So the big question is, if you consider the price to Manufacture a car versus the factory price for a dealership, is Tesla marking up their cars more or less?
The way I see it, with no middlemen, those car salesmen are out of work. It's not really the best example, but take Uber's mission to put taxi drivers out of work. All the money they would otherwise collect is going straight to the corporation and the corp will enjoy the extra profits rather than lower prices, which they promptly funnel to the people with the most shares or some offshore account or whatever. How is this a good thing for the common person?
Yeah, this is the same old line.. I don't see a use for someone so they shouldn't be allowed to do what they do. It's the same with Uber and taxi regulation.
It only says that it could work if Tesla didn't plan on cutting out other dealers, but they do. Perhaps Tesla should be learning from Apple. At any rate, I was responding to the proposition that middlemen raise prices. Apple is proof that omitting the middleman does nothing to lower prices.
Apple, for one.. And it's not that I blame them for it either. One thing that Slashdotters have helped me understand is that is just how capitalism is supposed to work. Companies are supposed to price their products as high as they can and maximize their profits. This is why I don't see a problem with having as many people involved in the market as possible, so at least there are local jobs with money going to as many people as possible. The worst situation you could have for a society is a few companies charging as much as they can and employing no one. We are quickly going there, and I see no need to rush it.
Companies have to price things at what a consumer will pay. If the middleman is taking part of the cut, less profit for the companies. I didn't say a market with middlemen couldn't treat their employees badly, but a market were there are more choices of places for a person to work would generally be better for employees. On the other hand, the 'gig' economy is a new level of low. Companies won't even associate with people as employees any more.
Certainly something that there isn't a law against! Why would you think that anyone should be able to sell anything they want any way they want when there are so many regulations for other types of companies?
At one time I would have been against this law. I saw too many middlemen and I hated middlemen because they made things more expensive. But then I saw a lot of companies arrive that were very successful at eliminating middlemen, but their products didn't get cheaper they just kept more of the profit. Not only that but they treat their 'workers' even worse then the middlemen did. So now I agree with any kind of law that protects the distribution of wealth to as many people as possible.
I'm sure if all things are equal for any particular phone design, no corporation purposely ignores the customers. The question is whether they listen to the customers like you who have reasonable requests, or if they find a separate group of customers who will be easily manipulated into spending more money. Apple is really, really good at the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why government regulations are important, whether it be applied to corps or individuals.
It would be courageous of Apple to allow people to return phones for a full refund if they didn't know it lacked this basic feature.
So the big question is, if you consider the price to Manufacture a car versus the factory price for a dealership, is Tesla marking up their cars more or less?
The weakness of the whole Libertarian ideal is that it turns out there are a lot of legal ways for one person to totally screw over another.
Well this dispels any myth that the industry is trying to fight online piracy in a meaningful way.
Yes, much better for the shitheels to be heads of corporations with golden parachutes.
The way I see it, with no middlemen, those car salesmen are out of work. It's not really the best example, but take Uber's mission to put taxi drivers out of work. All the money they would otherwise collect is going straight to the corporation and the corp will enjoy the extra profits rather than lower prices, which they promptly funnel to the people with the most shares or some offshore account or whatever. How is this a good thing for the common person?
Yeah, this is the same old line.. I don't see a use for someone so they shouldn't be allowed to do what they do. It's the same with Uber and taxi regulation.
It only says that it could work if Tesla didn't plan on cutting out other dealers, but they do. Perhaps Tesla should be learning from Apple. At any rate, I was responding to the proposition that middlemen raise prices. Apple is proof that omitting the middleman does nothing to lower prices.
Suing someone isn't part of the process to change legislation.
Apple, for one.. And it's not that I blame them for it either. One thing that Slashdotters have helped me understand is that is just how capitalism is supposed to work. Companies are supposed to price their products as high as they can and maximize their profits. This is why I don't see a problem with having as many people involved in the market as possible, so at least there are local jobs with money going to as many people as possible. The worst situation you could have for a society is a few companies charging as much as they can and employing no one. We are quickly going there, and I see no need to rush it.
Companies have to price things at what a consumer will pay. If the middleman is taking part of the cut, less profit for the companies. I didn't say a market with middlemen couldn't treat their employees badly, but a market were there are more choices of places for a person to work would generally be better for employees. On the other hand, the 'gig' economy is a new level of low. Companies won't even associate with people as employees any more.
My God, then drug companies should have a person on every street corner selling all their products regardless of whether they are proven safe or not!
If a law is silly and can be demonstrated as such then there is good news! Laws can be changed.
Certainly something that there isn't a law against! Why would you think that anyone should be able to sell anything they want any way they want when there are so many regulations for other types of companies?
Shit man, I had all the money in the world to spend on an iPhone when I was 19. Now my family just takes it all.
At one time I would have been against this law. I saw too many middlemen and I hated middlemen because they made things more expensive. But then I saw a lot of companies arrive that were very successful at eliminating middlemen, but their products didn't get cheaper they just kept more of the profit. Not only that but they treat their 'workers' even worse then the middlemen did. So now I agree with any kind of law that protects the distribution of wealth to as many people as possible.
So why isn't Tesla simply trying to change the law?
Being allowed to sell something isn't a right, it's a privilege. One that Tesla doesn't have.
You could have stopped with, "you don't understand what society means". Look around you; less and less people do.
At $157 why would it ever be compared to an RPi??
I'm sure if all things are equal for any particular phone design, no corporation purposely ignores the customers. The question is whether they listen to the customers like you who have reasonable requests, or if they find a separate group of customers who will be easily manipulated into spending more money. Apple is really, really good at the latter.
..for the time being.
And everything seemed so safe once they got rid of that Napster applicaton.
Really? Didn't go with the headphone jack?