MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

GA Russell · 12-21-2010, 06:25 PM

If I may, I'll deal with the points made by Dennis, Lee and el creative together.

1) Dennis, I use the term moral argument as opposed to factual argument. Your stating that a publisher cannot sell an eBook at a price below x and break even is a factual statement. But I believe that disagreeing over who is a price gouging money grubber is a moral disagreement. I see price gouging and money grubbing to be immoral, and some here do not.

In my view, price gouging and money grubbing are not relative. They are absolute sins, if you will, regardless of the size of the amount considered.

It would not surprise me if all of the decision makers at Ferrari and all manufacturers of extravagantly luxurious goods were money grubbers.

I don't see any difference between a "money grubber" and a "bean counter". There have been a number of posts (I don't remember if you were among the posters) that stated that the six large publishers are owned by even larger corporations interested primarily in the bottom line and the ROI. There are your money grubbers right there.

(This isn't the place to decide whether capitalism can exist without money grubbing, but perhaps we can discuss whether book publishing can exist in the US without capitalism.)

I disagree with this: "Any producer will set prices intended to cover the costs of making whatever it is, plus sufficient profit to remain a going concern." I wish it were true. Charging more than the sufficient profit is what price gouging is all about. I met many price gougers in the cigar industry ten years ago. I know they exist.

It is certainly possible for an attorney to price gouge. I can think of two areas where the charge has been made. The first is the filing of forms. Companies sell legal forms and encourage their customers to act as their own attorneys, suggesting that attorneys price gouge for that service. The second is the standard 35% contingency fee charged for personal injury cases. Some argue that that figure is too high, and there should be more competition among attorneys for what the rate will be.

It seems to me that the basis of price gouging is the inability of the customer to go elsewhere. There is no charge of price gouging for public domain books because more than one publisher can offer the title. If you don't like Penguin's price, you can go to Bantam. The price gouging charge comes into play with copyrighted material. My favorite example is the eBook of the 49 year old Catch-22 which sells for $12.00. We keep hearing that the price will come down for an eBook title if we are just patient, but I think Catch-22 proves the error of that argument.

By the way, I don't particularly mind a little price gouging in the book business. I know that for music, 80% of a CD's sales occurs within the first eight weeks of its release. I don't mind if the company demands a high price for eight weeks for the early adopters so to speak, and then reduces its price when the product has paid for itself.

2) Lee, your statement "If you think the price is too high - then don't buy the ebook" is good advice, but it doesn't refute the argument that the publisher is price gouging. All you are saying is...Don't cooperate with the price gougers. I agree with that. My point is that the fact of price gouging should not be denied.

I don't agree with your statement "You can't "price gouge" a non-essential item." I don't know where you get that idea, and I don't think it's true. I think that any item of which you control the supply can be price gouged.

Your statement that one can choose to read other books is certainly true, but again does not refute the charge of price gouging. And I note that your suggestion is valid only if there are other books which are not price gouged.

What if every book were price gouged? We have in the US a public policy that reading should not be limited to the well to do.

About 25 years ago I read a column which I still remember about Ilie Nastase and his antics. The column quoted a philosopher from ages past (I wish I could remember who it was) who said that the individual should not be allowed to do what would result in disaster if everyone did it.

If every book were price gouged, only the well to do could read. Or more specifically, only the well to do could read a book published after 1923. Is that what you want America to be?

And by the way, you mention using the library. I'm happy for everyone who finds what he wants at his local library. I've lived many places, and that has never been the case for me. Praise the Lord for Amazon!

3) el creative, you ask, "Why does everybody ignore their free right to refuse participation in the buying process if they object to the prices?" I don't know who you are referring to. I have seen only a million and one posts here of people shouting from the rooftops that they will not buy an eBook priced over $9.99.

12-21-2010, 06:25 PM	#81
GA Russell Stamps beat Riders Posts: 7,698 Karma: 31487351 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Device: Paperwhite, Kindles 10 & 4 and jetBook Lite	If I may, I'll deal with the points made by Dennis, Lee and el creative together. 1) Dennis, I use the term moral argument as opposed to factual argument. Your stating that a publisher cannot sell an eBook at a price below x and break even is a factual statement. But I believe that disagreeing over who is a price gouging money grubber is a moral disagreement. I see price gouging and money grubbing to be immoral, and some here do not. In my view, price gouging and money grubbing are not relative. They are absolute sins, if you will, regardless of the size of the amount considered. It would not surprise me if all of the decision makers at Ferrari and all manufacturers of extravagantly luxurious goods were money grubbers. I don't see any difference between a "money grubber" and a "bean counter". There have been a number of posts (I don't remember if you were among the posters) that stated that the six large publishers are owned by even larger corporations interested primarily in the bottom line and the ROI. There are your money grubbers right there. (This isn't the place to decide whether capitalism can exist without money grubbing, but perhaps we can discuss whether book publishing can exist in the US without capitalism.) I disagree with this: "Any producer will set prices intended to cover the costs of making whatever it is, plus sufficient profit to remain a going concern." I wish it were true. Charging more than the sufficient profit is what price gouging is all about. I met many price gougers in the cigar industry ten years ago. I know they exist. It is certainly possible for an attorney to price gouge. I can think of two areas where the charge has been made. The first is the filing of forms. Companies sell legal forms and encourage their customers to act as their own attorneys, suggesting that attorneys price gouge for that service. The second is the standard 35% contingency fee charged for personal injury cases. Some argue that that figure is too high, and there should be more competition among attorneys for what the rate will be. It seems to me that the basis of price gouging is the inability of the customer to go elsewhere. There is no charge of price gouging for public domain books because more than one publisher can offer the title. If you don't like Penguin's price, you can go to Bantam. The price gouging charge comes into play with copyrighted material. My favorite example is the eBook of the 49 year old Catch-22 which sells for $12.00. We keep hearing that the price will come down for an eBook title if we are just patient, but I think Catch-22 proves the error of that argument. By the way, I don't particularly mind a little price gouging in the book business. I know that for music, 80% of a CD's sales occurs within the first eight weeks of its release. I don't mind if the company demands a high price for eight weeks for the early adopters so to speak, and then reduces its price when the product has paid for itself. 2) Lee, your statement "If you think the price is too high - then don't buy the ebook" is good advice, but it doesn't refute the argument that the publisher is price gouging. All you are saying is...Don't cooperate with the price gougers. I agree with that. My point is that the fact of price gouging should not be denied. I don't agree with your statement "You can't "price gouge" a non-essential item." I don't know where you get that idea, and I don't think it's true. I think that any item of which you control the supply can be price gouged. Your statement that one can choose to read other books is certainly true, but again does not refute the charge of price gouging. And I note that your suggestion is valid only if there are other books which are not price gouged. What if every book were price gouged? We have in the US a public policy that reading should not be limited to the well to do. About 25 years ago I read a column which I still remember about Ilie Nastase and his antics. The column quoted a philosopher from ages past (I wish I could remember who it was) who said that the individual should not be allowed to do what would result in disaster if everyone did it. If every book were price gouged, only the well to do could read. Or more specifically, only the well to do could read a book published after 1923. Is that what you want America to be? And by the way, you mention using the library. I'm happy for everyone who finds what he wants at his local library. I've lived many places, and that has never been the case for me. Praise the Lord for Amazon! 3) el creative, you ask, "Why does everybody ignore their free right to refuse participation in the buying process if they object to the prices?" I don't know who you are referring to. I have seen only a million and one posts here of people shouting from the rooftops that they will not buy an eBook priced over $9.99.