One other point -- I know some will disagree, but i think its a bit absurd that supply pricing doesn't reflect demand. Does it make sense to charge the same amount of a tin of Astley's 44 or Esoterica as a tin of CAO Bella Vanilla, or even close to it? If tins sell out that quickly -- and they know which ones will -- they should increase the price dramatically. Would make good business sense for them, and would dissuade people from building cellars with multiple tins of tobacco they will never smoke but will eventually try to resell at a huge premium.
Absolutely! Why should third party hoarders make all that money by gouging when the merchants can do the gouging instead. Or even better, blenders and manufacturers, the people who actually create the blends, should raise their prices and maybe cut out the retailers altogether by doing direct sales. Germains can sell Stonehaven for $150 directly and make about 10 times what they currently get for it.
Let's take all those worthless people living on fixed incomes and shut them out economically. They don't deserve access to quality tobaccos because they don't have money. They can get by on corn silk or one of these value bulk bags, or they can quit, which is healthier for them. Yep, makes perfect sense.
I seem to recall somebody getting really beat up on here a couple years ago for suggesting manufacturers should raise their prices to make supply equal demand. Tobacco is the only market I can think of where this doesn't happen, for the record.
I don't agree with you here, Sable. Time spent calling B&Ms, setting up email alerts, etc. is still a cost. Why would we prioritize letting people with more search time have tobaccos rather than people with more disposable cash? At least when you pay more, that money changes hands. When you pay in search time, nobody gets that time you spent.