Slashdot Mirror
Swiss Voters Reject Book Price Controls
New submitter hinterwaeldler writes "In 2007 Switzerland abandoned book price control (which requires publishers to fix prices for their books and forbids any dealer to sell at another price), reducing prices by 30% to 50% for online buyers. The brick & mortar book stores lobbied the parliament into creating a bill to reinstate the price fixing, against which a referendum was taken by liberals and the Pirate Party, forcing a popular vote. On March 11, after an intense debate, Swiss voters decided against book price control (German-language original) with a majority of 56%."
... because that is exactly what this initiative ("Buchpreisbindung") was aiming for. Protectionism is wrong, no matter what you name it.
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
You must make laws to ensure its survival!
"...a majority of 56%"
Still sounds pretty divided to me.
Although I agree with the outcome. It is simply common sense. Prices at a brick and mortar store will be higher, you are paying for the convenience of buying something immediately. Online prices will of course be lower, they don't have the overhead, however you have to wait days, weeks for your order, as well as pay for shipping.
So no I don't feel bad for the dinosaurs of industry that think they can legislate profits. @%$#^! you. If the market says we want more online stores than brick and mortar, then so be it. Quit saying the market is king on one hand and with the other lobbying government to legislate monopoly powers to manipulate the market!
This is going to be one of those issues that ties many liberals in knots. On the one hand, they like the idea of fighting corporate greed and collusion price-fixing, on the other hand they're big on romanticizing local mom-and-pop stores (like many of the bookstores that will be hurt by online competition). But it seems to be the inevitable direction that things are going, not just for bookstores, but for a LOT of other types of retail store. If you're a retail bookstore these days and you can't answer the question "What do you offer that Amazon doesn't/can't?" then you're probably in trouble. And if price-fixing by government mandate is your only hope, you're in a LOT of trouble.
I have to admit that I much prefer the online experience myself. But it's not just the price that attracts me, but the selection. I just bought a pair of great shoes in my weird size online that I could have never in a million years found locally. Similarly, I can find books through Amazon which would never be stocked in any of my local bookstores (which all seem to be 90% Harry-Potter-Twilight and 10% over-priced-coffee-shop these days). But your mileage may vary.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The German-speaking Cantons all had majorities against the ban. The French-speaking cantons all had majorities [i]in favor[/i] of the ban. Swiss-Germans outnumber everybody else by a wide margin, so they won.
The argument for price-fixing is the same one behind the death of record stores. Remember record stores? Turns out there are a few hits out there that most people buy, and then those interested in music have wider interests, and therefore want a broader catalog to choose from. The record store business model is built on selling those hits and using some of that revenue to pay for the space to hold a broad selection and the expertise to guide customers. Even before the internet was making dents in music sales, the big labels were already running exclusive deals with Walmart and Target, sinking the record store business model. The same thing is going on with books: the competition to worry about isn't the internet; it's the big chains that can serve 80% of the market by distributing a handful of best-sellers, and screw the rest. And it's the publishers themselves, who cut deals with the big chains on their top sellers, and in so doing, contribute to killing off the market for their own books.
And yes, it's protectionism in the same way mandating broadband to rural areas is protectionism.
I agree with your summary of the issue. I'm against it on general free-market liberal grounds, but it was never an on-line vs. brick-and-mortar issue. (It looked like the on-line stores were going to be able to get around it anyhow.) It was about the grocery stores buying 50,000 copies of the most profitable books, taking the cream of the market. Because the grocery stores have more total turnover, they can get by on smaller margins, but they are only ever going to carry the most current best sellers.
If we take the on-line sellers out of the equation, the cultural question is whether it's obviously better to have lots of cheap Danielle Steel books than to have more book stores with robust selections. I'm not sure of the answer to that, but I still think that allowing limited cartels is probably not the best approach to promoting culturally-valuable businesses.
As for organizing a reading event for the cultural benefit that would otherwise come from better availability of books, don't forget that allowing the grocery stores to undercut the book sellers will probably mean the books that aren't best sellers will be more expensive, since the retailers who actually stock a decent selection will have lost volume on their most profitable items. A lot of the votes for the price fixing were from people who read books not available in grocery stores, and who didn't want to see the prices increase.
Shakespeare wasn't exactly high society in his day, maybe you are the one who needs perspective. Meaningful literature is what society considers important over time - LotR's depictions of various creatures have become fairly standard in fantasy yet at the time of Tolkien's death the Silmarillion was somewhat rushed to get it out while there was still a market for it.
A fair amount of Baen's stuff does make one think about the rights and duties one has to society, the Honor Harrington series for instance compares many different forms of government and discusses ways to ensure the society remains true to its founding beliefs. It examines polygamy in a modern society, the risks stemming from a perpetual underclass, etc. Tom Krautman pretty much beats you over the head with the ills of "transnational progressives." Eric Flint's Ring of Fire/1632 universe heavily examines the effects of grand politics on the average person.
Most SciFi races are archetypes that allow us to examine social behavior. In Star Trek you have the Ferengi as the 80's "Greed is Good" view of capitalism, the Klingons the embodiment of an honor bound society, the Romulans as the paranoid closed society, the Borg as the end result of utilitarianism, Cardasians as racial supremacists, Dominion as a caste based society ruled by a formerly abused underclass.
there are so many regulations that complying with them all is an undue burden on business.
That's what the guy in the penthouse bringing down millions per year in salary and stock options says, but I, for one, don't believe a fucking word of it.
Now go add in all the tax laws,
How are you to fund government without taxes? Or are you an anarchist?
all the environmental regulations you listed,
Look here, boy, that's a sore spot with me. I grew up in Cahokia, IL a couple miles south of the Monsanto plant in Sauget. Before environmental regs, you had to roll the windows up driving past, even in 100 degree heat and no AC because the air BURNED YOUR LUNGS. Rivers caught fire back then. You ignorant kids have no fucking clue how bad the environment was before the regulations.
I didn't see Monsanto going out of business, but drive past there now and you can actualy breathe. It doesn't even stink any more.
the work laws
You mean like the ones this comapny broke? Like OSHA, which if it were in place in 1959 my grandfather wouldn't have fallen down four stories? Son, I hate to break it to you, but you are a damned fool who listens to those who would do you harm in the guise of doing you good. Wake up and smell the sewage.
Free Martian Whores!