G
Guest
Guest
People keep calling it price gouging to raise prices when supply dramatically shrinks, but the alternative is worse. It is an important balancing of market-prices. If you charge far less for a product of limited supply than people are willing to pay, you end up with a true shortage, where retail availability vanishes. I might be willing to buy a drive for $50 for an HD to expand my dvr, but unwilling to pay $100; someone else may be willing to pay $100 for a drive for a mission-critical machine. If supply is limited, and price restricted to $50, I may get it for my "less important" purpose while someone else cannot get it for a critical need. Without raising prices, the only way to prevent a true shortage is to monitor the reasons a customer is purchasing a drive and deny those "less important" purchases(I don't think anyone wants to have a "Department of Purchase Reasoning" validating every transaction). As for increasing the price of stock on-hand that should be "immune" to supply shocks from a future shortage: Prices work by expectation, sometimes over a long time. If I know I will need an HD sometime in the next month, and I see that prices will increase two weeks from now, I will buy now rather than later. Demand will increase immediately. Just as before, prices must increase to allow the market to prioritize purchases, because the stock on-hand is limited. Retailers may benefit temporarily from a sudden increase in the value of their inventory, but this is just a reality of the market.