Today In Ridiculous French Regulations: eBook Price Controls!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Note 1 - There is, of course, an argument to be made that consumers actually win when corner bookstores continue to exist. However, since history shows that consumers almost always choose the cheaper price when given the option, this counts as a "loss" for consumers.

But that is like saying that laws to always wear a seatbelt is a "loss" because given the choice consumers nearly always choose not to wear a seatbelt. And so on. What people do is not necessarily correlated with what is good for people.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is like saying that laws to always wear a seatbelt is a "loss" because given the choice consumers nearly always choose not to wear a seatbelt. And so on. What people do is not necessarily correlated with what is good for people.

With the seat belt laws, and other driver-safety type devices (air bags and the like), came increased pedestrian and (motor)cyclist deaths. Every action has consequences, most of them entirely predictable.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

With the seat belt laws, and other driver-safety type devices (air bags and the like), came increased pedestrian and (motor)cyclist deaths. Every action has consequences, most of them entirely predictable.

And your point is what? If consequences are predictable that it is an argument for laws that had good predictable consequences. So this is support for my argument.

How can seat belt law increase pedestrian death? Does it really do that? And how was that predictable if it is true?

[elcreative]

Drivers feel safer with belts and airbags and actually tend to drive faster as a result... hit a pedestrian at a higher speed and more tend to die... do a google and you should find some studies done in the last few years...

Originally Posted by tompe

How can seat belt law increase pedestrian death? Does it really do that? And how was that predictable if it is true?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Gaurnim

Big chains usually don't take risks with the books they stock, they take the mainstream stuff and maybe a small number of fringe stuff if the relevant personnel is knowledgeable and interested enough.
.

It isn't just choice that you give up in return for your very small discount on price. There's the social consequences too. Intensive/factory farming, child labour in India, higher unemployment as suppliers find their profit margins squeezed ever harder, environmental impacts of people having to drive out of town to get to the mega-stores, the massive volume of food that we throw away while people in third world countries are starving to death, these are all consequences of unregulated competition. And once you have everything whittled down to a handful of corporations you get price fixing anyway, so your small discount on price gets even smaller or disappears completely.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Drivers feel safer with belts and airbags and actually tend to drive faster as a result... hit a pedestrian at a higher speed and more tend to die... do a google and you should find some studies done in the last few years...

Not only faster, they also drive more wrecklessly because they feel invulnerable.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is like saying that laws to always wear a seatbelt is a "loss" because given the choice consumers nearly always choose not to wear a seatbelt. And so on. What people do is not necessarily correlated with what is good for people.

So I need to be protected from being able to buy cheap books from Amazon?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It isn't just choice that you give up in return for your very small discount on price. There's the social consequences too. Intensive/factory farming, child labour in India, higher unemployment as suppliers find their profit margins squeezed ever harder, environmental impacts of people having to drive out of town to get to the mega-stores, the massive volume of food that we throw away while people in third world countries are starving to death, these are all consequences of unregulated competition. And once you have everything whittled down to a handful of corporations you get price fixing anyway, so your small discount on price gets even smaller or disappears completely.

This is getting into fairy-tale territory.
So buying a book from a local store rather than Amazon will prevent child labour in India?

[crash1211]

It is in the long term interest of consumers for those businesses to continue to exist so that they can provide competition to the multinationals. In a world where Tesco or Walmart are the only retail outlet (which is the logical conclusion of such price-war based competition), what happens when they decide they no longer want to stock certain items?

I think other competition will come along, and start stocking the items they won't. If there is a demand for items people will search out the store that stocks them and purchase from it.

Sam Walton started in 1945 with one small variety store in Arkansas. He kept prices as low as possible. He kept a wide range products in stock. He stayed open longer than anyone else. His margins were small, but he sold a large amount of goods. This made him able to bargain for even lower prices from wholesalers.

I'm not a Walmart cheerleader. I hardly ever shop there, but I don't have a problem if someone is successful at any enterprise they choose to start.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Not only faster, they also drive more wrecklessly because they feel invulnerable.

"wreckfully", surely, rather than "wrecklessly" .

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by crash1211

I'm not a Walmart cheerleader. I hardly ever shop there, but I don't have a problem if someone is successful at any enterprise they choose to start.

For me, it depends who they hurt in the process.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Drivers feel safer with belts and airbags and actually tend to drive faster as a result... hit a pedestrian at a higher speed and more tend to die... do a google and you should find some studies done in the last few years...

I am aware of some of these studies. But I was not aware that they influences how much pedestrians was hurt. It is not obvious since above a certain rather low speed limit most pedestrians hit will die.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So I need to be protected from being able to buy cheap books from Amazon?

Eh, no. Either a stupid question or a dishonest question. Did you really not understand my point?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

Eh, no. Either a stupid question or a dishonest question. Did you really not understand my point?

You said "What people do is not necessarily correlated with what is good for people."

If that is to have a meaning within the context of this thread surely it must be that buying from the cheapest source is not necessarily good for me?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

You said "What people do is not necessarily correlated with what is good for people."

If that is to have a meaning within the context of this thread surely it must be that buying from the cheapest source is not necessarily good for me?

What may be good for the individual may not be good for society. It could be argued that, although it's beneficial for you personally to be able to buy cheap books from Amazon, if the result of that is that all the small independent bookshops go out of business, society as a whole is the poorer for it.