Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
If the aim is to protect the profits of booksellers, come out and say it; let the citizenry decide if they care that much about them to sacrifice for them. By trying to obfuscate and hide the true intent the protectionists are admitting that, given an open choice, consumers would refuse to sacrifice for the booksellers. That, I would agree with.
|
It is very clear that this is the point, and it has been said, on many occasions. Booksellers and government officials are extremely clear that the point of the these laws is to support small booksellers, and that without these supports they would fail.
This is not hidden from anyone.
Quote:
Propping up failing/uncompetitive booksellers only delays and magnifies the eventual collapse; instead of one or two or a few failing, thereby strengthing the survivors that adapt, protectionism ensures all remain isolated and uncompetitive and fail simultaneously.
|
These price controls have been in place in most of Continental Europe (most of Europe, actually) since the end of WWII, sometimes before.
It works fine. You (and I, for that matter) may prefer that matters be arranged differently, but that is a preference, not a requirement. For all I know, the European system may produce higher literacy rates or more readers - I wouldn't be surprised if it did, actually. But it clearly has not caused bookstores to remain isolated or uncompetitive or to fail.