Is this deal now dead?

Price gouging = capitalism.

I guess we have a lot of socialists on this forum after all.

If you wanted it pre-Sandy hook, you should have bought it pre-Sandy hook. I cannot fault a company for raising prices based on profit, and market demands. The exception comes from raising prices on necessary items like life saving medical due to a duress situation. Or water for a dying dehydrated person. That is price gouging. Raising the price of ammo and mags is not price gouging. That's capitalism.

Some of ya'll need to go back to economics 101. Or sell me all your stuff at 1980s prices because I don't think you are entitled to any market increases in prices.

For the record, I haven't shopped there for a really long time. I add them to my comparisons when I am shopping and they are rarely if ever even competitive on prices. So I think their name "Cheaper than Dirt" is ironic and untrue. I used them a lot 20 years ago when they would send their mail order catalogues pre-internet shopping days. They sold a lot of junk. I was often disappointed in their product. "cheaper than dirt" they are not. So I don't buy there.

But complaining of "price gouging" is nonsense.

Edited to correct grammar.

Not sure, but it's not that good of a deal really. It's basically a free shipping deal b/c their shipping is $12. I've historically found their prices to be higher than competitors which tend to offer free shipping as well (Midway, Amazon, CDNN, Classic Arms, GunMagWarehouse, etc.).

Good point LC. Any of you people with principles wanna sell me your mosin at big 5 prices from back in the day?

If the deal is dead can we lock this shit show of a thread?

Why lock it down? Now that a new guest is here to espouse his moral superiority with long-winded posts about nothing, it's just about to kick off.

Keep taking pot shots at new members and you can take a little vacation.

It isn't the new member I'm referring to, rather a new guest to the post itself, but I'll sheathe my keyboard nonetheless.

"Moral superiority?" In fact, it's the opposite. Those claiming "gouging" are trying to inject morality into a purely economic situation.

Here's a legit intellectual challenge. During Sandy Hood spike, did you personally sell or offer to sell anything at pre-surge prices to help soften the blow of the "gouging" by CTD or others? Effectively taking losses on scarce goods. If not, then if we carry on with the "moral" argument, were you behaving immorally by not taking loses to hand out goods at pre-SH pricing? Will you sell me your guns and ammo at 1980s pricing? Or any other arbitrary "moral" pricing I declare?

It's hilarious but it's also brutally honest. Kudos for CTD for not hiding pricing. Not concealing pricing, and a reminder of how dumb the buyer is for not buying it sooner.

As they say, being stupid should be painful.

If you want it, buy it now. It may not be available tomorrow.

I'd love to buy a mint condition 1969 Mustang for 1969 pricing. Afterall, it's an old outdated car! It should be depreciated to nothing! Yet, I think we can all agree that's not reasonable and it would be "immoral" to expect a seller to take a loss. Same with real estate in California. I'd like some beachfront property for 1950s pricing. But expecting a seller to not earn a market profit would be immoral.

This is all just capitalism. Why are folks so offended when CTD practices capitalism but you wouldn't expect other companies to take losses on potential profiteering?

I gave away an AK mag to a new owner that didn't have one and couldn't find one because of the horseshit going on.
I only had 3 or 4 at that time.
What do I win? Can I pick my prize?

I can't remember if that picture was from the time when they bought up a bunch of the ammo supply, then announced that there was a shortage, and jacked prices for the panic buyers

That goes well beyond capitalism and into market manipulation

Manipulating the available supply by buying it yourself is a technique borne of capitalism, but that's kind of beside the moral point mentioned above.




You've missed the point entirely.
One can find a particular practice unfavorable and, at the same time, not be a socialist.
In fact, deciding to spend your money elsewhere because you didn't like a company's past business practice is also an act of capitalism. You aren't advocating any policy of government seizure of any kind, rather you are spending your money somewhere that offers a "better" service, with "better" being subjective to the buyer.
CTD took advantage of a political situation to squeeze a bit more out of their customers, other companies didn't. Neither is inherently right or wrong as far as I'm concerned, but I would rather shop somewhere that doesn't engage in price gouging practices if the price gouging is avoidable. If price gouging is in response to distributor price increases, then so be it. Can't sell an item for $5 when you have to buy it for $7.