[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

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.

I won't, because it's not a black and white matter. They are indeed relative. Among other reasons, value is a relative, not an absolute. (Failure to understand that is the biggest error Marx made.)

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

Do you then assume that luxury goods like Ferraris should not be made, because they are not affordable by the wider market?

I don't see any difference between a "money grubber" and a "bean counter".

I do. "Bean counters" do what the name implies. They count the beans. It isn't normally their job to make the decisions you might count as "money grubbing" - only to provide the information on which the folks who do make those decisions base their judgments.

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.

No, they are large organizations that want to remain in business, and open tomorrow and do more business with their customers.

(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.)

We can, but preferably as a separate thread. Right now, the US economic system is a modified form of capitalism, and I don't see that changing. What "ism" would you substitute?

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.

Define "more than sufficient profit". There will indeed be greedy folks who will try to extract the extra dollars by fair means or foul, but I stand by my original statement. What happens when "sufficient profit to remain a going concern" results in prices you don't like and consider price gouging? The producers should say "Goodbye, cruel world!" and go belly up because you think the price is too high?

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.

I'll concur on both.

But you sidestep my original question. How would you respond if I accused you of "price gouging" and "money grubbing", because I didn't like the rate you quoted me for your services?

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.

Popularity is the missing piece. Catch-22 is a classic. It's taught in literature classes. Publishers will charge $12 for an ebook version because they can get it. Enough people want to read it and are willing to pay $12 to make it a viable price. Pricing is what the market will bear, and the market bears that price.

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.

Assume longer than 8 weeks for books. Most of discussions like this stem from unhappiness that the ebook issued at the same time as the hardcover carries a higher price than the mass market paperback edition that will follow.

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.

I can't agree. What makes price gouging an anathema is precisely the fact that whatever it is is an essential, and you don't have a choice. You have to have it, and must pay the price asked. If you don't have to have it and choose not to pay the asking price, it's simply a decision on your part about how you will allocate your resources. You may not be happy about the price being asked, but it's not gouging, simply more than you want to pay.
______
Dennis