Slashdot Mirror


How 'Grinch Bots' Are Ruining Online Christmas Shopping (nypost.com)

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.

283 comments

  1. Yeah.... but.... by gfxguy · · 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.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Hey, that SNES classic is for me, bub.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    3. Re:Yeah.... but.... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Yeah! The government doesn't want people to pay artificially inflated prices... unless it is for health insurance or internet access.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    5. Re:Yeah.... but.... by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      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 profitable for a whole slew of folks (yeah, maybe a few cents for this person, a few cents to this group, etc...). So I would just say, "NOT A VICTIM, they are their own PROBLEM." Everyone else doesn't see this as an issue. So I think it's fair that folks go into the argument knowing that the ONLY PERSON with the problem is the person creating the problem as well.

      If they regulated it, I wouldn't care. If they don't regulate it, I wouldn't care. But I just can't stand folks screaming "IT IS UNFAIR!!" Fair and unfair is a matter of perspective, and who you favor depends deeply on what you think is important to you. So you get some conservative folks who feel the industry is important, some liberal folks who feel the consumer is important, and the correct answer is, there isn't one. It's just a matter of flavor of how you want to rule.

      Ultimately, though, this is going to get regulated. Thinking otherwise is just missing the writing on the wall. StubHub is an excellent example of why I feel that no matter what is argued for the topic, it will get regulated. At some point the bots will just get so bad, that there literally is no way to find something on retail, except for maybe walking into a brick and mortar. Even if the government doesn't do it, if like say Amazon can't sell a single XYZ product because as soon as they have it a drop-shipper has already scooped it up, and that starts to cut into their ability to draw people away from brick and mortar; they'll end it, they'll drop a damn hammer on it if need be.

    6. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, fleece the rich for as much as possible. These are luxury goods, not essentials.

      And the "secondary websites" could be charged large fees to operate, and the money used to buy toys for non-overprivileged children. Everybody wins!

    7. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Spoken like a parent. There's no such thing as Santa, Tim is not tiny and he is not special. Tough shit, Tim. You don't always get everything you want.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    8. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill you're tacitly equating TOYS with all other goods. Food, education, medicine. Not all things need game-able scalper-friendly market dynamics, you greedy Ayn Randian chisler apologist.
      Your dishonesty is greasy.

      "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."

      He's not talking about toys, moron. EDUCATION. HEALTH CARE. CLEAN WATER. Stop being so casually dishonest and I'll treat you with more casual respect AS IT BECOMES DUE, CHARLATAN.

    9. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Nintendo did up production this year to 6 of them, it might have been just one person clicking the buy button a half dozen times.

      Fucking Nintendo.

    10. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell him a script kiddie hacker bought his toy with a bot and encourage him to write his own bot.
      Tell him it means war, and if he wants his toy he should fight for it.

    11. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ironically you just described what the Democrats actually want to do, but thought it was an attack on Republicans.

      Welcome to being a conservative.

    12. Re:Yeah.... but.... by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      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

    13. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backward ... as in ? Hopeless, perhaps, but backward nonsense ? Perhaps for an acquisitive libertoon freak , but not for Joe-6-PK who will gladly bust-yo-face for such "free market" behavior. Comprende ?? What's the cost of new dental work balanced against your determination to have "your guys" get the toy and not mine.

    14. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please tell me more: How is government regulation inhibiting the supply of Fingerlings thereby driving up prices?

    15. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Nintendo?
      You want to play their 30 year old games. But still fuck them?
      Then fucking download it you puss.

    16. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Nutria · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    17. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    18. Re:Yeah.... but.... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      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, he'll be more grateful when/if it comes.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    19. Re:Yeah.... but.... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Spoken like a non-parent. Look its fine to say all that but the problem comes when Tiny Tim..."

      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.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    20. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, 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.

    21. Re:Yeah.... but.... by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They actually are creating problems not only for consumers but for manufacturers and retail outlets as well. I think a lot of people are missing the asymmetric risk aspect of what these things are doing. Most retail outlets have relatively generous return policies meaning that bots buying up tons of these items assume almost no risk, if they can't scalp them they simply return them for a full refund.

      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).

    22. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schumer is literally talking about toys.

    23. Re:Yeah.... but.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      Why exactly should we cry for the manufacturers of cheap plastic toys that will be thrown into a landfill in 3 months? Let 'em bankrupt, wouldn't be any great loss.

    24. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then let him get screwed when the bill comes.

    26. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win best correct answer.

    27. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      You mean the power and authority they've exercised for DECADES already?

      Poppycock. None of these things are sold at below market prices, bought by bots, and then resold at proper market clearing prices.

      You obviously don't know how things work, especially with the water supply, where the problem of expropriation at below-market prices IS a significant issue, but then, it isn't like pricing isn't an issue with Education or Healthcare.

      That is not happening at all, and that is NOT what Chuck is talking about. He is talking about toys.

      A multi-billion dollar industry? HOW DARE HE! Who said the Federal Government even has the ability to regulate COMMERCE, especially INTERSTATE COMMERCE! It's inconceivable!

      Democrats like Chuck Schumer are the reason that Trump will be reelected.

      Trump? He was never elected, perhaps he might wrangle another false selection, but not because of this, which would actually be acting in the interests of the public.

      Idiots like you wringing your hands over it, ok, maybe that might get Trump into power again, but then, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions already.

      Of course, Trump will be opposed, DAMN opposed, to any business regulations, but that's because he's used to exploiting the system himself.

    28. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I went to buy tickets to a Jimmy Carr gig, saw the price of the tickets had been more than doubled by a Swiss scalping company so I just went and spent my money on other things.

      What was worse was that the scalping company raked HIGHER on Google than the legitimate ticket seller.

      So I am now trying out duckduckgo and Bing.

    29. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be assuming that buyers of overpriced toys are "richer" than bot writers - or more precisely, bot owners.

      That assumption is not only unwarranted, it's also highly implausible on its face.

    30. Re:Yeah.... but.... by dcollins117 · · Score: 1, 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.

    31. Re:Yeah.... but.... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    32. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    33. Re:Yeah.... but.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Or just ban multiple orders from an IP range known to be used by bots.

    34. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, fucking Nintendo. They purposefully massively underserve the demand opening up room for these sorts of shenanigans. I'd love to have one of these, but I'm not going to pay scalpers for the privilege of owning one.

    35. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy to do in the US, too. We got rid of cable, and we have ad blockers.

      I don't think my kids have ever seen a single commercial. And if they see brand merchandise, they tell me that it must be crap, as it clearly wouldn't sell without the branding.

    36. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea here is that these are not luxury items but for items that ordinary people should afford. Any buy sell, without any value added is scalping, pure and simple and is should be banned because it is a scam.

    37. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schumer is literally talking about toys.

      Chucky Schumer is one of the most corrupt and revolting critters in Congress and would do everyone a big favor by dying in a fire.

      Slowly.

      Anyone wanna send him a book of matches and a gallon of gasoline as a 'do-it-yourself' kit?

    38. Re:Yeah.... but.... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, 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.

    39. Re:Yeah.... but.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      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.

    40. Re:Yeah.... but.... by uncqual · · Score: 2

      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 a tiny income and NO credit history. I have no idea WHY they gave it to me, but I used it some and paid it off every month (if I wouldn't be able to do so, I just kept it in my pocket and didn't party -- at least at my expense). They probably didn't make money off of me at the time (although I kept that card for probably 15 years and used it as my primary card -- still paying it off reliably every month so they may have made money in the end).

      So, there are young consumers who are responsible and the credit card companies are betting on a certain mix to make money in the end.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    41. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      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 toys that no one wants.

      Personally, I think this stuff is silly. If people want to buy up stuff and resell it, it's their right: it's called First Sale Doctrine. If mfgrs want to avoid the problems that could cause, they're free to institute sales policies, to try to prevent any one customer from buying too many. I'm personally not going to be saddened by some parents "forced" to spend $1000 on some stupid little toy; no one's forcing them to buy this crap instead of something else that isn't so popular.

    42. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Likewise, any voter who keeps voting for a republican or democrat is NOT A VICTIM, they are the PROBLEM.

      Personal choices apply to everything, not just Christmas, oops! I'm sorry, you can't say that on the internet, I mean holiday shopping...

    43. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case? By making it illegal for anyone else to produce them.

    44. Re:Yeah.... but.... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I think that being nice to people should be assumed, but doing well in school should probably be rewarded.

      I wouldn't do my job for free, and if I do it better I get greater rewards, why should school be different?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    45. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is such a rule in Sweden as well. As a result all broadcasts are relayed through England where ads targeting children are legal.

    46. Re:Yeah.... but.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      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 the market if and when the market is healthy.

    47. Re:Yeah.... but.... by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a non-parent.

      Horse$#!7. A good parent understands that part of parenting is explaining the real world to your kids in a controlled environment so they can absorb the reality. There are two facits to that. The first is that a young child should never be given everything they want. Below the age of about 5, They simply do not have the cognition to equate their behavior throughout the year with a single regard in December. They haven't developed the ability to put cause and effect together when they are that far spaced in time. After 5 years of age, they are old enough to begin to appreciate the cause and effect, but they are also old enough to start learning that the reason why they are not going to get that $FADITEM for Christmas is because it costs way too much. Maybe you give them enough money to buy $FADITEM at normal retail prices and tell them they can wait until the price comes down (as it inevitably will), or they can use the money to buy something else right now. You will have just taught them a very valuable lesson about money and wise spending. Doing things your way is the reason we have so damn many precious snowflakes in this world.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    48. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because you die-in-the-gutter if ya don't do well in school. Surviving is your reward and your parents pay that reward already. Ya wanna be like duffus drug-addicted nibbers ?

    49. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I mean, there's lots of things that were "all I wanted" for christmas when I was a kid. I didn't get them very often because my family couldn't afford them (even without scalpers). All I really wanted was an NES. I didn't get that until I was old enough to buy one on my own with money I was earning from a job. Usually if I really wanted "wiz bang doodads", if I got it at all, it was a generic knockoff. I assure you that no matter how much I wanted it, a Tamagotchi was never in the offering. It sucks, sure, but you know life isn't fair and sometimes people make it worse. At best, your kid doesn't even care, at the worst, you get to have a teachable moment with them about how sometimes people are so selfish they ruin other people's christmas

    50. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you are dangerous...

    51. Re:Yeah.... but.... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1, Informative

      The card issuer made a couple percent of every transaction you made in merchant fees. They did just fine with your responsible use. The deadbeats who carry a balance are just the icing on the cake.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    52. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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.

    53. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's either about the games or you just want to be the scalper.
      Just Virtual Console it puss puss.

    54. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... ban China?

    55. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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.

    56. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instructions unclear, crafted penis dress.

    57. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so when tapping and reselling WATER at ridiculous markup its just the free market and people are just stupid, right? also when votes are bought.

    58. Re:Yeah.... but.... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Ok... let's be a little more intelligent than this. I don't say it like this to be rude, I say it like this because I believe we shouldn't take the first answer that comes to mind.

      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 think I'm part of this but am not sure, we don't spend money like that. I've said to my kids "We're not getting this for Christmas unless you're willing to take an IOU until they become available for regular price" or "It's way too expensive and while I love you... I love you enough to say no... even at Christmas. I would pay that much for a gift, but it has to be something I believe you'll get value from. That's not something I believe you'll use enough ... or even enjoy enough to justify the cost".

      3) The likelihood of spending irresponsibly to provide more for their children than they had generally is a characteristic of the lower classes. The lower you go, the more likely you are to believe that it's really important that your child looks like they have everything. I know this too because I wasn't always upper-middle class. It was never the rich kids who always had all the latest and greatest things in school. It was the lower-middle class. This is because upper-middle would often have a lot of stuff, certainly they did. But they were used to having these things.

      Consider that my kid and his friends, all kids growing up in nearly million dollar houses with average household incomes that can comfortably cover that cost. These boys are into Nike and sports etc... my son who wear glasses has never had to worry about what a pair of glasses cost, if he liked them and we thought they looked good, we bought them. Sometimes they were Versace, sometimes Oakley, etc... He has two pairs of Jordans. We bought him one pair because he needed shoes and he had been telling us for a while his dreams are to have a pair of Jordans. So, we bought them for the new school year. His second pair, he paid for himself from his confirmation money. He and his friends all have about the same. The kids from "the other side of the tracks" however have 5-6 different pairs of Jordans. They wear all the latest trends and have nothing but expensive things. They are the kids who always had the hotest toys first. They are also the kids who I've actually heard saying "Oh my god!!! I can't go to school dressed like this. I have to get .... or else I'll be an outcast". The wealthier kids, they shop at H&M... the lower middle shop at the name brand stores.

      There's a reason for this. It's prioritization. I didn't think my kid needed two pairs of Jordans. It didn't make sense to have two $200 pairs of shoes. After all, they are just shoes. A man needs a sneakers, dress shoes, sandals and boots. One pair of each, boots are optional. A pair of sneakers should last about 2-3 years and therefore $200 is reasonable for a pair. There is value in owning one good pair of sneakers. And there is the key... is there value?

      So... I think what you're seeing instead if opportunists profiting by preying on the weak. I would imagine that the price of the item after scalper inflation is hardly relevant since the people most likely to purchase it will need to place it on credit anyway. People who spend on gifts based on what they can afford would never waste money like that.

    59. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump is a moronic fraud headed for prison and your thick amygdala is FIRMLY up your ass Bill. Dance you puppet bitch.

    60. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let them have only water from small plastic bottles including toilet water

    61. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so its ok with clean water only from plastic bottles? people are their own problem and have no rights to their own water?

    62. Re:Yeah.... but.... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've spent years trying to understands the deficit myself. If I understand it correctly, it's a tool which governments attempt to balance between each other to print more money allowing for inflation.

      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 the same amount of money (percentage-wise of course). The deficit needs to be carefully balanced to ensure that no country prints too much money, otherwise it would dilute the base too greatly in comparison to others.

      The problems with a deficit isn't really the size of the deficit. It's that when introducing so much more money into the system, it has to trickle down through the masses and either it needs to get stuck in the bank accounts of people like Bill Gates who basically removes it from the economy. Or the alternative is it will trickle down to the middle class (not middle income). At that point, to avoid having the deficit have and positive value, it is necessary to coerce the money into the lower classes either through work, taxes, donations, etc... this would allow enough wealth distribution to permit across the board inflation... which means that the poor people would make more and the cost of milk would rise.

      The equilibrium will remain, but enough money will be introduced to the economy to allow housing prices to increase thereby increasing the wealth of the middle class and allowing them to help finance their childrens' futures.

      This system became important as medicine improved and the middle class could no longer count on inheritance. Because the middle class lives to 80+ years of age, by the time you inherit, you're already 50-55 years old. When you inherit, your kids are already in their late 20s to 30s. Also since mom and dad have lived between 15-30 years on fixed income with almost no increase to social security, whatever they had owned was mortgaged and even the middle class is dieing broke. So inheritance probably is no longer and option anyway. So since wealth isn't being passed generation to generation until reaching the higher end of the upper middle class, wealth to assist later generations has to be produced through the deficit.

      I'm pretty sure I've oversimplified and left out many steps. I do believe that the deficit is a very good thing if it can be properly throttled and managed. It is a very bad thing if we can't figure out how to get the wealth produced by the deficit into the hands of the lower classes. If there is more wealth, we need the price of milk to go up... or we'll simply push more people into the lower class.

      Ok... so I have displayed I don't know shit about the deficit.

      Voters are generally idiots. The proof of it is that most voters choose a team. They vote red or blue, lib or conser, etc... they almost never have a single unique thought and while this is 2017 and we don't actually need NBC, CBS, ABC the NY Times etc... to run for president, the average voter is far too stupid to actually care about what they're voting for. They only care about what team the player is on and whether they'll help kick the other teams ass.

    63. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looks like the China copycats (for any product) turned out to be the real heroes here.

    64. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Obviously they have no idea about their own lives. They should have their votes taken away and given to you.

    65. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... so I have displayed I don't know shit about the deficit.

      Yes, you have. At so many levels. It would have been quicker for you to go learn about it instead of typing all that display of ignorance.

      Voters are generally idiots.

      No, voters are spread across the spectrum. Out of curiosity, when was the moment you started thinking you were smarter than everyone else?

    66. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough*Nintendo*cough*

    67. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is supply isn't meeting demand. If companies raised their prices or increased supply there wouldn't be any "scapers".

    68. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The toys do not go to kids, they sit in traders' spare rooms until suckers pay the extraordinary mark-ups. Net effect: fewer kids have access to products aimed at them. A LEGO kit in a box in a trader's garage, or room, is just that, and one less toy for a child to play with. Assuming you're not a faggot (hard to tell with your faux rage), wait until you have kids and they save to buy something only to find greedy people have hoarded them all away. "Touch shit, kid! The trader is doing nothing wrong. HAHA, kid."

    69. Re:Yeah.... but.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      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".

    70. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long live Chuck Schumer - The Quizmaster !
      Does he knows, that in "Solar Lottery" there was also another person selected to also very important task?

      Teaching kids that , no you do not have to have everything advertised in TV is important part of education.
      My kid? will get very old stuff - 70 year old Remington .22 (it was his grandfather first rifle too).

    71. Re:Yeah.... but.... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    72. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...instead of typing all that display of ignorance.

      ...when was the moment you started thinking you were smarter than everyone else?

      Pot, kettle on line one.

    73. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump? He was never elected

      Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. I wish dullards like yourself would stay away from voting booths.

    74. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a credit card when I was 17. Fortunately they didn't want to give me one that maintains a balance (this one is automatically repaid at the end of each month). They obviously try to push the ones with which you can accumulate debt, but I didn't want that. They often call me to switch but now it is easy to say no...

    75. Re:Yeah.... but.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, 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 much and distributing it back to poor working class tanker fleet owners?

      You will probably argue that gas is different because people "need" it (as if they can't just walk), but that doesn't sound very capitalist.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    76. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy doesn't make much sense. The parent poster was indicating your reasoning does not apply on non-commodity goods. And it doesn't.

      The real reason for that is, because you're wrong in your first premise. "a healthy market is supposed to drive price to approach the marginal cost of production." is actually not entirely correct. What companies do, and want to do, is maximising profits.

      When there is lots of competition, maximum profits are only pennies, and close to the marginal cost of production, indeed.

      But that a consequence, not a goal. Ergo, all products that are common and can be delivered by many producers, will have a price close to the nominal cost.

      For products that are not, like trademarked barbiedolls, this is not true, because others can (well, may) not produce it.

      If scalpers scoop these up and resell it as 10 times the price, the problem is not that they can or do, but that the price for those non-commodity goods are set far too low, apparently.

      Apparently, since the free market speaks with demand and supply, and if there are people willing to pay 1000 dollar for a doll, then the shops could as well have sold it for 1000 dollar as well, only they set their price too low.

      So... if shops DO set it at 1000 dollars, and everything gets bought out by rich people regardless, are you going to still complain? Is there still a problem? Are you of the opinion we should go to a communist inspired market, and be sure everyone can buy even non-commodity goods?

      Or isn't there problem anymore? And if there isn't, what's the problem now, then? After all, those scalpers are just doing the same as shops which add a profit-margin to the goods they buy. Only a far bigger one, because they see the possibility in it.

      If no people would actually think those dolls are worth it, and thus not buy any, the scalping of those dolls would end as well.

    77. Re:Yeah.... but.... by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    78. Re:Yeah.... but.... by geekmux · · Score: 2

      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 probably simply advocating that people get a fair shot at purchasing to avoid price fucking, and injecting human-validating components (CAPTCHA or the like) into the purchasing process to curb bot use is one way of doing that. Again, if a manufacturer sells a toy for $15 MSRP, their intent is to not force consumers to buy their product at a 5000% markup.

    79. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      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 doing they have several options available to them to put them out of business. They could A} charge more for these scarce products in the first place or B)secretly reserve a significant number of these products and flood the market with them just before Christmas (or when the scalping price rises above a certain level). After a year or two of B, people who wanted the "scarce" item would continue to look for the item at retail, knowing that eventually it would be there. If scalpers tried to keep supply scarce, they would bankrupt themselves by buying more of the item than they could sell. There are other strategies the manufacturers could implement as well. However, the manufacturers like the scalpers because it increases demand for their product (even some of the other items they sell which they have not artificially limited).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    80. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ShanghaiBill iss:

      1. Trump supporter
      2. Gun nut
      3. Slashdot troll
      4. Fuckwit

      Look at his posting history for the truth, don't read his comments and definitely don't mod them up.

    81. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am voting for Trump because I am pro-pedophile and pro-treason.

    82. Re:Yeah.... but.... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I will get Keynesion here. But if people pay for it then demand is high enough for people to want the product. The problem with these bots is it reducing the supply thus rising the price. Now if a popular Christmas present was made at a short supply the price would be higher, however the company who made the small supply would only hurt themselves because while they may get higher margin per product, they would had made more money selling more for less. These bots are artificially altering supply so the price will go up.

      Now there is value exceeding the retail price of the product of the toy. What is the price of a happy memory? Even for a toy that they kid plays with for a week, then puts it in the toy box to never be used again? Being that bringing you child to see a movie or going to an amusement park, so you are paying for the child's ticket and your ticket for a service you really don't want to watch, may cost just as much as that toy, and it may or may not offer happier memories.

      Yes they are starving children in the world, and every dollar you earn should go into optimal food and shelter, health care, water, and the rest will go into wise investments, where you may retire and point down with destine for the people who are their prime, enjoying life while they are able to enjoy it at its maximum. Only to die with a lot of money but not a life of note.

      Now I am not saying to live an hedonist life style, spoil your kids rotten, protect them for anything unpleasant. But life is a middle ground, where we need to make our own decisions on what is worth it, and what isn't. Paying $1,000 for the latest smart phone, or paying $200 for one that is a few years old, or getting a cheap $20 flip phone. Where that money can go to something else. We rarely have a full view of someones full purchasing decisions, They may have Fancy Clothing, a Nice Car, a Fancy phone, then live in a tiny home, because they feel better showing off towards other people. Or someone may live a modest life style, but are able to go on long vacations. (This example are with people in the same income range)

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    83. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also the fact that there are two money sinks that destroy inheritances: First, older people wind up dying in the hospital. Hospitals charge a lot of money, and an entire estate can be sucked up, leaving absolutely nothing for anyone else.

      There are also estate taxes. With the repeal of the estate taxes for estates over a certain amount, wealthier people keep theirs, while the middle class loses their nest egg.

      It doesn't do much good for a society having a generation of Paris Hiltons while most of the populace starves on the streets. This is a road that eventually breeds revolution, and this is how poisonous ideologies, be it Stalin-esque communism or Daesh like religious purity, get started and blossom. Especially when people realize that they have no future, no way to make a better life for their kids, while watching others delve into conspicuous consumption. The Arab Spring is a good example of this.

    84. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Print more money? You do realize that to fund deficits, the government must borrow. That takes many forms but however it is done, it comes out as an interest expense in the yearly budgets (which ought to be two-year budgets to be sensible). That interest expense crowds out other funding which means less for everything else. Eventually, the markets decide the U.S. cannot afford its debt and will require higher interest rates to buy said debt, which creates more debt.

      Yes, you have displayed you do not know shit about the deficit.

    85. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gtall · · Score: 1

      In the credit card business, they refer to someone who does pay their card off every month as a "deadbeat".

    86. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Well Gaaawwwwllly, Sargent!! Ma and Pa Kettle could simply implement this for their moonshine. Why, anyone can do it, so what's the problem?

    87. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      all it proves is that the "Market" is a figment of the imagination of a bunch of crooks

      Which crooks' imagination is "the Market" a fiction of? Name names, and what they stole.

      being completely conned by brand marketing (Apple) and buying children's toys at vastly inflated prices in the scam described here

      Do you deny that people -- even in Socialist Workers Utopias -- are status seekers?

      Take your Austrian economists "Free Market" and ...

      Ever heard of a Market Town?

      The "Market" has been around since the first group of people gathered together to sell their wares in a central location, and that's a lot longer ago than the creation of the Austrian School.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    88. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Pascoea · · Score: 3, 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.

    89. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC for obvious reasons:

      I had a job I was working wind up not paying their employees for a number of months. Wound up having to file bankruptcy, because when I quit, they demanded their signing bonus back. With my credit record in the shitter due to student loans, AND a bankruptcy, I still get at least 3-4 "preselected" credit card offers a week. Some of them actually have a good interest rate of 8.99%.

      You can be a Homer Simpson where a siren goes off on a credit check, and still get tons of offers.

    90. Re:Yeah.... but.... by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      I wonder about a CAPTCHA given for scarce items, to be added in the cart, especially toys. One CAPTCHA entered per 1-5 items.

    91. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about bots ordering plywood and generators in the days leading up to a hurricane?

      Some libertarians don't even see price gouging (e.g., by scalpers or other opportunists) as a problem: they see price gouging as an efficient way to allocate resources of all kind.

      Most civilized people disagree.

    92. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how any of those solution are in any way better than making it illegal for bots to participate in the market.

    93. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would believe it. I have a friend whose cat is a registered locksmith.

    94. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said; mod parent up.

      The short version? You don't need a fingerling; a man needs food, clothing, shelter, period. Anything else constitutes a luxury.

    95. Re:Yeah.... but.... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      You're defending scalping in the name of capitalism? I'm pro-capitalism, and I can't stand Chuck Schumer, but he's on-point on this one.
      These bot writers are inserting themselves as middlemen and abusing the system. Also, these guys are preventing far more people who aren't rich from buying toys that they should otherwise be able to afford for their kids, then they are helping non-rich people. They're only helping themselves, a very tiny minority of a handful of people.
      Regulation is a balancing act, a means of checks and balances. Too much is bad, but sometimes so is too little. It's a complex issue with no simple answer of either "muh free market" nor "muh socialism".

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    96. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A man needs a sneakers, dress shoes, sandals and boots. One pair of each, boots are optional.

      Ask me how I know you're not from the working class. Or the country.

    97. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is the makers (or sellers) of some products making limited quantities available at first. If the Nintendo Classic had hit the stores in other than very small quantities, they would have sold for MSRP. When they hit the stores , most stores only had a few, and these were grabbed up but scalpers, who then turnes around and listed them on eBay and other sites for hundreds of dollars over the MSRP.

      Even at the MSRP of $60.00, the Nintendo Classic was overpriced. With no way to expand it's memory, no way to add more than the 30 games (over half of which were not very good) it came with, and the fact that the controller cables, power cable, and HDMI cable were all very short, made the Nintendo Classic a bad deal at anything over $20.00.

      For about $90, you can get a RetorPie kit. Although there is some assembly required, it comes with emulators for most of the early game systems, and everything you need to set up a gaming system that is far superior to the Nintendo Classic.

    98. Re:Yeah.... but.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      What companies do, and want to do, is maximising profits.

      OMG, REALLY? This is a REVELATION. I never would have imagined!!!

      That's why markets require regulation to remain healthy. Yes, trademark and copyright damage the health of the market (the flu) so why compound the problem by allowing scalpers (shooting up with smallpox and aids)?

    99. Re:Yeah.... but.... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, 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 government to watch and control all problems we run into.

      What's next? Should the government step in and sue nintendo and apple for not producing enough product to keep up with demand? To sue movie theaters for wasting theater space on art movies when big blockbuster movies are sold out?

    100. Re:Yeah.... but.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      And I addressed why your bald assertion about the manufacturers is likely wrong and why the scalpers make it worse by creating artifical scarecity on top of any other scarcety that might already exist.

      If there is demand for 4 widgets and the market has 5, there is no scarcity UNLESS a scalper buys up 3 and demands 10 times the reasonable price. Note that if the market has 3 widgets and the scalper buys 2 to sell for outrageous markups, the scalper has still taken a bad situation and made it much worse.

      In no case is the scalper doing anything productive in exchange for the huge profit.

    101. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Megol · · Score: 1

      all it proves is that the "Market" is a figment of the imagination of a bunch of crooks

      Which crooks' imagination is "the Market" a fiction of? Name names, and what they stole.

      Stole? Look up the definition of crook please. Most uses of the word isn't for describing thieves.

      being completely conned by brand marketing (Apple) and buying children's toys at vastly inflated prices in the scam described here

      Do you deny that people -- even in Socialist Workers Utopias -- are status seekers?

      There are no utopias. And even if there were - is it relevant for this discussion? I think not.

      Status can be many things. Being a good father/mother, being a good worker, being a good debater, being a brave warrior among others.
      It doesn't require buying (in most cases) useless toys.

      Take your Austrian economists "Free Market" and ...

      Ever heard of a Market Town?

      The "Market" has been around since the first group of people gathered together to sell their wares in a central location, and that's a lot longer ago than the creation of the Austrian School.

      The concept of the free market isn't the same as the concept of a market. You know that.
      There have never been a free market as it is basically like any other utopia. A nice idea until one adds the real world and real people.

    102. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Well he(?) is technically correct.

    103. Re:Yeah.... but.... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The point is, this is not an issue that needs or deserves the full weight of the US government.

      Government should not be the answer to all that woes you.

      And the market does fix for this. I know people that no longer shop at certain stores when a product first comes out because they know those stores don't stop things like these kinds of bots. Since they are not even checking those stores, those stores lose out on any extra stuff my friends want to buy (since they are already at the site or store.)

      Your gas example is a strange one to make due to all the regulations in place on selling gas already in addition to the lack of scarcity. But I will tell you, when we had a gas shortage in San Antonio due to the last hurricane, the gas stations regulated themselves limiting how much "extra" gas you were able to get outside of filling up your car.

    104. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say that like its a bad thing. this is what makes 'murika greedy^H^H^Hat.

    105. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be much happier with a RetroPie. Bonus: it'll do your Sega Genesis/MegaDrive/32x/CD collections and NES/N64 collections as well as your SNES collection, on the joysticks or gamepads that you want.

    106. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Quoth myself, highlighting for the impaired: "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."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    107. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      No, he's really not. I don't like Trump, but he was elected by the electors, just like the U.S. Constitution says is supposed to happen. Q.E.D.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    108. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      A parent of two. Perhaps it's just my kids aren't spoiled brats.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    109. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Nowhere did I mention the word "Free", so stop assuming that I mean things that I don't.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    110. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Thank you. GP poster here, and yes, I have two (now older - one adult) kids.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    111. Re:Yeah.... but.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about "unfair." The idiots complaining about having to overpay for toys and video games are the ones creating the problem. I'm a patient person - if idiots are driving up the cost of something, I can wait. It's not unfair, it's just stupid people flushing their money down the toilet and encouraging the "scalpers" and "speculators." The more the shoppers do it, the more they encourage the speculators, and the more it happens, and the more the idiot shoppers complain. For me? *shrug*

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    112. Re:Yeah.... but.... by green1 · · Score: 1

      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.

      And this is why neither party has any right to govern... They are both horribly incompetent and focusing on all the wrong things.

    113. Re: Yeah.... but.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... perhaps the dumbest comment yet. 1) we're talking about toys and video games, 2) as long as you can get water from your faucet, any idiot that wants to pay a lot of money for bottled water can feel free to do so. If you can't get clean water from your faucet, talk to your government.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    114. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world also looks different to someone who is able to invest their capital in a nice home for their kids. They can leverage a better network and build "home equity".
      These "other side of the track" people are often forced to live in substandard housing, or pay top dollar rental costs to appear that they belong to a higher class. These people would also be more concerned about how people perceive them, while not necessarily having the information to correctly parse how they are being perceived.
      Just though I'd add a little depth to your world view.

    115. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

      It's only a few years before he realizes that Santa loves rich kids more. It's hard to steal that innocence from a child.

    116. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the AHA?

    117. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG you were reading the book 1984, not reading about 1984.
      Things didn't really get bad until 2002.

    118. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like chuck schumer are dangerous.

    119. Re: Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creimer we already know your backstory. You don't have to post as AC.

    120. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, the scalper is indeed providing a useful service to the market. If the manufacturer is genuinely only able to produce 5 widgets when the demand is for 10 at their standard price, scalpers teach them what price point stabilizes demand to supply. That allows the manufacturer to know if it is worth building greater capacity to meet demand.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    121. Re:Yeah.... but.... by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      For me? *shrug*

      Fair enough. I can give a firm nod to that.

    122. Re:Yeah.... but.... by werepants · · Score: 1

      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.

      Your example is bad. In that case, a single person is abusing their financial power to restrict the liberty of all other people. If it became a consistent problem, the democratic solution would be for all the other people to collectively restrict that anti-liberty behavior, in the form of government intervention. Which is exactly what happens in the case of antitrust legislation, lawsuits and the like.

      Here's a question: what is liberty? I mean really, how do you define it? Is it freedom to do whatever you want? Clearly not, because nobody is arguing that murder and theft should be legal (I hope). So it must be something else.

      The best definition I've heard is that liberty is defined by the amount of options available to a person. A person with 2 options has more liberty than a person with 1 option. What's useful about this is that it makes it possible to think of liberty in something like economic terms. A more liberal society (in the classical sense) is one which provides more options to its citizens.

      In the example you provide, the one person is acting in a way that restricts the liberty of thousands, or millions. So a liberal society shouldn't allow it, as long as the mechanism for preventing it isn't worse than the action it seeks to prevent.

      Realistically, though, the example you're talking about pretty much never happens, so no action is needed. Scalpers are different, because they aren't buying the whole supply, and they are basically just speculators who think they've spotted a market inefficiency, and if they are right, they profit from fixing that inefficiency - that is, changing the pricing of an item to more accurately represent the market value of said item, at least to the kind of people that purchase tickets at the last minute from scalpers.

      Society and prior generations of lawmakers (and Chuck Schumer) don't seem to agree, though - considering that scalping is illegal in many places. To the extent that most people agree that scalping is wrong, that's democracy working as it ought to.

    123. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      as long as the mechanism for preventing it isn't worse than the action it seeks to prevent.

      I'd argue that the government spending its finite resources to tackle an issue that really isn't really an issue is far worse than the problem itself. I typically find myself on the left side of the aisle, but this is ridiculous. There are hundreds of ways this could be solved technically, without legislation, if the markets demanded it. This is one of the things that a "free market" can fix. If enough people don't participate, this whole scheme falls apart in a heartbeat. Or if enough people bitch to a certain retailer until they put measures in place to prevent this, the problem fixes itself.

      Now if there is collusion involved, as is the case with Ticketmaster (or whoever the hell it was), I would have a bigger issue with it. It's not like e-bay/amazon are giving these bots priority/proprietary access to their systems purely for the intent of allowing scalping to take place. If they are, that's collusion and it's already illegal.

    124. Re:Yeah.... but.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Found the scalper! Sorry, no. The manufacturer already knows that. The scalper is just sucking money out of the economy that might otherwise facilitate expanding manufacturing. Also, if the manufacturer can't tell if there is real demand for even the 5 the scalper snapped up or if it's just a scalper, he might conclude that there's no point to expanding manufacturing because the scalper will just dump on the market later and leave him unable to service the expansion loan.

    125. Re:Yeah.... but.... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It doesn't do much good for a society having a generation of Paris Hiltons while most of the populace starves on the streets.

      Poor example: Paris Hilton has been extremely shrewd in making money. Certainly it's a lot easier to make a million dollars when you already have several million as she did, and of course she's been shameless in the ways she's made it, but it's incorrect to imply she's inherited of her money.

    126. Re:Yeah.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a job making around $150,000/year, and I requested an increase in my credit card limit from $2,000 to $6,000 to cover a large expenditure (that I would be reimbursed for). They denied it.

      Then I got laid off due to lack of work in my industry. A few months of being unemployed, and the dumbass credit card company sent me a letter saying that I was eligible to have my limit increased.

    127. Re:Yeah.... but.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't stop them from acting like I'm a good customer when I have an issue.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    128. Re:Yeah.... but.... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It could work, but in my opinion annoying your paying customers with CAPTCHAs is a shitty thing to do.

  2. Works as advertized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is capitalism. If I did this as an individual, I'd be heralded as an entrepreneur. If I made a company to do this, I'd be a wonderful speculator. Hell, if I did it with concert tickets, I'd be TicketMaster, and if I did it with drugs I'd be GSK.

    Why if I automate the system from my bedroom for buying toys, luxury items not essentials like life saving drugs, am I somehow a villain?

    It's a time worn cliche, but hate the game. This kind of crap is just fluff to pretend that someone cares without fixing the underlying issue.

    1. Re:Works as advertized by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Smith warned that this sort of rent seeking needs to be regulated lest the economy go in the dumper.

    2. Re:Works as advertized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulation over crappy toys that will be worthless in a year? I'm certain that is not what Smith was thinking.

    3. Re:Works as advertized by sjames · · 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.

    4. Re:Works as advertized by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Villain? Maybe not, but you certainly would be a common nuisance, sort of like young adults who hang out, smoking and drinking in public playgrounds, people who let their free roaming cats who pee in kids' sand pits and people who are drunk on public transport during the day when kids are going to or coming from school.

      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 laws against it.

      I'm personally for this because of different, mostly business oriented, reasons. The way I see it, the main issue here is not people not getting things they want, but instead businesses suffering for a number of reasons. First of all, it's that this worsens the buying experience at the store and actual customers who can't get the products are less likely to return and, according to studies, will let 10 times more people know about their negative experiences than if they had a positive. Second of all, much of what bots end up sniping are products that are sold at cost or less than cost to the store and are supposed to attract customers to buy other things with much higher markups. Third of all, this type of thing gives retailers an excuse to increase prices on supply-constrained items as actual customers are more price-sensitive when you can actually find products on shelves than when you can't because they got snapped up by bots.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    5. Re: Works as advertized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no it wouldn't. If there's a toothpick shortage the solution is to make more toothpicks. If laws could end shortages Venezuela would be a paradise.

    6. Re: Works as advertized by sjames · · Score: 0

      No, no it wouldn't. If there's a toothpick shortage the solution is to make more toothpicks. If laws could end shortages Venezuela would be a paradise.

    7. Re: Works as advertized by sjames · · Score: 2, 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.

    8. Re:Works as advertized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the issue is that you aren't big enough to get away with it, and the big guys HATE that.

  3. Some do-gooding politician failed basic economics. by Nutria · · Score: 1, Insightful

    and then reselling them at outrageous markups.

    If all of the resold toys are bought at the outrageous markup, then that's what they should have been priced in the first place.

    Instead, Schumer should be bitching and complaining about idiot parents who pay that much for Fingerlings. I say that acts like this make people unfit to be parents. and that there's a strong case that their children should be taken away.

    (Where these kids should be placed is left as an exercise for the reader.)

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. My kids are only allowed to watch CSPAN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    No toy commercials and a quicker hatred of government so we can bitch about it together.

  5. Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Arbitrage by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, I don't. And... I see. :)

    3. Re: Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My nephew had his birthday party this past weekend. I pulled out a stack of old Nintendo DS games to give him from my hoard, because he has an older DS handheld (his family is pretty poor). He got a bunch of stuff from family members including a few 'latest, greatest' items that my wife had to order through Amazon for her sister. But... in the end, his most favorite birthday present that he is now spending hours playing is one of the DS games, a Lego Star Wars game that I think I bought at a thrift store for about 3 bucks.

      You can't guess what toys will be the ones that are loved.

    4. Re:Arbitrage by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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 for, so choose wisely. A hint for how much we can afford is the presents you have been given in earlier years."
      If they still unreasonably ask for a $1000 gift and your gift budget can't easily handle that, stand by your word and give them zilch.

    5. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These guys will probably not pay for their order if they don't resell them and return the product so they are not able to be easily prosecuted.
      A problem in any market including the stock market with market makers and HFT. Everyone hates them but it is hard to stop them.

    6. Re:Arbitrage by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're going to wind up with kids who are really, really good at The Price Is Right.

    7. Re: Arbitrage by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    8. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 4, 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.

    9. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have any kids but even I know what a Barbie Dreamhouse is. Barbie has been sold for at least a half-century. Perhaps Barbie is not well known outside of the US but I can't imagine any American not having any idea what a Barbie Dreamhouse might be.

      I didn't know what fingerlings were but I easily found a bunch online for $10-20 although I didn't actually attempt to purchase any. I doubt they're actually going for $1000. I did see prices as high as $50 on Amazon, but also ones as low as $15.

      I had the GI Joe version of a Barbie Dreamhouse when I was a kid.

    10. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barbie? You mean her?

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QEye...

    11. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · 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. The manufacturer cannot make more fast enough to sell when people want to buy them (now). There is likely no simple solution because of the time factor. This stuff will only be valuable for a few weeks. Sure, the price will come down when more are made, but the bot still disturbed the market and profited from it.

      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.

    12. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only profitable because ignorant people are willing to pay $1000 for what the media yapping heads told them is "hot, hot, hot." The manufacturer could also have sold them for $1000 themselves, actually.

      These are not necessities, I don't see the problem. Chuckles Scummer should stick to doing something useful.

    13. Re: Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Jeez. What do you get the kids if they are bad, a vial of mercury?

    14. Re:Arbitrage by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      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 instance of a situation in which the manufacturer could be nice to the kids and still make record profits.

      Ticket scalping isn't even comparable here. Tickets to an event are an inherently limited resource: there are only so many seats, and the show is for one night. Regulating ticket scalping makes sense. But in the case of Barbie merchandise, Mattel's trademarks give it a monopoly, and absent a sudden shortfall in the supply of polyethylene, there is no limit to production. There's no reason everyone who has the money to buy it at retail prices can't have one, and more importantly, there's no reason Mattel and its shareholders couldn't be making that money. The Fingerlings are just the latest seasonal fad, but Barbie is a well-established product line with predictable demand -- given adequate warehouse space, there's no danger of overproduction.

      I'm ordinarily pretty open to the idea of regulating trade, but this is one case where it's just sheer incompetence on the part of the manufacturers, and that's hard to correct with legislation. What this situation needs is a revolt by activist shareholders.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    15. Re:Arbitrage by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or just good at google. So long as the parent is fair and not a complete douchebag, the child will be given a number. If they have a $50 limit, they'll pick an item at or below that limit. Though arth1 seems to be extremely douchey, so I imagine he'll have hidden limits and secret vetoes. He gets a car, and the kids get coal.

    16. Re: Arbitrage by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, 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.

    17. Re:Arbitrage by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      It's not really this simple. You can't simply turn up the fingerlings knob and get more of them. Items like this are generally contracted out to a factory for a certain size run, or a certain rate of manufacture. You might need to find a whole new manufacturer to get more of them, and it takes a lot of time. You may end up paying a lot for a new run and demand dries up leaving you out lots of money.

      Your cavalier attitude about warehouse space confirms that you don't know anything about retail. Warehouse space is key, expensive, and has sunk many retailers.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    18. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of product gets left on the shelf even in the midst of huge demand. That is, an inefficient market.

      Sounds like the sort of thing where retailers should good inventory control and start listing products on ebay. They could trivial charge a "buy it now" price at the median listed price and simply auction it off at (or slightly below) the base MSRP. Worst case, because of contracts, they can sell a small part of their inventory to a subsidiary to be the arbiter that will fluctuate based upon demand.
        For all I know, that's actually what's happening now.

    19. Re:Arbitrage by Solandri · · Score: 1
      The scarcity is artificial because Mattel has a trademark on Barbie, Nintendo has a copyright on the Nintendo game system. Nobody else is allowed to make these things even though it would be trivial to make copies. And Mattel/Nintendo obviously aren't making enough of them. Welcome to the dark side of intellectual property - where the IP owner has created demand (via advertising and word of mouth) but decides it's not worth creating enough supply to fulfill that demand, while simultaneously preventing anyone else from fulfilling that demand via threat of IP lawsuits.

      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.

      Market price is dynamic and ephemeral. Every sale alters the market price slightly (removes one unit of supply and one unit of demand). Or at least it should. Unless the owner of the IP has done something stupid like put a MAP (minimum advertised price) condition on its retailers. That throws a monkey wrench into the market process, resulting in items left on the shelf because the retailer can't drop the price down to its true market price.

      Product being left on the shelf because the price has been driven too high by scalpers actually isn't a problem. That means the scalpers have overestimated demand, meaning they (or at least some of them) are going to be stuck with product they were hoping to flip. Either they don't know about sunk costs and will hold onto it (maintaining the high price) and eventually eat the loss (or make less profit if the first few sales were ginormous). Or they'll eat the loss, causing the market price to drop.

    20. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 1

      They can't, the product is sitting on a shelf in the scalper's warehouse.

    22. Re:Arbitrage by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re: Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful, some gallium salts have a moderate toxicity. Unlikely to be a problem if you don't eat it though.

    24. Re:Arbitrage by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re: Arbitrage by houghi · · Score: 2

      Get worried when she wants kryptonite. Could be s sign she is a supervillain.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    26. Re: Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing when you say a "bottle" you mean a vial. D2O is not cheap. It's not nearly as expensive as heavy water that uses heavy oxygen, but still, a quick search put it at 15 bucks for 10 grams. A soda cans worth would be over 500 bucks. Plus there's the whole thing that if you were to drink too much of it, it can kill you (slows down metabolic processes). Granted you'd have to drink liters of it to kill you, so that'd probably be price prohibitive.

      And the gallium, that can be rather dangerous (not poisoness dangerous, but destructive dangerous). It reacts with aluminum and makes it extremely brittle. Nurdrage has a cool video of a baseball bat he soaked in gallium and then crushed with his hands. If you're giving her that, make sure you watch what she does with it, if it got spilled on your engine block that'll be a very expensive repair.

    27. Re:Arbitrage by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it is an inefficient market, but the actors who created the inefficiency are the ones who pay the price. Of course the key thing you are missing is that the scarcity was not created by the scalpers. The manufacturer did that in the first place by producing fewer of the product than the anticipated demand. They did this because they knew that the scarcity would drive up demand, both for the scarce product and for related products. The manufacturer is actually counting on the scalpers to drive demand for their product.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    28. Re:Arbitrage by arth1 · · Score: 1

      So long as the parent is fair and not a complete douchebag, the child will be given a number.

      That may be fair, but it teaches nothing.
      Exercising the ability to think about what the family can afford is far more educational than just comparing numbers. If saying $100 and the kid then asking for something that's $99.99, that would still indicate that it's greed, and not thought and consideration. Rewarding greed is not a good thing, IMHO.
      While not saying any fixed numbers, and the kid wishing for something that's $120, while the budget has to be stretched a bit to cover it, shows that the kid has engaged the mind at least somewhat and tried to find out what could be afforded. And wishing for something around $60 shows that they likely weren't greedy, and that should be rewarded.

    29. Re:Arbitrage by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what a "Barbie Dreamhouse" is or why it could possibly be worth $1000 to somebody

      These things are matters of basic economics, and have simple solutions.

      Those two sentences alone indicate that you have never had children. Or possibly a wife.

      And if you like the rational world that you currently exist in, you might want to avoid both.

    30. Re: Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted you'd have to drink liters of it to kill you, so that'd probably be price prohibitive.

      Anecdotal story I heard regarding the friend of a friend who worked in scientific research and somehow had access to a couple liters of D2O - and drank it - is that it left him feeling hungover for weeks. A few drops of D2O, by itself, probably isn't going to hurt you. But if you're giving your kids D2O to play with then make sure they know not to drink it. :)

    31. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it is an inefficient market, but the actors who created the inefficiency are the ones who pay the price.

      You mean other than to the parents and their kids.

      I doubt the manufacturers as a whole are deliberately create a shortfall, that would mean leaving money on the table. I have no doubt they strive to produce just barely enough since that pumps the hype just as well when people see shelves emptying and keeps them from having to hold a bunck of stock during the January lull. The scalpers screw that calculation up.

    32. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The "offensive" behavior is the free market in action. Maybe the government needs to make sure that grinchbots don't buy up the entire supply of protein, but when it comes to toys and 99.99999% of other consumer goods, the free market pretty much works just fine.

    33. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the scalpers are doing a bad job at inventory management.

    34. Re:Arbitrage by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Artificial scarcity on an occasional product in their product line allows the company to keep the prices up on the entire line because it feeds the impression that there is high demand for that product line. One of the techniques they will use is to make the initial product run smaller than their low estimate of demand, ensuring that the initial release will sell out before everyone gets one. They follow this with a release intended to just barely fill the remaining demand. Of course, if things have worked according to plan, demand is slightly higher than their estimate. The result of this is that demand is higher for their next year's product as well.

      While it may mean leaving a few dollars on the table at any one time, it has been proven to keep long term demand for a company's product high because, "their stuff is always so popular they cannot keep up with demand."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    35. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's part of the point. They got a few kooks to pay enough that they make a handsome profit doing nothing at all productive. Then they go POOF and leave others to clean up the mess.

    36. Re: Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice perky black tits. Upmod.

    37. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is the word productive is being overused here. What does productive even mean in the context of consumerism where money changing hands seems to be the critical measurement value? Or are we seriously saying that we should measure it not by money but by the trash being handed even if the net economic exchange is less? You could argue that calling it trash isn't fair, but it's fairly clear for anyone with experience in, well, life that the actual use of these toys is overwhelming squandered in the newness of it all and very little in anything "productive". I say this being one of those people who has seen much of the waste pushed as donations to Salvation Armies and the like. I'm one who would gladly welcome it when it reaches its $1 market value. I don't pretend, though, that there's some greater innate productivity to it just because people are shuffling money around at a lower rate than what scalpers can manage.

      PS - I know all of the above is an oversimplification and in other markets it can substantially and meaningfully effect productivity in something more than the superficial joy of a child's smile on receiving crap for Christmas--and I know I got a lot of that growing up which at the time I was overjoyed with but can in retrospective see what it was. The problem is I don't think it can so readily be established here and while I can applaud the consideration in general and support remedies that matter in the matters of life and death, I think one has more of an argument against trademarks and copyright--for which copycats could more easily flood the market to fill the void--than an argument of any sort of government correction to a mostly company (and by extension government) created problem.

    38. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 1

      Productive can be a rather low bar. Making the child happy can be considered productive since happiness is a generally accepted goal of humanity (its pursuit is even in The Declaration of Independence). In turn, it also tends to make the parents happier. The manufacturer turns raw materials into toys to make the child (and parents) happier. The retailer along with logistics companies get the toys from the manufacturer and deals with distribution to individual parents. The scalper .... Well, keeps the parents from being able to afford the toys and causes them to sit on shelves, so negative productivity there.

    39. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Productive can be a rather low bar. Making the child happy can be considered productive since happiness is a generally accepted goal of humanity (its pursuit is even in The Declaration of Independence). In turn, it also tends to make the parents happier.

      Yea, except The Declaration of Independence also mentions Liberty which, obviously, is curtailed when you start having government strong arming to try to maintain the pursuit of happiness.

      The manufacturer turns raw materials into toys to make the child (and parents) happier. The retailer along with logistics companies get the toys from the manufacturer and deals with distribution to individual parents.

      No, the manufacturers turn raw or finished goods into toys to make money which may or may not make the child or parent happier. Meanwhile, one could argue that logistics companies are their own kind of scalper but we just accept them along with retailers as part of the middleman equation and accept the price hike as something baked into the sale price.

      The scalper .... Well, keeps the parents from being able to afford the toys and causes them to sit on shelves, so negative productivity there.

      You can literally say that about every store that fails to sell a toy because its MSRP or whatever is higher than what people are willing to pay for it. Normally, we don't try to interject claims of negative productivity because of this. Meanwhile, if almost all the stores started selling at around the price of scalpers, would you be okay with that? If that's okay and it's not for scalpers, I don't see the logic of it because there's nothing retailers are doing "productive" with raising the rate.

      If it's not okay, then you're just arbitrarily deciding that retailers (and scalpers) can't change the price based upon demand and short supply which makes no real sense. Now if you want to argue bait and switch (a large price hike without sufficient advertising of it) or collusion (if retailers were using scalpers as a side channel for higher profits), that'd be one thing. Otherwise, there's nothing fundamentally different between retailers or scalpers selling at a greater price. Or the almost always rule that not all units are sold if sellers have any control over it (certain laws about honoring advertised prices result in a sell-out or trying to clear out inventory are about it). This is actually the whole crux of supply and demand economics.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I think scalpers are particularly nice people, that they're adding much value outside of better* rationing a limit resource, or that it's a particular good business model, but then I can say the same thing about a lot of middlemen until it bites me in the ass because I can't find something I'm looking for at a price I can afford. Productivity might be a low bar but the issue is how it's twisted.

      * In the sense that overall more of the good may be utilized by those most capable of utilizing it. For toys it's harder to argue except to the extent that your statement of "sit on shelves" misses obvious stuff. As an example, imagine a region which had 10,000 Forbies delivered to retailers. Without scalpers, 9,500 were sold to parents and 95% of retailers sold out their stock. With scalpers, 9,900 were sold to parents. Why the difference of 400? Because a lot of parents will give up after traveling to 10 different retailers who are sold out. Meanwhile, scalpers have a financial incentive to visit every retailer and buy every toy in stock to then resell to others. You could argue retailers that had stock would advertise, but if they were good at advertising at there was a demand for 10,000 Forbies at the MSRP, then obviously all would be sold out. That rarely ever happens because clearly retailers often suck at advertising. This is what is talked about when speaking about arbitrage and liquidity. And, of course, it can go the opposite way with only 9,000 units sold (at a higher profit margin) by scalpers where they'll probably sell the last 1,000 at either below cost (to recoup money) or give them away. It just likely won't be THIS holiday season.

    40. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yea, except The Declaration of Independence also mentions Liberty which, obviously, is curtailed when you start having government strong arming to try to maintain the pursuit of happiness.

      So for the sake of liberty, we must legalize burglary? (for example)

      Unlike the scalper, retail sellers actually do something to contribute to the process of getting the good from the manufacturer to the consumer. If a store suddenly starts charging scalper prices, it will go out of business (due to market forces). If it also manipulates availability so that it doesn't get pushed out of business (by buying up more stock than it can sell so that other retailers can't get enough), then it has become a scalper and should be stopped. If they all decide to raise their prices in unison so they don't get competed into the ground, that's collusion and runs afoul of anti-trust laws.

      As for your highly artificial scenario where a scalper accidentally helps distribute the product, that pre-supposes that most potential buyers believe $1000 is a worth-while price for a $15 item and even that they can actually afford to pay that. It also pre-supposes that they will actually find flybynightthugs.xyz but for some reason wouldn't have found amazon.com (where the scalper bought the remaining stock to increase scarcity).

    41. Re:Arbitrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So for the sake of liberty, we must legalize burglary? (for example)

      No more than for the sake of pursuit of happiness we must legalize burglary. Obviously we don't hold "pursuit of happiness" as a justification for everything.

      Unlike the scalper, retail sellers actually do something to contribute to the process of getting the good from the manufacturer to the consumer.

      Except that by definition scalpers who move more of the good to consumers are contributing to the process.

      If a store suddenly starts charging scalper prices, it will go out of business (due to market forces).

      That doesn't sound like market forces. That sounds like MSRP. Why wouldn't any sane business charge a 50%+ premium on a limited good? Oh, right, human resentment about scalping or otherwise "taking advantage".

      If it also manipulates availability so that it doesn't get pushed out of business (by buying up more stock than it can sell so that other retailers can't get enough), then it has become a scalper and should be stopped.

      That scenario is unnecessary. The whole point is that some retailers aren't out of stock of a popular item and can raise prices once the initialize way of buyers come, especially if other retailers are short or out of stock.

      If they all decide to raise their prices in unison so they don't get competed into the ground, that's collusion and runs afoul of anti-trust laws.

      Again, not necessary. If Wal-Mart had decided to charge a $10 premium on the SNES Classic (presuming the manufacturer didn't prevent them), would that magically be collusion? Do you think other retailers would follow suit if they could legally (advertised prices might prevent it)? There's no real need for collusion.

      As for your highly artificial scenario where a scalper accidentally helps distribute the product, that pre-supposes that most potential buyers believe $1000 is a worth-while price for a $15 item and even that they can actually afford to pay that. It also pre-supposes that they will actually find flybynightthugs.xyz but for some reason wouldn't have found amazon.com (where the scalper bought the remaining stock to increase scarcity).

      One, most potential buyers do believe the good is worth $40, not $1000 and so the scalper can charge that price. Two, the whole point is that not all of Forbies are sold on Amazon.com or Ebay. They're in 100 warehouses (waiting to be moved to stores) and stores, waiting for a customer to buy them by showing up there. Instead of having 400 people each search 100 stores to find one Forbies each, you have around 10 or 20 people who attempt to buy up 400 units to sell on amazon and ebay for which those 400 people can search and pay a $25 premium. Magnify that by all the regions selling the good and suddenly you're not limited to the realistic driving distance of each parent.

      Seriously, the above is precisely the reason why Amazon.com and Ebay.com are so successful, but further magnified to every individual being a potential retailer to be searched.

    42. Re:Arbitrage by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except that by definition scalpers who move more of the good to consumers are contributing to the process.

      Only in the sense that if I break your window at midnight, and fix your window in the morning (for a price, of course), I am "contributing" to you having in-tact windows.

      In the most elemental form, the scalper sees you buying the item, shoves you into the ditch and buys it himself, then turns to you offering to sell it for ten times the price. You somehow see a valuable economic activity. Most economists and for that matter typical consumers do not.

      They don't move more of the good. They jump in the middle of a transaction that was already very likely to happen without them in order to skim off the top. They generally manipulate local market conditions in order to facilitate that even while reducing market efficiency.

  6. Color me cynical but by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to wonder who wrote Schumer's BOTS act. cuz you know damned well neither he nor his staff don't understand the issue, let alone legislate it. It was written by lobbyists who paid the most the Chucky's attention.

    1. Re:Color me cynical but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies like this guy's write them, because they make millions.

  7. Slut Girl Comic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was literally the last arc in it.

    Come up with a fucking stupid retarded toy that everybody wants. Produce just enough of them to cover market demand. Hype them up online/in the media, then them up with shill bidders to drive the costs up. While everybody is clamoring to get them, ride the hype train to sell the company. Mass profit, move on to next idea.

    It's true what they say: Every profitable bad idea has already been publish in porn :)

  8. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Schumer's just mad he probably won't see a dime of the taxes on those inflated resales.

  9. Supply and demand .... by King_TJ · · Score: 3, 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.")

    1. Re:Supply and demand .... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Supply and demand .... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      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

  10. I'm sorry, but... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't the good Senator from New York have more pressing issues demanding his attention these days?

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
  11. Better idea... by CrimsonAvenger · · 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....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still scarred that I didn't get Godzilla when I was a kid.

      But, to be fair, it was expensive, and my parents were saving money for me to go to college.

      Also, isn't charging whatever the customer is willing to pay part of capitalism, and don't we
      fight others to maintain our capitalist society?

    2. Re:Better idea... by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trust me, your little darlings aren't going to be scarred for life.

      A metric fuck-load of people need to learn this.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scalpers will just return them to the store for a full refund and end up fucking over the retailers, but I'm sure your tiny brain didn't think about that.

    4. Re:Better idea... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      So what? The retailers will implement better protection against bots next year, or perish.

    5. Re:Better idea... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Trust me, your little darlings aren't going to be scarred for life.

      A metric fuck-load of people need to learn this.

      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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Better idea... by Nutria · · Score: 2

      They won't.

      True, but they should, anyway.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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....

      No, the Grinch-bots will simply return their unsold stock, leaving the retailers holding the bag.

      This isn't like a concert where a scalper who has leftover tickets is screwed. Christmas gifts are generally expected to have extremely generous return policies, so the store will end up having to take back the items.

      You could try to come up with various ways of detecting bots to prevent them from doing mass returns, but if you could detect them then you could prevent them from buying in the first place!

      dom

    8. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Grinch-bots will simply return their unsold stock, leaving the retailers holding the bag.

      For scalp-worthy items, there should be a "no return" policy. Now hoard a bedroom full of these toys, you evil scalpers; would love to see a picture of that.

    9. Re:Better idea... by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Most parents I know want to be good parents and to raise their children to be healthy, happy, and productive. But most parents are challenged with this goal because:

      1. Working multiple part-time jobs just to keep the lights on.

      2. Inability to afford medical care and health insurance (see #1).

      3. The impossibility of keeping up with the lifestyle our society insists is necessary to be happy (what, no new Mercedes for Christmas this year? You must be a loser).

      4. Pressures to race kids from activity to activity, hoping the child will be come the next Bieber or Gold Medal winner.

      Most parents want to do a good job, but the deck is stacked against them. It's really not fair to blame parents when the society we have constructed for families is aligned to undermine all that parents seek to achieve.

    10. Re:Better idea... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      (3&4) Kick back, slow down, drop back. Public schools and 10-year old cars work just fine -- and screw what the neighbors think. If they judge you, they're not worth your time anyway.

    11. Re:Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure... I think I am a little scarred from not getting a few more toys. I went into a rage when I found out my wife had moved my still precious 1970s Star Wars toys to a shed that tended to get wet. OK, I'm probably borderline Asperger's, but still... a few more toys as a kid and maybe I wouldn't have valued them so highly. When you are given the smallest taste of something you really want, you don't always learn restraint, sometimes you learn obsession.

      More backstory, my parents were on the cheap end of frugal when I was growing up. I got about 1/4 the toys that my friend got, even though his parents made less than mine. Fastfoward to today... I make way more money than I ever dreamed and toys are cheap. I got all the "cheap" toys my kids wanted and guess what... they don't want any plastic toys much now. They play with their old ones a lot still at their age, but they aren't obsessed with new toys like some kids. Who knows, maybe it's just they are less obsessive than I am.

      Is this submitting or not? Damn you slashdot!!!

  12. I find this all kinda funny by LoginOrSignup · · Score: 1

    And reaping the greediness that retailers have shown over the last 10+ years of making black Friday a bigger thing each year to the point that Walmart basically closes only for a few hours before opening on Thanksgiving Day.

    I had to laugh that a Walmart in Indiana, PA had everything bought by one person who shows up at the Walmart with a U-Haul in front of all the shoppers who had been waiting inline for hours. I hoped an employee just told the crowd, "That's Capitalism!" right before they tore him to shreds.

  13. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by sjames · · Score: 1

    Better, make the toy scalpers watch the crying kids belonging to the more practical parents until they calm back down. No ear plugs allowed.

  14. 2 shoppers enter, one shopper leaves... by Charcharodon · · Score: 2

    Retailers/Manufactures love getting their customers spun up. Hey let's not mark up something to a realistic price so that demand is strong but not insane. They mark it down to say 1/10 of what the "gotta have my precious NOW!" are willing to pay (initial launch 3 weeks out from Christmas), and watch the customers eat each other, while knowing they won't be able to satisfy initial demand for the item for another 6 months into next year.

    Its kind of evil if you ask me.

  15. Free markets by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 0

    This is free markets. Duh? What did you expect? People not to take advantage of other people to make a buck?

  16. It's sad he won't get the Fingerlings he wanted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's sad he won't get the Fingerlings he wanted for Christmas - but does he really need to pass a law about it?

  17. .... Seriously? This is what they are upset about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few lessons to be learned here, 1-Senators only get upset when something affects them. 2-Senators are really bad at online shopping.

    Seems to me like we need more senators who need things like epi-pens and insulin. Online shopping for the newest toys are not the big issue of the era.

  18. Screw these DemoLiberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They want to take our freedom away. Next thing you know they will be trying to say our president can't take orders from Russia or that electing a pedobear is wrong on some moral grounds. Well if a good Christian can't get on his knees to take Putin in the mouth or chase underage kids, well I don't know about freedom and white power mean anymore.

  19. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government price controls have never worked in favor of the population. Schumer needs to reexamine his Marxist views as they inevitably lead to war.

  20. Schumer is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Schumer is an idiot, Why do people listen to this fool anyway? News at 11: Schumer wants more government intervention to keep the proles enslaved.

  21. Profit from parents that can afford the upgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been happening forever.. well it seems so. Promoters research what parents will pay for their children's' entertainment.. and they determine if they can make their kids wishes come true or it will have to wait. Then they set a price that they think meets in the middle ground.

    What we see here is profiteering from children's wishes.. and the opportunity to exploit the parents as they try to make their kids dreams come true. This isn't new.. its just disgusting. Example from almost 10 years ago....

    https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/hannah-montana-vs-the-ticket-scalping-bots/

    It's nothing new... Christmas toys... =P

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_All_the_Way

  22. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Anonymous Coward · · 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 bastards has consequences.

  23. A True Christmas Miracle by santiago · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:A True Christmas Miracle by c · · Score: 1

      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.

      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.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  24. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Nutria · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  25. There are bigger issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This senator (and the government as a whole) has more important issues (energy, budget, waste, etc) they should be focusing on. As far as this issue retailers could solve this issue pretty easily if they wanted to, simply put limits on in store/online purchases for popular items sent to specific addresses. It wouldn't completely prevent it, but it would limit it significantly. And whatever remainder of an issue there is could be solved by consumers simply refusing to do business with these useless sacks of garbage.

  26. Why not more supply by locater16 · · Score: 1

    Hey I've got an idea for Nintendo et al. If the thing you are making keeps selling out so people will pay more for it, why not make more of that thing and/or charge more for that thing, either way you get to make more money and the scalpers don't! It's so easy it's almost as if it's a basic principle of economics anyone in business should've learned before they even held a job.

    1. Re:Why not more supply by gnupun · · Score: 1

      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?

  27. Why do kids need... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do kids need the latest plastic toy fad made by $1/hr workers in some sweatshop? Buy them toys that make them THINK creatively and allow them to build. Paints and a canvas, electronics set, chemistry set, Legos, Erector sets, Capsela (yep, re-released), electric trains. Those kinds of things seldom go through fads, so bots are unlikely to be a problem. And you can buy them in brick 'n mortar shops.

    1. Re:Why do kids need... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      One of the most interesting gifts I ever received was this paper clock workbook many years ago from my aunt and uncle. As I got older, they bought me various science books, keeping usually at least 5 years "ahead" in the "educational level". Eventually, the math parts of the astrophysics books got beyond me, but the non-math stuff stuck. I credit them with my intense curiosity.

    2. Re:Why do kids need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legos are among the most scalped toys in the market, not to mention most standard sets are ridiculously expensive nowadays. I was lucky and had a giant bag of the blocks as a kid, but on my most recent trip to a Lego Store the average set clocks in around $100 for anything more involved than a basic house (and I even saw one for about $500 without any Mindstorm/electronic stuff). Trains are also pretty far up there on the expensive hobby list.

      Paints and chem sets are pretty good (though most modern chem sets are pretty neutered compared to the old ones, unless you buy chemicals direct from suppliers), but plenty of creative toys have fallen victim to scalping/artificial price inflation.

    3. Re:Why do kids need... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Who needs a "standard set?" Buy them a few giant bags/boxes of Technic pieces, see what they can build: https://www.amazon.com/1LBS-LE... You don't actually need the "mindstorm" computer stuff to be creative. Gears, pulleys, wheels, etc can be a lot of fun on their own.

  28. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by sjames · · Score: 1

    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.

  29. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Get them something that they can build or make a mess with (painting set, Legos, Erector set, etc) and they'll quickly forget their sadness.

  30. Original Tickle Me Elmo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I walk in to Toys-R-Us, purchase a Tickle Me Elmo for $19.95, and a month later they were selling for $1000 or more on ebay because there were none left in the stores. Did I sell it for profit? Fuck no. My daughter loved it for Christmas. Do your Christmas shopping in October.

    1. Re:Original Tickle Me Elmo... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      You should have sold it and bought her a whole bunch of presents :) Might as well take advantage of the stupid and weak-minded...

  31. What to tell your kids by boudie2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tell them that Santa was fired by his employers (Coca-Cola) because there were accusations of him sexually harassing the female elves Apparently he would get them to sit on his lap while telling them what he wanted for Christmas.

    1. Re:What to tell your kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He called me a ho three times. I distinctly hear him. I'm filing a lawsuit for discrimination.

  32. Re:Don't forget the gyroscope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To see if you can spot that spinning Earth!

    Space is fake, the Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.

  33. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by fermion · · Score: 1
    Setting a price is a compromise between profit and time to realize that profit. If my costs for widget is $1 and I charge $100, I can sell enough at that price to fund my entire business and generate a good profit, then that is what I do. I do not care who buys the product, just that I make my money.

    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. The issue might be if I am trying to establish the product and I get negative press, or if there is some sort of grey market where I am leverage the arbitrage. This occurs in high end bags in which they are imported to the US from Europe, then Europeans will fly to NY, but the bags, and resell them in Europe.

    The parents and collectors who pay $1000 for a $15 toys are doing so specifically because they can. Their child is the one with the toy, while other children are of lesser value because they do not have the toy. We see this with parents taking their kids to Disney World instead of local park simply because it costs more.

    This is true in all markets. All tickets for entertainment activities are subject to resellers because people want to show they have expendable income, even if they do not.

    Here are two things we forget. First, no one, not child, no adult, is entitled to any product. No one is entitled to a big house, no one is entitled to see Beyonce, no one is entitled to a Barbie doll. As we say on /., it is not going to make your breasts larger or your dick bigger just because you can buy your kid whatever random toy is deemed the 'it toy.' Second, people have free will to spend their money as they wish. If they want to spend $5 for a cup of starbucks llama regurgitation, or $500 to see some band streamed through a computer autotuner, that is their choice. Some people are going to focus on showing they have more than anyone else. We can't legislate greed.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  34. Re:Don't forget the gyroscope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you have anything better to do than post that garbage?

  35. Is that really a flaw by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Is that really a flaw by Nutria · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re: Is that really a flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put up or shut up.
      All your post said was "nope" and makes no attempt to say why.
      Or you can just keep living up to your name.

  36. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All due respect, maybe I don't understand. My faith doesn't have a "Christmas".

    Isn't this holiday about the birth of a messiah? A Savior? What does getting a good price on "Barbie's Dream House" have to do with ruining the holiday? And why are lawmakers getting involved with a religious practice?

    1. Re:I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      No, it's about shopping till you go dropping, maxing out credit cards, and lowering your bank balance to buy plastic crapola made by sweatshop workers that will be in a landfill inside of the year.

    2. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christmas hasn't been about the birth of Christ in 70 years. It's become a reason to spend shitloads of money on stuff you wouldn't buy any other time of the year for people you barely tolerate while being subjected to endless renditions of 40s crooner's cash-in albums and watching endless films about how the holiday needs saving.

      Kinda like how Easter is no longer about Christ's ascent to Heaven, but about attending church once a year to keep up appearances while shoveling ham into your face while the kids run around a yard to collect eggs filled with candy.

  37. Perhaps We Should Give This a Little More Thought by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I sympathize with many of you who are concerned about free market manipulation and the relative unimportant nature of toy sales. Your not wrong. When it comes to toys for children, we can solve this "problem" with a little wisdom and self control.

    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?

  38. Just a bad pricing policy by manufacturer! by uncqual · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    1. Re:Just a bad pricing policy by manufacturer! by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I guess they should have 'obviously' known months in advance when setting pricing for retailers that their toy would become a fad hit.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Just a bad pricing policy by manufacturer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a kink in demand. Normally this problem is solved by price gouging, but that's illegal so now we need more regulation because the bad actors weren't following the rules.

      What's to force the bots to follow the rules this time around?

  39. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitch about consumers ?? Hahaha. Then Schhumer would need to bitch about nibberbooz buying krak ... and ya don't want DemoRats pissing-off their main-lining krakheads ... er voters.

  40. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by geoskd · · Score: 1

    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.

    Funny, I have four kids, and most of the time they get what my wife and I want them to have; which only rarely coincides with what they had asked for. I can't say any of them have ever whined to me about not having something they asked for and didn't get. I must have simply gotten lucky.

    .

    Four times

    .

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  41. They ruined shows years ago by fyzikapan · · Score: 1

    Isn't this a well known problem? I can't remember a time when bots weren't ruining eBay auctions. They've been ruining concerts and shows for years, driving up prices to multiple times what they cost direct from the issuer.

    1. Re:They ruined shows years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that scalpers organized into LIVENation and TicketMaster, thereby legalizing their highway robbery. The ebay bots only screw over a few individuals bidding on a single item (though I guess a sophisticated bot could cover multiple auctions for multiples of said item).

      Generalized scalping of items from major retailers has been a thing for decades, and some retailers have taken steps to prevent it (usually purchase limits on items at risk of scalping), but then bot writers just changed the behaviors to make multiple purchases within the limits and ship to multiple locations. It's a whole cat'n'mouse affair.

  42. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Ditto @geoskd, except we only have two kids.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  43. Re: Some do-gooding politician failed basic econom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its just risk management about to be completely automized

  44. Recession 2008 officially over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just don't hear stuff like this during a recession when nobody buys anything.

  45. Bots buying and reslling at a markup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had "fluidity" to the market ! Did you not know that ? At least that is what I learned with High speed trading ;).

  46. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all of the resold toys are bought at the outrageous markup,

    Straw-man assumption, you fail at the first hurdle. They are not all resold. They are bought in bulk by traders, which is why you'll always find a limited edition LEGO kit, unopened etc, on reseller sites for 10x original price.

  47. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by sjames · · Score: 1

    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.

  48. Sociabilisation by DrYak · · 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.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Sociabilisation by msauve · · Score: 1

      But dad, all my friends are taking oxy, why can't I have some of your's?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re: Sociabilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And strawman of the year goes to...

  49. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by gnupun · · Score: 1

    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)

  50. "Selling" or "Listing"? by cirby · · Score: 1

    "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 that lists for hundreds of dollars, along with a few others that list for slightly lower prices, all because nobody from the companies involved actually looked at their active list prices.

    The item doesn't actually "sell" at this price, of course... the current going rate for Fingerlings seems to be about $50. Which is the price the manufacturer charges on Amazon.

  51. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by r0kk3rz · · Score: 1

    If all of the resold toys are bought at the outrageous markup, then that's what they should have been priced in the first place.

    Which makes you wonder, why *aren't* they being priced that way? Surely these toy makers want to make the most money right?

    I wonder if people are willing pay more to the online scalper than they would otherwise be prepared to pay in a Big Box Store for some reason. Is it because thrifty families have a chance to buy the toy earlier and rich families can't bare the thought of some poor kids having something that their kids don't? Is it simply that a toy becomes more desirable the more unavailable it is? Certainly it seems like there's more to it than simple supply and demand, because otherwise makers would see the presence of scalpers as a signal that they can increase prices without altering demand.

  52. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried, but the Lego Store ran out of the specific set they wanted, so I had to explain that some hairy manchild in Chicago stole the entire stock.

  53. Captcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good use case for those. Won't stop farming with real people though.

  54. Prisoner's Dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scalping issue has a lot in common with the Prisoner's Dilemma. In real life, a fair percentage of prisoners will flip. That's just with 2-3 people involved. Change that to 2-3 million people and its guaranteed that people are going to 'flip' by purchasing inflated, scalped goods.

  55. Okay... so stop paying the scalpers. by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    If people don't want bots and scalpers to buy up all the stuff and sell it at an exorbitant rate, don't fucking buy it at an exorbitant rate. Buy your kids other shit and tell them that terrorists took over the North Pole/toy stores. The only reason why these bots (and scalpers in general) exist is because people are fucking stupid enough to buy the crap at the ripoff rates.

  56. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy to say in hindsight, but these things are usually impossible to predict and tend to be very short-lived. Setting the price higher can prevent the popularity that makes scalping practical in the first place, which doesn't really work out better for anyone. Even if the product proves popular initially, long-term success may only be possible at a lower price. Once retailers get a taste of high profits though, they'll rather ride that high price straight to the manufacturer's bankruptcy (and, later, their own) than cut the price (and their profit margin). Not much about this industry makes much sense.

    Let me tell you a story about a toy that fueled scalpers and doomed the product line with its popularity. The year was 2002. The Transformers franchise was beginning a resurgence in the US after regaining popularity in Japan. A new cartoon series was generating new fans and Japanese reissues of the '80s toys were bringing back adult fans. They were a bit expensive at about $30-35 shipped to the US for the smaller ones and $40-80 for the larger ones, but there was plenty of demand. So of course it made sense to develop a line of reissues for the US market.

    Toys R Us was given this line as an exclusive. The first wave consisted of three figures: Optimus Prime and Ultra Magnus priced at $39.99 each and Rodimus Major (Hot Rod) priced at $17.99. None of these had current Japanese reissues. Ultra Magnus and Rodimus Major would eventually sell through in a few months, but Optimus Prime, as you might expect, was the top seller. Stores quickly sold out and prices reached $80 on eBay. Hasbro, in a rare move, ordered a second production run. These, too, sold almost immediately, though the resale price was falling to about $60. Ultra Magnus, a similar figure offered at the same price, was still widely available.

    Toys R Us followed the line of thinking that the scalper price meant that they should have priced them higher. They learned from this and raised the price of the figures in the following waves from the expected $20 and up to $30 and up, matching the cost to import the Japanese versions. They even changed the box format from the vintage-style boxes to book-style boxes like the Japanese reissue line used. Most of what Toys R Us eventually stocked was or would soon be available in the Japanese line. On top of that, US safety regulations required modifications to many of the figures that were not made to their Japanese counterparts. Missiles needed to be made non-firing or 3 inches long and pointy parts (like Optimus Prime's smokestacks) needed to be shortened. Toys R Us was left with an inferior product priced the same as imports; their only "advantage" was availability in physical stores, which was turning into a liability in the age on online shopping.

    You can probably guess what happened next. The spike in demand was only for the Optimus Prime figure and didn't carry over to the rest of the line. This should have been obvious from sales of Ultra Magnus. Collectors saw no reason to buy the US versions over the Japanese versions and the appeal never really spread beyond the adult collector market. After spending years gathering dust, the last remnants were clearanced out in 2006 for as little as $2.49. Other than a pair released in 2009, the final new figure went to TRU's doomed rival Kay Bee Toys, offered for a more reasonable $14.99. Another reissue line was started in Japan two years later. There was no US counterpart.

    Now, the point can be made that trying to target the adult collectible market is just asking for trouble. Or that Toys R Us makes a habit of overpricing everything and wastes tons of shelf space on products that will never sell at the listed price. But these "must-have" toy fads with 1000% scalper markups usually share the same fate. Long-term success just isn't in the cards when popularity peaks at the start.

  57. Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the top buying toys at high prices.

  58. Re:Yeah.... but....Only Stupid Millenials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could fall for this "I have to have now" pseudo marketing for idiots with ADD. All of those toys are 2$ in china...

  59. has Chuck actually read or watched the Grinch? by woodland+creature · · Score: 1

    Chuck Schumer hasn't seen the Grinch or he skipped the part when the Grinch realizes that Christmas doesn't come from a store.

  60. Bot detection by phorm · · Score: 1

    I wonder how smart the bots are. If you could target the IP's or characteristics specific to the bot networks, then perhaps it might be possible to jack up the prices and limit stock just for them. It would be a win-in, as the seller gets a boatload of money for the bots, and the "regular" stock is still available to the direct customers.

  61. Gotta love that "free market"... by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 2

    Funny how the chest-thumpers of modern capitalism sob into their hands when the free market does something they *don't* like...

  62. Stopped reading at U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a cancer upon American politics. Nothing he has to say is useful. He's a bought and sold shill and should be thrown off a bridge.

  63. Sell @ what market 'will bare' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these toys are worth this exorbitant price than the retailer is entirely missing the market. Don't blame it on Bots or scalpers, blame it on the retailers of the product not pricing their product for demand.

  64. Re: Some do-gooding politician failed basic econom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One, if not two, of your kids will grow up to be serial killers. Because their parents were complete narcissist assholes who bought themselves nice toys but said fuck the kids, cuz I gots minezZ.

  65. Re:Perhaps We Should Give This a Little More Thoug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Important pro tip: use vaseline instead of Preparation H!!! It costs almost nothing and does the exact same thing.

  66. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    Same. In fact, they are usually really happy for what they get.

    I ask them what they want for Christmas as an idea of the type of things I can get them - because honestly, the older they get, the harder it is to figure out what they want.

    My 4 year old is just as excited (and more sometimes) on the present I get her from Goodwill as she is by the present I bought her retail. My 19 year old is less excited but is always touched as she understands how money works now.

    To buy them stuff just so they don't cry is bad parenting. You raise kids like that and they end up growing up and thinking that the government should pass laws to force toy availability.

  67. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The step daughter got upset last year when she had worked herself up into thinking she was getting a phone, but got a tablet instead.

    She unfortunately is getting a phone this year, I wanted to push it off further but its at the point now where it will be more convenient for me to get a hold of her.

  68. High Frequency Trading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High Frequency Trading is fine, bots buying consumer products is an issue.

    Interesting.

  69. Re:Some do-gooding politician failed basic economi by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    You can get a giant box of assorted Legos Techic parts online for $35. Let them be creative. I never followed the build instructions, frankly, always went rogue and built what I wanted.

  70. Re:Perhaps We Should Give This a Little More Thoug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree, I hate it, but this is a natural evolution of a practice that has been going on for a very long time.

    Find something popular, buy it up cheap and sell it for a profit. And things are only going to get worse.

    But government regulation isn't the answer (it's an answer, but should be a last resort), this is a problem retailers should be responsible for resolving.

    After all, their business depends on their customers, if this practice becomes ubiquitous, then customers will move to retail sites that help protect them from such actions. It would be very easy for a retailer, like Amazon to limit the sale of much anticipated popular products to one per account/cc/household/whatever.

    So the questions should be, why don't they do this?
    Is there some incentive to allow this behavior - are they getting a percentage of the sellers price when a sale is made?

    Brick and mortar stores already have measures to combat this kind of scalping, it's time the digital stores did the same.

  71. A Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy toys from an actual physical store. If it's not there - buy something else. I never got *everything* I wanted for Christmas. There's nothing wrong with waiting or buying it for yourself when you can afford it. (I finally got Mousetrap a few years ago! I had to buy it for myself as an adult - but I got it!)

    Mod me away if you want. That's why I don't bother logging in any more. But I've said my piece.