RockMyAmadeus

Perhaps. Only the arrogant consider themselves incapable of learning, no matter from whom. That statement has no meaning. How many boxes of Frosted Flakes are currently for sale right this moment? Is the law of supply and demand suspended because one does not know the amount of the supply? Of course not. Not relevant, for the reason stated above. The supply is not limited? In what way? Once the printers stopped printing that issue, the supply was limited. It's great that there are retailers who honor the cover price...truly...but they are not obligated to, nor should they be forced to by law. Those retailers should be rewarded with future consideration. Correct. Asking price has nothing to do with supply. However, the supply has a direct effect on the selling price; that is, the price sellers are able to get for the item in the free market. If the demand is higher than the available supply, the price goes up. If the available supply is greater than the demand, the price goes down. "Gouging" is an emotional term, used by people in an emotional way. As it relates to pricing, it is never used in a neutral manner; it always indicates anger on the part of the person using it, as an expression of "that's not fair!" It may not be fair. Life, after all, isn't fair. But trying to force "fairness" on the free market is a sure way to centralized, planned economies, and ultimately, immense suffering.

As stated in an earlier post, I have no problem with shops charging whatever the market will bear after they fulfill their pull list obligation. No need to hurl insults or give economic lessons. There is retail and there is the aftermarket. You're argument is incorrect since the Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents retail. It's $381 on the after market so your illustration is bupkiss. What insult was hurled...? Can you say...? And I know some people will claim otherwise, but I am NOT argument. (Ok, yeah, terrible joke at his expense, but I love it.) You've missed the point, as you did previously. The point is supply and demand. So, apparently, there IS need for economic lessons; if not for you, perhaps for others. But let's look at your counterargument rationally: 1. How do you know that in every instance Batman #17 was "sold for 10 cents retail"? You don't know. I daresay no one does, and such information is unknowable now. But the allegation that every copy of Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents doesn't change that fact that newsvendors were not obligated to sell them for that price. They could, in fact, sell them for more. (What they could NOT do is sell them for LESS, which is why cover prices exist in the first place, but that was a function of agreements among distributors in that era, not law.) 2. There is no such thing as "retail" and "the aftermarket", in an economic sense. Those concepts do not exist in a free market in the manner in which you're trying to use them. There is only supply and there is only demand. There is only "I have this product I am willing to sell at this price" and "I desire this product, and I will pay this much for it." That's it. Suggesting that there be such things as "retail time periods", for which a product cannot be sold for more than such and such a price is not a function of the laws of economics. Such agreements, if they exist at all, must be entirely voluntary, or you do not have a free market, by definition. 3. Cover prices today, as for most things, are part of the concept of the "list price" or the "suggested retail price." No one is bound to sell those items at that price. They may sell them higher, or they may sell them lower. If retailers wish to survive economically, they must price them competitively. Nothing else matters, and here's the important part: nor should it. It is merely a matter of convenience that comic books have cover prices these days, both for the publisher and the retailer. After all...do you see a price printed on a razor? A bottle of wine? A pizza? A digital camera? No, these prices are set by the individual retailer. You need to think critically and rationally, not emotionally. It is an emotional response to get upset that someone is charging more for things that they legally obtained than you think they should charge for them. That is not rational. It's not reasonable. It's emotional. The appropriate response is as speedcake and mercury man stated above: vote with your dollars, and do not do business with those shops that behave in manners which you find objectionable. I haven't stepped foot into a comic store to buy comics in 7-8 years, because I don't like the vast majority of their business practices. But I do not attempt to compare them to disaster situations, nor would I suggest by implication that there ought to be laws against it. I can reason, I can persuade, but ultimately, they are free to do what they wish, and I am free to do what I wish, and that is how it works. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality we live in: the new comics market is treated like the Franklin Mint, with everyone trying to cash in on "the latest hot thing." The publishers do it, because that's what the market has told them to do. And the ultimate expression of that freedom is to do it yourself. If you don't like the way others are conducting business, that seems like a ripe opportunity to compete with them and force them, through the realities of the free market, to either adapt or perish. Of course, good luck trying to get addicts to curb their addiction...

Oh, and welcome to 1993.

The price on the cover of the Batman #17 I just lost on eBay is ten cents. It ended at $381. Does that cover price let consumers know they are overpaying...? "That's different!" No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. It's supply and demand at work. The consumer and the vendor both have to agree on the price...the consumer doesn't get to dictate the price. You're conflating the two. Supply and demand is the only system that works. Frustrating, but true. And perfectly ethical. And, by the way, having laws against price gouging is just another tentacle of socialism. "It's not FAIR!!!" is why those laws exist, never bothering to ask important questions like "why didn't you have your own supply already ready...?"

+1

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Spawn-1-and-9-KEYS-see-8-pics-Image-Comic-181-129-300-/152877341539?hash=item2398331b63%3Ag%3AGv8AAOSwLUpaZsIG&nma=true&si=h27Eu9oQBRIusaPpA0bWMZnhXas%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Why not just be a decent human being and not keyword spam?

So you were spamming your auction titles. My friendly suggestion is to realize you were violating ebay policy, and you're a lot more likely to get blocked by boardies than stupidman. keyword spamming is universally hated around here. This has been discussed at length on Voldemort's board, so this isn't a new issue. There's a contingent there (as there has been at times here) that don't think the rules apply to them, and don't really give two shots about it. And if you say anything about it, you are the jerk for not minding your own business. There are 1,349 listings, as of this moment, that are "like CGC" (or Voldermort/The other guy), which means that someone looking for the other is going to have to wade through items they weren't searching for to find the ones they are. Keyword spamming hurts every seller who plays by the rules. It clogs up listings with irrelevant results, and frustrates buyers. I don't bother with reporting much on eBay, because eBay doesn't generally give a damn, as evidenced by the massive amount of keyword spammed listings, but that doesn't mean it doesn't do damage. The keyword spammers are like those who park in handicapped parking spots without a tag. Is it a serious crime? No, of course not. But does it represent a Cartman style "I do what I want!" attitude that makes life just that much less pleasant? Yup. They don't see the problem with it, and it helps them, so why do you have a problem with it, huh...?

People throwing out "print run" numbers is tough to ignore. I tried, but it got a touch ridiculous, as it always does. Back to lurk mode.

There is a chasm of difference...which I know you know...between a desire to learn and educate oneself, and presenting misinformation as fact. "This had a print run of 600 copies." <----comment, stated as fact, made by an ignorant idiot who wants to impress people with his/her "knowledge", on whatever level. "I heard this had a print run of 600 copies. Is that true...?" <---comment made by someone who wants to educate themselves. And I staunchly disagree with your contention that most people on these boards are trying to educate themselves. I think most people...the most active people...either A. are looking to make $$$$ in comics, or B. are the "old guard" who talk about what we've talked about for over a decade. As you know...print run information is very hard to come by, and as was proven true (for the 10,000,000th time), the store owner had to come out and clarify what he actually meant. He bears some responsibility in this. And personally, I don't like uniformed customers. What do they think this is, a parade....?

Although, to be fair, the guy's name is Simon Payne. If that doesn't scream Bond villain, I don't know what does...

They get that idea because idiots who can't be bothered to think critically make assumptions they ought not be making, or, in some cases, just make things up out of whole cloth. The error gets repeated over and over and over and over again, by other idiots who also can't be bothered to think critically, or even be a LITTLE bit of a skeptic, and we end up with bad information circulating throughout the hobby for years, and sometimes even decades (like "30 and 35 cent variants were "discovered" by Jon McClure" in 1997-1998, when they had been appearing in the OPG for nearly 20 years at that point, starting with Star Wars #1. The only thing McClure "discovered" was the extent. That's like saying Columbus "discovered" the Americas...sure, if you ignore the people who'd been living there for a couple thousand years, and Leif Ericson and his Viking settlers...then yes, Columbus "discovered" the Americas. And yet, irresponsible bloggers like Benjamin Nobel present themselves as "knowledgeable experts", when all they really are are people with uninformed opinions propagating misinformation that harms people in the long run. But if you challenge them, they will attempt to silence you by accusing you of being a "cyber bully", and, sadly, they succeed.) And if anyone thinks the "tone" of this post is angry, you're damn right it is. Too many people make up too much nonsense, and invariably get INCREDIBLY offended that anyone would DARE question them, when it is THEY who should be asking the questions in the first place. And people make financial decisions based on erroneous information, and they get hurt. No two ways about it. Ask questions. Verify. Be persistent. Be curious. Accept no one's "word" for anything (including mine.) Everyone can be wrong, and frequently are. Get independent verification. And, where you can't get independent verification, come up with reasonable theories, but NEVER, EVER wed yourself to those theories, and ALWAYS be ready and willing to discard those theories...no matter how much your ego might protest...if new information comes to light which invalidates them. Don't become a victim of people who parrot bad information. And above all, keep an open mind. Genuine scholars aren't afraid to be proven wrong. Genuine scholars welcome being proven wrong, because it means everyone else gets to be more correct. And that should be everyone's goal.

This will change, because the market is requiring it. CGC doesn't have a choice.

Frankly, a lot less truculence and pomposity, replaced with introspection, would go a long way around here.