You have not provided a single valid argument as to why retailers should not be able to compete on their own terms.
They should be free to do so. They should also be free to sign agreements with producers to sell products at specific prices. Why is one free agreement valid while the other is not, if no rights are being violated?
In not one of your posts have you provided any reason why that should be tolerated.
On the contrary, I have repeatedly provided the rationale - individuals and organizations of individuals who voluntarily enter into agreements should be free to set whatever terms they would like for those agreements, so long as both parties are freely entering into the agreement, and so long as no individual rights are violated as a result of that agreement. When individuals interact in society, their only social concern should be not to violate others' rights, and the governments only concern should be to uphold and protect those rights - to protect against force, threat of force, or fraud.
Their 'choice' was accept the method that Apple arranged, or stop selling the books.
How is that choice different from any other transaction? Choose to agree to the terms of the transaction, or the transaction is not completed, and the agreement is not made. Those are the two alternatives in any free agreement between two parties.
You could, but you won't be able to sell the books or authors that anyone wants
This is begging the question. It presupposes that people will only want the books/authors from these allegedly "artificially" overpriced ebooks. If people only want those, and are willing to buy them to the point that the seller is profitable, then what is the problem? If people are unwilling to buy those, then the alternative books/authors from a competing firm - sold at a lower price - would attract buyers, and thus people will want those alternatives.
The case was about eliminating competition. Apple succeeded in doing that.
In a free market, competition is only eliminated insofar as a producer makes a product that people want, and people reward the producer with their money and continued business. If the producer begins to make a poor/overpriced product, buyers will demand an alternative, and alternatives will Why is that a bad thing? Whose rights are being violated?
Welcome to modern-day America, where breaking a monopoly is itself considered to be an anti-competitive practice.
I am not arguing against antitrust laws on the grounds of a cost-benefit analysis regarding the alleged level of "competitiveness", but on the grounds of the proper role of government - the protection of individual rights. So long as no rights are violation, voluntary agreements between individuals and organizations of individuals should both be permitted and legally binding.
Amazon had forced on them through a near-monopoly position on e-books.
Amazon voluntarily entered into a contractual agreement - at what point was force involved? Did they have a gun held to their heads?
And now, in the end, there is more competition.
It is easy to point to the benefits of government intervention into the marketplace (e.g. "look at this wonderful bridge we built"). But it takes more thought to uncover the harm that is done to the so-called forgotten man - such as the legal barriers to entry into the marketplace that such expansive regulations create.
those other businesses should have a say in how much they will sell the product for.
If the want that ability, why would they voluntarily enter into an agreement that doesn't give them that ability?
Books are not a fungible commodity.
Why is that relevant?
Yes, if they set the price too high people won't buy it, but that is not the issue here.
Agreed - the issue here is that folks believe that some voluntary agreements between free individuals, which do not violate any rights, should not be permitted in a free market.
The case had little to do with the 'correct' price of ebooks, and a whole lot to do with elimination of the word 'freely' that you used.
What freedom is removed? For a freedom to be removed, a right must be violated. Which right is being violated by these voluntary agreements between individuals? The right to affordable ebooks?
After the agreement with Apple, the publisher set the price that the consumer paid. Not really anything wrong with that (yet). However, the publishers were still using the retailers to 'sell' the books, but the retailers were no longer able to set the price they asked.
If that is the agreement that retailers voluntarily agreed to abide by, why is it anyone's concern? Do the retailers have a right to sell a company's product at whatever asking price they want, regardless of what they agreed in the contract? Why is such a voluntary contractual obligation a violation of anyone's rights or freedoms?
Why should an agreement that Apple has with a publisher to collect 30% on every sale force Amazon to also take a 30% cut?
How does a voluntary agreement that Amazon makes with publishers entail force? What prevents Amazon from leaving the agreement and choosing not to sell those publishers' products?
Why should Amazon not be able to lower the price it's customers pay by taking less than a 30% cut?
Because they contractually agreed to that price. It would be a violation of their voluntary contractual agreement, and if it was a willful violation, it would be fraud.
Amazon used to be able to set the price it's customers pay, and no longer can.
Then why did they agree to that?
There no longer is any competition
What prevents Amazon or anyone else from starting up a competing publishing film, or choosing to sell the ebooks at the agreed-upon price, or to buy the physical books instead, or to use the library, or to find a similar book through a different publisher, to choose not to read the book altogether? There is plenty of competition.
And as two counterexamples to those falsehoods, I refer you to Bernie Madoff, who destroyed his life, and countless career politicians who have destroyed the lives of others to their own short-term benefit.
Your mistake is in simultaneously believing two falsehoods: that it's not in one's long-term financial interest to make a safe product; and that politicians are not interested in making money (or that they have some "greater public welfare" in mind).
Still no deaths due to radiation. Nuclear power still remains the safest, most powerful energy source yet known, so long as the government isn't running the show (see Chernobyl).
Of course, so long as the government also removed its various restrictions on drilling and competition, as well as any subsidies it provides to oil companies. There is much more government cronyism in the oil market than in technology/books. The primary focus should be on removing that cronyism by shrinking the government down to its one proper role (protecting individual rights), rather than attempting to put a band-aid on the situation by enacting antitrust laws.
Collusion breaks the principle of a free market by removing competition.
How can free individuals interacting voluntarily without violating the rights of others, lead to the loss of others' freedoms? Are you assuming people have a right to buy a product at an affordable price? I do not understand how a free interaction (where rights are not violated) can lead to a non-free market. Isn't it by definition a free market?
I believe you misread my response, I was referring to the "choice to start up a competing publishing firm." Collusion at a price the market won't accept will fail as people won't buy the product, and the companies will lose money. If the market sees that the price could be lower, competing firms will start up to offer lower prices.
If you're all following exactly the same plan, for the same objective, you're no longer individuals. You're a single entity. (As far as the market goes.)
That is irrelevant to the primary consideration of respecting individual rights. If individuals voluntarily agree with eachother and follow the same free trading plan, they do not forfeit their individual rights to be free to make such agreements.
When that single entity is effectively the entire ebook market, then you have a market controlled by fiat.
"Fiat" - that word does not mean what you think it means. There is no government-enforced decree that forces anyone to buy ebooks. You will not go to jail for buying a competing product - such as a real book, or starting your own publishing firm, or going to the library, or just deciding you don't need that book.
shouldn't Amazon be free to set whatever price they choose for what they sell?
So long as they are not violating any of the voluntary agreements they made with the companies that provide them with their inventory, of course. If Amazon does not like their prices, they do not need to stock their products in its inventory.
What do that mean? How? In what sense? Was your credit card charged without your permission?
the consumer has no choice.
No choice to start up a competing publishing firm? No choice to buy a physical book instead of an ebook? No choice to go to the library? No choice to use a different manufacturer's device to buy ebooks? No choice to not read the book? No choice to actually pay the price Apple set?
So what is the correct market price for ebooks in all contexts and everywhere on Earth? If that is not known, then how can you claim that these prices are set "above" that value? Why are some voluntary transactions between individuals considered "artificial", while others are valid?
You lost me at "artificially raise prices" - is there a correct price for ebooks, regardless of context? What is it? If there isn't one, then how can you determine that a given price is "artificially high"? Why are certain voluntary agreements between individuals valid, but others are considered "artificial"?
allows them to do whatever the hell they wish
Except force the customer to buy their product. If buyers don't want to pay those prices, they won't, and Apple will suffer the consequences. Price is what the buyer and seller freely agree upon. The price tag a seller puts on products is just the "ask price". It is not until a buyer comes along and "bids" to accept that "ask price" that the price is determined - but that price is only valid for that specific trade.
Collusion breaks the principle of a free market by removing competition.
So others are not free to start up competing services? Who is enforcing that?
You are not allowed to negotiate with all the other publishers to keep the price artificially high. If you do that, the free market can't do it's job.
So individuals are not allowed to be free, otherwise they will violate eachothers freedoms - by freely and voluntarily agreeing to specific trading requirements?
There is no such thing as an "artificial price", as there is no such thing as a "correct price" for any given product.
Slashdot Mirror
You have not provided a single valid argument as to why retailers should not be able to compete on their own terms.
They should be free to do so. They should also be free to sign agreements with producers to sell products at specific prices. Why is one free agreement valid while the other is not, if no rights are being violated?
In not one of your posts have you provided any reason why that should be tolerated.
On the contrary, I have repeatedly provided the rationale - individuals and organizations of individuals who voluntarily enter into agreements should be free to set whatever terms they would like for those agreements, so long as both parties are freely entering into the agreement, and so long as no individual rights are violated as a result of that agreement. When individuals interact in society, their only social concern should be not to violate others' rights, and the governments only concern should be to uphold and protect those rights - to protect against force, threat of force, or fraud.
Their 'choice' was accept the method that Apple arranged, or stop selling the books.
How is that choice different from any other transaction? Choose to agree to the terms of the transaction, or the transaction is not completed, and the agreement is not made. Those are the two alternatives in any free agreement between two parties.
You could, but you won't be able to sell the books or authors that anyone wants
This is begging the question. It presupposes that people will only want the books/authors from these allegedly "artificially" overpriced ebooks. If people only want those, and are willing to buy them to the point that the seller is profitable, then what is the problem? If people are unwilling to buy those, then the alternative books/authors from a competing firm - sold at a lower price - would attract buyers, and thus people will want those alternatives.
The case was about eliminating competition. Apple succeeded in doing that.
In a free market, competition is only eliminated insofar as a producer makes a product that people want, and people reward the producer with their money and continued business. If the producer begins to make a poor/overpriced product, buyers will demand an alternative, and alternatives will Why is that a bad thing? Whose rights are being violated?
Welcome to modern-day America, where breaking a monopoly is itself considered to be an anti-competitive practice.
I am not arguing against antitrust laws on the grounds of a cost-benefit analysis regarding the alleged level of "competitiveness", but on the grounds of the proper role of government - the protection of individual rights. So long as no rights are violation, voluntary agreements between individuals and organizations of individuals should both be permitted and legally binding.
Amazon had forced on them through a near-monopoly position on e-books.
Amazon voluntarily entered into a contractual agreement - at what point was force involved? Did they have a gun held to their heads?
And now, in the end, there is more competition.
It is easy to point to the benefits of government intervention into the marketplace (e.g. "look at this wonderful bridge we built"). But it takes more thought to uncover the harm that is done to the so-called forgotten man - such as the legal barriers to entry into the marketplace that such expansive regulations create.
Which individual right is that? The right to ebooks?
those other businesses should have a say in how much they will sell the product for.
If the want that ability, why would they voluntarily enter into an agreement that doesn't give them that ability?
Books are not a fungible commodity.
Why is that relevant?
Yes, if they set the price too high people won't buy it, but that is not the issue here.
Agreed - the issue here is that folks believe that some voluntary agreements between free individuals, which do not violate any rights, should not be permitted in a free market.
The case had little to do with the 'correct' price of ebooks, and a whole lot to do with elimination of the word 'freely' that you used.
What freedom is removed? For a freedom to be removed, a right must be violated. Which right is being violated by these voluntary agreements between individuals? The right to affordable ebooks?
After the agreement with Apple, the publisher set the price that the consumer paid. Not really anything wrong with that (yet). However, the publishers were still using the retailers to 'sell' the books, but the retailers were no longer able to set the price they asked.
If that is the agreement that retailers voluntarily agreed to abide by, why is it anyone's concern? Do the retailers have a right to sell a company's product at whatever asking price they want, regardless of what they agreed in the contract? Why is such a voluntary contractual obligation a violation of anyone's rights or freedoms?
Why should an agreement that Apple has with a publisher to collect 30% on every sale force Amazon to also take a 30% cut?
How does a voluntary agreement that Amazon makes with publishers entail force? What prevents Amazon from leaving the agreement and choosing not to sell those publishers' products?
Why should Amazon not be able to lower the price it's customers pay by taking less than a 30% cut?
Because they contractually agreed to that price. It would be a violation of their voluntary contractual agreement, and if it was a willful violation, it would be fraud.
Amazon used to be able to set the price it's customers pay, and no longer can.
Then why did they agree to that?
There no longer is any competition
What prevents Amazon or anyone else from starting up a competing publishing film, or choosing to sell the ebooks at the agreed-upon price, or to buy the physical books instead, or to use the library, or to find a similar book through a different publisher, to choose not to read the book altogether? There is plenty of competition.
And as two counterexamples to those falsehoods, I refer you to Bernie Madoff, who destroyed his life, and countless career politicians who have destroyed the lives of others to their own short-term benefit.
Your mistake is in simultaneously believing two falsehoods: that it's not in one's long-term financial interest to make a safe product; and that politicians are not interested in making money (or that they have some "greater public welfare" in mind).
No, I certainly know, but I don't believe you do, thus the question.
I only blame myself for not explaining my views clearly enough. But thanks for playing.
Still no deaths due to radiation. Nuclear power still remains the safest, most powerful energy source yet known, so long as the government isn't running the show (see Chernobyl).
Wow, I went from +5 Insightful to -1 Troll in a matter of minutes.
Of course, so long as the government also removed its various restrictions on drilling and competition, as well as any subsidies it provides to oil companies. There is much more government cronyism in the oil market than in technology/books. The primary focus should be on removing that cronyism by shrinking the government down to its one proper role (protecting individual rights), rather than attempting to put a band-aid on the situation by enacting antitrust laws.
Collusion breaks the principle of a free market by removing competition.
How can free individuals interacting voluntarily without violating the rights of others, lead to the loss of others' freedoms? Are you assuming people have a right to buy a product at an affordable price? I do not understand how a free interaction (where rights are not violated) can lead to a non-free market. Isn't it by definition a free market?
A single group cannot
You mean a group of individuals? Why do those individuals lose their inalienable rights when they enter into voluntary agreements with eachother?
because that market is no longer free
How are individuals made unfree while all interactions remain voluntary?
See the difference?
As regards individual rights, there is no difference, so there should be no difference before the law.
An artificial price is one decided by fiat and not by market forces.
Which market force(s) are you referring to? Do you mean the buyer and seller agreeing to a price? Is that not happening in this situation?
I believe you misread my response, I was referring to the "choice to start up a competing publishing firm." Collusion at a price the market won't accept will fail as people won't buy the product, and the companies will lose money. If the market sees that the price could be lower, competing firms will start up to offer lower prices.
If you're all following exactly the same plan, for the same objective, you're no longer individuals. You're a single entity. (As far as the market goes.)
That is irrelevant to the primary consideration of respecting individual rights. If individuals voluntarily agree with eachother and follow the same free trading plan, they do not forfeit their individual rights to be free to make such agreements.
When that single entity is effectively the entire ebook market, then you have a market controlled by fiat.
"Fiat" - that word does not mean what you think it means. There is no government-enforced decree that forces anyone to buy ebooks. You will not go to jail for buying a competing product - such as a real book, or starting your own publishing firm, or going to the library, or just deciding you don't need that book.
shouldn't Amazon be free to set whatever price they choose for what they sell?
So long as they are not violating any of the voluntary agreements they made with the companies that provide them with their inventory, of course. If Amazon does not like their prices, they do not need to stock their products in its inventory.
the consumer got screwed
What do that mean? How? In what sense? Was your credit card charged without your permission?
the consumer has no choice.
No choice to start up a competing publishing firm? No choice to buy a physical book instead of an ebook? No choice to go to the library? No choice to use a different manufacturer's device to buy ebooks? No choice to not read the book? No choice to actually pay the price Apple set?
So what is the correct market price for ebooks in all contexts and everywhere on Earth? If that is not known, then how can you claim that these prices are set "above" that value? Why are some voluntary transactions between individuals considered "artificial", while others are valid?
allows them to do whatever the hell they wish
Except force the customer to buy their product. If buyers don't want to pay those prices, they won't, and Apple will suffer the consequences. Price is what the buyer and seller freely agree upon. The price tag a seller puts on products is just the "ask price". It is not until a buyer comes along and "bids" to accept that "ask price" that the price is determined - but that price is only valid for that specific trade.
Collusion breaks the principle of a free market by removing competition.
So others are not free to start up competing services? Who is enforcing that?
You are not allowed to negotiate with all the other publishers to keep the price artificially high. If you do that, the free market can't do it's job.
So individuals are not allowed to be free, otherwise they will violate eachothers freedoms - by freely and voluntarily agreeing to specific trading requirements?
There is no such thing as an "artificial price", as there is no such thing as a "correct price" for any given product.