Replies

Can this retard please ask you to point them out?

Let us assume ammo is being produced at a rate of X, sufficient to keep up with demand but not exceed it greatly and thereby product a glut, as standard market economics theory would provide for any product.

Then there is a widespread perception that ammo may become less available or unavailable for political reasons, and many, many millions of gunowners respond by “stocking up.”

This results in the demand no longer being roughly equivalent to X, but instead reaching 1.2X, 1.5X or even 2X or more. ((No idea about the actual numbers.)

Any time demand for a product soars, there is a lag before production can expand to meet that demand. In theory, you can take a factory that ran 40 hours a week and run it 24/7, but there’s still a considerable lag time to train new workers, managers, etc. Building new factories or installing additional machinery has an even greater lag time.

And, of course, smart manufacturers don’t want to spend large amounts of capital to expand production, and its associated overhead, just in time to begin additional production just as demand eventually and inevitably drops back off.

This exact situation created a real problem in my line of work back about 10 years ago. 5 major hurricanes hit the US. A major building boom was already in progress. Drywall factories were already operating 24/7 in US and Canada. Demand greatly exceeded supply, so of course drywall immediately became both much more expensive and much harder to get. If I remember correctly, and I may not, drywall sold for around $8 a sheet before the hurricanes, but went to $18 and more after, when you could even get it.

So people began looking for it wherever it could be found, and began importing drywall from China. No big deal, really, except that it was eventually found some of this drywall was contaminated with sulfur and created toxic sulfur gas conditions in the home.

Anyway, I’m really unclear why gunowners seem to assume there must be a great conspiracy involved to explain what seems to be a classic case of market economics. When demand expands faster than supply can increase, price goes up and availability goes down. And one of the very best ways to drive demand up is for people to stop buying for present consumption and instead “stock up” for future presumed un availability.

Please explain why this isn’t a logical explanation for observed conditions. Thanks.