thank you, price 'gougers'

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
explain how this ownership is not different given that an outsider can forcably take control of one, but cannot take control of the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your mind ability to direct force is more important than actual investment in a particular piece of property when determining ownership of that property? A right doesn't exist because it's *capable* of being violated?

Of course rights can be violated; if they couldn't, there wouldn't be much to debate.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Did the Greeks and Romans have oligopolies and corporations that were bigger than most other countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most brilliant and most sane sentence in this thread. Yet nobody is addressing it.

That makes me sad.

[Jdanz]

no my point is that the concept of ownership you purport is illogical, as self-ownership doesn't logically neccessitate ownership over anything you put labor into.

That in no way flows logically.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is simply that MSFT is manipulating markets to its benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manipulating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not producing enough product to meet supply while promoting an artificially low price point in order to drive demand way up. It's obvious consumer psychology. I don't have any problems with the practice (other than I wish I had my Xbox360 now). I certainly don't think there should be any regulation of the practice. But they are doing it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note that their ability to mandate price controls among retailers is one of the things that is creating this whacky secondary market.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see a problem. Should they not be able to set the terms of sale for their own product?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't think that wholesalers should be able to control retail channel pricing. That does get in the way of a functioning free market. I believe that at some level this is actually illegal but that they get around it by offering promotions and incentives that are unavailable to retailers who sell below the MSRP. For example, it's legal to sell xbox at a premium on ebay, even though MSFT could cut the balls off a Best Buy for selling it a different price. I think that gives MSFT too much power.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you look at past MSFT practices, you'll see some practices which got in the way of a well-functioning free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do past practices have to do with Xbox360 "manipulation"?

[/ QUOTE ]

None. Just shows a pattern.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another way of putting it: it is fair to be skeptical of corporate power AND to be skeptical of government power. It's not like you have to choose one over the other, for now and eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm skeptical of all sorts of power. I just don't see any abuse here. Maybe there is some, but you haven't pointed to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only point is that it's irrational to believe that markets operate free of intervention or manipulation by producers. In many if not most cases, that manipulation does not cause significant harm to warrant any government intervention, but in some cases it does.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the particular XBOX case, I am not really pissed, other than that I really would have liked to play the new Madden 2006 yesterday at my house instead of at Best Buy. But the case illustrates a relatively harmless example of how companies manipulate markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like a Boxter for $100. Is Porsche "manipulating" the market by not selling me one on the terms I want?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absurd example. But Porsche certainly is setting the market by pricing high and reducing supply. No doubt if they wanted to they could lower prices by increasing supply and achieving some efficiencies. But that would hurt their brand identity and it isn't their strategy. I don't think they should be stopped from doing it by any governmental power.

But if you look at what some drug manufacturers, or insurance providers, or gas producers are doing, you have to wonder if they cross the line that Porsche and MSFT stay on the right side of.

[Triumph36]

Well, what is there to address - are you (and Andy) questioning the dogma of free-market economics when the existence of ultra-powerful multi-national corporations have so much wealth?

I would've liked to have seen more than 1 sentence on that thought as well.

[Jedster]

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/200..._sales__1.html

As you can see from this article, MSFT is losing about $153 per Xbox360. Why? Because they are creating a market for their video games. Just an example that companies will manipulate markets for their benefit. I'm not saying that the practice should be stopped or regulated. But pretending it doesn't occur is silly.

[andyfox]

My point was that our economy is structured quite differently than was that of the classical civilizations. I think one could make an argument that not having price controls, or other political "interference" in the "free" market could lead to death.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]


Good contract negotiators realize that there are coercive forces, and they work within the constraints imposed by those forces. That doesn't legitimize the coercion anymore than giving your wallet to a guy that sticks a gun in your face legitimizes robbery

[/ QUOTE ]

Coercive forces, LMAO.

When I negotiated software license and distribution agreements with foreign (and domestic partners) I was always happy to have the jurisdiction in the US of A for the strong IP protections my product recieved.

These are not coercive forces, these are the forces that make it easy to do business in America. Try negotiating the biz world in Africa and Asia where the rules change all the time and you will realize that anarcho-capitalism (that is really what you get in a corrupt society) does not work. Good business people want a consistent and predicatble set of rules (and yes we want the rules as we dont want to agree to ALL the rules ALL the time).

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So do you believe in *no* price controls whatsoever, or limited price controls? Are there times when price controls might be necessary or just?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the article?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I read your article.

It didn't answer my question.

Neither did you.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
no my point is that the concept of ownership you purport is illogical, as self-ownership doesn't logically neccessitate ownership over anything you put labor into.

That in no way flows logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no other alternative. If you don't own the product of your labor, you don't really own your labor, and if you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. But you've already agreed that you do own yourself.

Locke explains it pretty well:

[ QUOTE ]
...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to...

[/ QUOTE ]