French culture minister: "Allowing publishers to fix prices is best"

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. Many European countries have fixed pricing for books on the grounds that, while it may perhaps be better for the individual consumer to have unrestricted competition, it makes society as a whole a lot poorer. Every shopping street in Britain used to have its independent bookseller; today we just have Waterstones. Does being able to buy the latest trashy bestseller half price in a supermarket make up for the loss of the small book shop? I'm not so sure it does.

10 small book shops won't have the same selection as one book shop 10 times the size.
Abolishing fixed book prices may have taken away small physical bookshops, but it also enabled Amazon and other super-large online bookshops. The number of different titles available is much higher now than then.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by stonetools

What the French Minister is saying is that in effect, such collusion should be legal in order to promote a higher societal good than cheaper books.

What he is saying is that there should be no need for collusion because French law would enforce the Agency Model.

And this is another example of why it is that I am happy to live in the US. We have our issues (it is qute a list) but I would hate to have the VAT tax at its silly level and government ministers who are fine with the idea of limiting competition in favor of saving smaller businesses. While the US is not close to a pure capitlaist economy, I prefer our system to what many European countries have embraced.

Although I really like how maternity leave is handled in Norway right about now but I can't see myself justifying paying that much in tax and for beer to allow me to take that much time off with my baby boy.

[fjtorres]

Different societies value different things and maintain different social contracts.
Each thinks *their* way is best and all others are wrong.
To each their own.

Me; I value "value" and "variety".
I do not value protectionism.

I am no more fonder of ABCNEWS's "MADE IN AMERICA" grassroots protectionist campaign than I am of french ministers who suggest all governments should allow their citizens to be ripped off to protect old, mis-managed companies.

As long as I get what I need on reasonable terms, I won't be slinging molotails.
But don't pretend one size fits all, okay?
And don't expect me to put up with any crap just because others do.
I'm more or less human, not a lemming.

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. Many European countries have fixed pricing for books on the grounds that, while it may perhaps be better for the individual consumer to have unrestricted competition, it makes society as a whole a lot poorer. Every shopping street in Britain used to have its independent bookseller; today we just have Waterstones. Does being able to buy the latest trashy bestseller half price in a supermarket make up for the loss of the small book shop? I'm not so sure it does.

Meh, we've got our "Buchpreisbindung" in Germany and I don't see many independent bookstores in our shopping streets, it's all big chains here too.
And those big chains do discount books, they just have to put a stamp or sticker somewhere that declares those books to be defect in some way.

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

As a consumer, I care about the quality and the price. I am not worried about the type of store that I am supporting.

And that's the problem in a nutshell: short-term, individual advantage over long-term, collective good.

[BeccaPrice]

In general, I like to support local businesses - we shop a lot at a couple of small, local grocery stores, for example. We get our pizza from a local store rather than a big franchise. but I rarely shop at b&m bookstores anymore. Why? because they don't carry the books I want to read. Because they don't have backlist titles. Because they mostly carry best sellers, and not the mid-list authors I like to read. Because their customer support is virtually non-existent. Why should I patronize a store that doesn't carry the things I want, just because they're local?

There's a romance to the small indy book stores that I'm not sure is totally justified.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by RHWright

And that's the problem in a nutshell: short-term, individual advantage over long-term, collective good.

And the collective good is not served when more people can purchase something because the price is more affordable? It is better to force books be more expensive, hence more difficult for many people to buy, so that small business owners can make a living?

I can see how the serves the collective good.

[din155]

Originally Posted by RHWright

And that's the problem in a nutshell: short-term, individual advantage over long-term, collective good.

How is cheaper books for me is a short term individual advantage but harmful for society. For me, a penny saved on a book is a penny available for another book or something else. Please explain how am doing any harm to society if I want cheaper books.

din

[Kumabjorn]

To be honest I believe that cheaper books is the best way to serve the public good. Books promote literacy, a public good that is in the interest of both society and the individual member of society. Any interference by government that increases the price of books, no matter how well intended, ends up being counter productive. In Sweden or VAT is 25 % (Americans! Consider yourself lucky) but it is only 6 % on reading material.

[Ninjalawyer]

I have a wonderful idea. Why don't we just prevent collusion and price-fixing for books, but take tax dollars and subsidize book stores directly? Seems way more efficient, and effectively what the French minister and Stonetools would like in any event. If we're going to make a public good argument to weaken competition, might as well be upfront about using the public's money.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

To be honest I believe that cheaper books is the best way to serve the public good. Books promote literacy, a public good that is in the interest of both society and the individual member of society. Any interference by government that increases the price of books, no matter how well intended, ends up being counter productive. In Sweden or VAT is 25 % (Americans! Consider yourself lucky) but it is only 6 % on reading material.

Cheaper books puts more books into circulation.
That can hardy be a bad thing, can it?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by RHWright

And that's the problem in a nutshell: short-term, individual advantage over long-term, collective good.

Actually, you're right. And as soon as the major corporations start thinking about long-term, collective good instead of short-term profits, I'll be next in line.

I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I have a wonderful idea. Why don't we just prevent collusion and price-fixing for books, but take tax dollars and subsidize book stores directly? Seems way more efficient, and effectively what the French minister and Stonetools would like in any event. If we're going to make a public good argument to weaken competition, might as well be upfront about using the public's money.

Come on!
You want honesty and transparency from a politician?
Their heads will explode if they even consider it!
(Which, mind you, would be a true boon for society.)

They would rather do the grifter thing and distract you first and then pick your pocket when you're not looking.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

10 small book shops won't have the same selection as one book shop 10 times the size.
Abolishing fixed book prices may have taken away small physical bookshops, but it also enabled Amazon and other super-large online bookshops. The number of different titles available is much higher now than then.

Amazon would have done just as well with fixed price books as they did with discounted ones. It wasn't price that attracted readers to them, it was the fact that they had, or could get within a few days, any book you wanted. Even the very large book shops only ever had a limited selection.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by din155

How is cheaper books for me is a short term individual advantage but harmful for society. For me, a penny saved on a book is a penny available for another book or something else. Please explain how am doing any harm to society if I want cheaper books.

din

I don't know where you are, but where I live about half the shops in the town centre are boarded up. Most of the remaining ones are either chainstores or bargain/2nd hand shops. That's where "increasing competition" always ends up — with the number of competitors diminishing.

You end up with most of the consumer money going to large multinationals who dodge their taxes in order to cut prices. And then taxes need to rise for everyone else to make up for the shortfall from all the businesses who used to pay their taxes before they closed down. So in real terms it ends up costing more than it used to before you let it happen.

Then there's the people who can't physically get to the large out of town stores, or don't have a computer to get what they need on the internet. "Society" includes all of those people too.