhouse". When she was younger, she had dolls and even a plastic play house for them, but they were all cheap generic toys.
Re: Arbitrage (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't guess what toys will be the ones that are loved.
My daughter's Barbie Dream House was, of course, her favorite. But otherwise I have had good luck giving kids dorky nerd stuff, which they almost always like. For one Christmas I gave her a bottle of heavy water (D2O). She won bets from her friends with ice cubes that sink, and with H2O ice cubes that will adhere to a finger wetted with D2O but not H2O (D2O freezes at about 39F or 4C). She loved it. The next year, I gave her 100g of gallium, a metal that melts at about 85F or 30C.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Arbitrage (Score:5, Informative)
Jeez. What do you get the kids if they are bad, a vial of mercury?
No. As a neurotoxin, it is likely that mercury would make their behavior even worse. Gallim is physically similar to mercury, but non-toxic. It is a lot of fun to play with. You can pour it into a mold, pop it into the refrigerator, and make metal parts. Then just hold it in your hand and it will "disappear" back into a liquid.
Of course, I get my kids the chemicals and other dork stuff in addition to the Barbie accessories, except when I can double dip by buying something that is both, such as Scientist Barbie [amazon.com].
Re:Arbitrage (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, it's an artificial scarcity. It's not as if our industrial capacity is maxed out, it's just that demand if focused on a small part of the year and re-tooling takes time.
Compounding that, it only takes a few kooks willing to pay those crazy prices to make the venture pay for the scalpers. A lot of product gets left on the shelf even in the midst of huge demand. That is, an inefficient market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you have unmet consumer demand and a profitably manufactured product sitting on the shelf, you have a market failure. In this case, caused by scalpers.
Trademark and copyright do damage in this area as well, but at least serve some useful social purpose (though I don't think the current balance is anything like correct to maximize social benefit). MAP and forbidding re-import should certainly be nullified. Likewise scalping should be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't, the product is sitting on a shelf in the scalper's warehouse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not basic economics, but rather manipulation of the supply by purchasing it all. The bots are creating the shortage, not just taking advantage of it. By purchasing so many of those toys that they are hard to find, you make the supply short. Say they are selling at $15, you buy them all and offer them for sale at $1000. That would be around $900 profit, assuming fairly small expenses in addition to the purchase cost. You could sell very few and throw out most of they toys and come out way ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Mattel's management is plainly asleep at the wheel and ought to be taken out to the woodshed by its major shareholders. All the money that resellers are making off this cheap chunk of plastic is money that Mattel could be making simply by increasing production. Some secondary markets are not important enough to worry about, but if you have a product that is being resold at a price two full orders of magnitude above its retail price, that is definitely leaving a giant mound of cash on the table. It's a rare
Re: (Score:2)
Your cavalier attitude about warehouse space confirms that you don't know anything about retail. Warehouse sp
Re: (Score:2)
What they didn't tell you about on the first day of basic economics class is the other factors that determine price. The Barbie Dreamhouse is the gateway to many future purchases. Furniture, dolls to populate it, extensions, vehicles, supplementary media... So selling it at $1000 will reduce profits, because very few people will own one and thus very few accessories will be sold.
Everything from games consoles to cars are sold using this model.
Color me cynical but (Score:5, Insightful)
Supply and demand .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Screw that.... ANOTHER attempt by government to manipulate the free market economy, with the flawed idea it will improve anything.
You can blame these scripts/bots all you like for product shortages, but I guarantee they'll continue to happen even if all of them are somehow magically prevented from running.
The companies actually building the products are known to limit how many are produced after doing the marketing, knowing full well that shortages drum up more interest and free publicity than making sure there's plenty of supply. (When supply is plentiful, a lot of people decide to buy some other product instead that they feel is going to be harder to obtain as a gift. They figure, "Eh... I can easily get one of THOSE things any time, and judging by how many are on shelves? It'll probably go on sale by then too.")
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds nice, but in reality it doesn't happen a whole lot. Give a company the chance to sell however much they can as fast as they can and they will. This all has to do with inventory stock piling. Sure you can start to stock pile 6 months before xmas, but that costs money to warehouse them. Time from make to sell is in one of the most important metrics.
Not to mention just because you may want X units for xmas doesn't mean the factories can deliver them.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that.... ANOTHER attempt by government to manipulate the free market economy, with the flawed idea it will improve anything.
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference... welcome to the way the world has always worked. Only the uneducated believe there has ever been a free market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 [youtube.com]
I'm sorry, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Better idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's try something novel - if you can't find it in stores, just don't buy it.
Trust me, your little darlings aren't going to be scarred for life.
And even better, the so-called Grinch-bots will then be left holding the toys when noone is willing to pay $1K price tags for a $15 toy....
Re:Better idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me, your little darlings aren't going to be scarred for life.
A metric fuck-load of people need to learn this.
Re: (Score:3)
They won't.
Too many parents are either trying to be their kids' "buddy" instead of their parent, or they are spending all their time on their careers or are simply emotionally 'empty suits' to their kids and so buy the kids whatever in place of being a loving, involved parent.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
They won't.
True, but they should, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
2 shoppers enter, one shopper leaves... (Score:3)
Its kind of evil if you ask me.
A True Christmas Miracle (Score:5, Funny)
And thus we learned that the true meaning of Christmas is not in buying whatever mass-produced junk is trendy at the moment, but in joining together in anger on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear. MY favorite part in the celebration is still where we all gather around the tree and call each other "Nazi"... never fails to bring a tear to my eye.
Why not more supply (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you charge more, fewer people will buy (except during christmas when they will buy). If you produce more, retail and distributor space will get wasted (not sure who pays for that).
And there is still the risk that scalpers will buy up all the extra product even at higher prices and quantities. With a profit of almost $1,000, why wouldn't they?
Why do kids need... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What to tell your kids (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps We Should Give This a Little More Thought (Score:5, Insightful)
However, let's look at this like technology people (slashdot, right?). Toys today could be something else tomorrow?
Those mandatory for school TI calculators?
Chemicals necessary to produce certain kinds of 3D print material used in every household?
Important drugs that are hard to produce?
Preparation H?!? (Hey,when you need it and it is not there, then you will understand)
I'm not sure if this is possible today, but when I think about how the market has changed over the past 10 or 20 years and imagine how it might change over the next 10 or 20, I'm not sure this "abuse" is going to be limited to rich people and their spoiled children's toy fetishes. When I combine a little imagination with the history of technology and its evolution, this practice makes me a little nervous.
I don't know if Schumer has thought about this or even cares, but shouldn't we give it a little more thought before discounting this out of hand?
How could bots disrupt the free market and legitimately hurt people by limiting access to stuff?
Just a bad pricing policy by manufacturer! (Score:2)
The toy manufacturers are obviously mispricing their toys if the 'Grinch Bots' are a problem. Sort of like a company that sets it's IPO price at $20/share and sees it climb to $50 the first day and stay above $40 for months -- the company just left too much money on the table and investors took advantage of it.
"Selling" or "Listing"? (Score:2)
"Selling on secondary websites for $1000 a pop" is pretty misleading.
A lot of those bot-sellers are automated, and look at similar items on various websites for pricing.
So one bot sees another bot selling a $15 item for $20, and ups the price by 10% to $22. Which triggers Bot #3 to sell for $24. They get into high-speed feedback loops that push the prices up until they hit arbitrary caps (in this case, $1000). You see this with low-end electronics on Amazon from time to time: a no-name, nothing fancy cable
Gotta love that "free market"... (Score:3)
Re:Works as advertized (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Smith warned that this sort of rent seeking needs to be regulated lest the economy go in the dumper.
Re:Works as advertized (Score:5, Informative)
He was thinking of absolutely anything that might sell in the marketplace. If scalpers were creating a toothpick shortage, that would also be proper subject for regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And so, overproduce, There is no ACTUAL shortage, they're all in a tent in the scalper's back yard. Enough to last the whole population for a year.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words this is nothing that you can easily come out and say "There should be a law against this", but one where you can still understand why people would still want there to be law
Re: (Score:2)
Better, make the toy scalpers watch the crying kids belonging to the more practical parents until they calm back down. No ear plugs allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
watch the crying kids belonging to the more practical parents
The flaw in your counter-argument is that the same quality that makes practical parents not pay outrageous prices on fad pieces of shit makes them have trained their children to not be spoiled, whiny brats.
Re: (Score:2)
Try telling 5 year olds that the grump sitting in the corner is exactly why Santa can't bring them what they most wanted for Christmas and see what happens. And pass me the popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, my kid asks for something, I beat dat ass with a 2x4 If they while again, I put a nail in it. They just sit there kinda glassy eyed now, never make a peep.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto @geoskd, except we only have two kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Better, make the toy scalpers watch the crying kids... No ear plugs allowed.
Why would they plug their ears? Crying sounds like very high demand for the toys to the scalpers. So it's like music to their ears... (cha ching)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering that we're about to add $1.5 tn in deficit spending to make the ultra-wealthy just that much more wealthy on the poor's dime, I think that the people paying those markups probably don't feel bad about screwing the poorer out of buying them for what the manufacturer and retailers are asking.
We live in a winner take all society where the rich are so completely oblivious that it's going to take literal lynch mobs of villagers carrying torches and pitchforks to get them to see that being greedy bast
Re: (Score:2)
If another firms want to buy all the product at retail and take the risk in reselling it, then that is not necessarily a problem. It will create demand, so the next product I release is likely to sell well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)