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

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I have an even better idea. Instead of subsidizing a useless old fashioned book store and its owners and workers, why not just take these people out of their useless occupations and pay them to do useful work.

They can build roads, pick up trash, cut the grass in parks, do something that is beneficial to all.

Do we really need to keep the old book stores and buggy whip factories going?

If someone really wants to keep the old fashioned book store around but not enough to support them, we can put a few of them in museums. Maybe do a National Geographic special on them.

Oh, you mean let the market efficiently allocate resources? That just seems crazy, and would end up forcing mom and pop shops to close up! Sure, no one is frequenting those mom and pop shops apparently, but at least by having them still around we get to maintain some flowery link to a past that we don't care very much about.

No, I definitely think the better idea is to force the public to pay higher prices to keep shops running that they don't actually shop in. My one wish is that this would have happened when I was a kid, when Mr. Cheney's bookstore was still around. Mr. Cheney was an old racist and refused to order in books, but dammit, his high prices and bad customer service shouldn't have meant his store wasn't a viable business! Luckily the Walmart that moved into town gave him a job as a greeter. So now whenever I'm in town visiting my folks, I go to that Walmart and there's Mr. Cheney, still cursing-out customers under his breath.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I think fjtorres was confused that anyone would think differently.

Exactly.
What kind of person wants *less* books in circulation?
(Aside from French Culture Ministers...)

Let's see: books create/spread culture, so to "protect" culture, you need to have *less* of it?
Riiiigghhht...

"Alors enfants..." and all that.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Exactly.
What kind of person wants *less* books in circulation?
(Aside from French Culture Ministers...)

Let's see: books create/spread culture, so to "protect" culture, you need to have *less* of it?
Riiiigghhht...

"Alors enfants..." and all that.

Culture is like land, it's way easier to protect if you have less of it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Culture is like land, it's way easier to protect if you have less of it.

That I can buy into.

The poor protect what little they have a lot more fiercely than the prosperous. Weak cultures feel under constant threat and scream for protection; strong cultures confidently accept challenges and evolve with them, thereby becoming stronger.
Another way to destroy culture in the name of protecting it; freezing it and stunting it...

As I've said, I am no friend of protectionism, whether economic or cultural.
But then, I don't fear the future; I welcome it.
And I celebrate anybody that expends effort to build it instead of wasting resources trying to delay it. Change is innevitable: you either surf the wave or drown in it.

[rhadin]

I find it interesting that numbers rather than content are the determining factor in most arguments. If we measure societal good by sheer numbers, then who needs anything more than the romance category of books or perhaps vampire-starring books? We certainly would never need a biography of Lyndon Johnson or a serious discussion of the role of economics in daily lives. By numbers alone, only best sellers would be available and then only if their numbers met a threshold.

I was always under the impression, and based on the thread so far, a clearly wrong impression, that when we spoke of societal good we spoke of something that was outside pure numbers. Based on numbers alone, it would be better for America to let the elderly and the poor starve and die than to provide a minimal subsidy.

The argument increasingly sounds like compassionate conservatism, with compassionate being defined as what is best for the bottom line of the few.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Culture is like land, it's way easier to protect if you have less of it.

You don't do nuance, do you?
OK , let me break it down. THe French minister wants its to be legal for publishers to set minimum prices. His vision is that France be a culture of independent bookstores, run by friendly, helpful locals . For him, that would be part of the je nais se quoi that makes up the quintessence of la belle France.

Of course this vision may make for more"inefficiency" and more expense, but there is more to the good life than corporate efficency, n'est-ce pas?

The current alternative may be that France's book culture is beholden to a faraway foreign corporate behemoth with no particular love for things French.His vision comes out of an impulse that's as legitimate as low prices uber alles. Its the same impulse that drives many communities to reject a Walmart in favor of local produce and local shops.
Its up to the French to decide one way or the other. I see both approaches as equally legitimate.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Collusion aside, there is really no logical reason why the wholesale pricing model should be applicable to digital media.

There is even less logical reason why the producer of an item should be allowed to set the final retail price anywhere outside of their own storefront.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You don't do nuance, do you?

You don't do humour, do you? As far as nuance, "pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle."

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Exactly.
What kind of person wants *less* books in circulation?
(Aside from French Culture Ministers...)

Let's see: books create/spread culture, so to "protect" culture, you need to have *less* of it?
Riiiigghhht...

"Alors enfants..." and all that.

Chief executives of multibillion dollar publishers, so that people will buy their overpriced new books instead of something better, older and cheaper...

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

There is even less logical reason why the producer of an item should be allowed to set the final retail price anywhere outside of their own storefront.

Of course, if you take that to its logical conclusion, maybe the publishers should just set up their book stores and disintermediate Amazon altogether.
Logic is fun, aint it?.

I think that this is where it may be all end up.

[RHWright]

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

For me, the harm is not in wanting cheaper books. Heck, I'm a utopianist. I think we need get past the money thing altogether. And everyone should have access to the richness of the world's culture.

The harm, as I see it, is focusing solely on pricing as a factor in who to buy from. I won't point fingers, as numerous large corporations' treatment of their workers, consumers, and communities have been pointed out over the years. The current way the game is played, the corporations (retailers and publishers alike) aren't concerned about low prices or access to culture or increasing the number of books in circulation. At the end of the day, they're concerned with their own profits.

It's pretty much impossible to lead life without some compromises in who you do business with, but in general I try to do business with those I feel are making a long-term contribution to the community.

Often this means not picking the cheapest option in front of me.

Slightly back on the main topic: in theory, I don't have a problem with authors/publishers setting their own price. They just need to do a better job at justifying whatever price they do set, either in content, service, or value. Right now, they are failing to do this, for the most part.

I don't think we should protect outdated or noncompetitive businesses; but some market protections are necessary to prevent deep-pocketed big players from loss-leading for years and driving less capitalized, but otherwise competitive businesses (e.g. selection, service, quality, value), under.

Just my opinion. Like I said, I come from a very idealized mindset.

Others may disagree, and I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Of course, if you take that to its logical conclusion, maybe the publishers should just set up their book stores and disintermediate Amazon altogether.
Logic is fun, aint it?.

I think that this is where it may be all end up.

Nothing illogical about that, or even earth shattering. If they want to set the retail price then set up a retail organization. If they don't, then butt the hell out of retail pricing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by plib

Nothing illogical about that, or even earth shattering. If they want to set the retail price then set up a retail organization.

As, for example, car manufacturers do.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by plib

Nothing illogical about that, or even earth shattering. If they want to set the retail price then set up a retail organization. If they don't, then butt the hell out of retail pricing.

Or enter into an agreement with a retail organization where the retail organization agrees that you the producer should set the sales price. IOW, the agency price model.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Or enter into an agreement with a retail organization where the retail organization agrees that you the producer should set the sales price. IOW, the agency price model.

No. Read the bit about "butt the hell out of retail pricing" again.