How to get around corporate greed at Amazon?

[jgumphress]

That would be a high price for a a book that is not that popular but you have to consider the work it took to transfer this book to digital format. These people should be payed for their labor. This book may not sell that well so that would make the return pretty low. Supply and demand. On the other hand you might find the same book through a non-profit orginization like the Gutenburg Project and download the PDF version, convert it to Kindle, and read for free. These people rely on donations for their work. I donate to the ones that I use so they will be there the next time I look for a good deal.

[Tuba]

Forget 'Grapes of Wrath'.
You need to read 'Atlas Shrugged'.

[el_brio]

Originally Posted by Corran006

Wow so a lot are under the impression that greed is good. Remind me how much you like this system if you have to buy expensive drugs to stay alive.

Honestly though, if you believe that they should be able to change whatever they want, and get as much money as possible, then you are part of the reason The U.S is in the shape its in now; People got greedy and broke the system for all.

If you all hold this attitude, your going to see the middle class destroyed, then we will have the mega rich and very poor, but then again we are already moving in that direction.

There are only so many resources, does it not bother you half the population of the world simple does not have enough food or water?

BTW it makes me laugh when you guys don't want a Socialist government, but you cry to the government when an oil spill happens, going help us! and make this company put out what it should, but Capitalism, and what they push says government should stay out of the free market, so you can't have it both ways.

Also I hope they raise the price of all books by 50%, see how you guys like that

Sigh. OK, you are right. The government should set the price for books. The government should restrict corporations' profits to prevent them from making too much money. The government should feed the starving nations of the world. The government should pay for your medicine when you are sick. The government should control oil production. The government should force banks to give loans to people who don't qualify in the name of social justice (didn't work out so well BTW). The government should redistribute all of the nation's wealth so that no one is rich and all the poor people get "their fair share". Simply put, we are all children and the government needs to take care of us from cradle to grave.

Instead of Steinbeck, download a free copy of the Federalist Papers and educate yourself. Blind dependence on the government to solve all of the problems in your life (and the world in general) is a very dangerous thing. Greed (or rather self-interest) is what gets people in a society up off their collective asses and gets them to produce wealth.

Anyway, this goes way beyond the OP's question so I'll end my diatribe with this: I suggest you pack your bags and move to Cuba to enjoy the thriving middle-class life of utopian socialist-bliss that awaits you there.

[el_brio]

Originally Posted by Tuba

Forget 'Grapes of Wrath'.
You need to read 'Atlas Shrugged'.

I was going to suggest Anthem. It is available free from the Gutenberg Project.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Corran006

Wow so a lot are under the impression that greed is good. Remind me how much you like this system if you have to buy expensive drugs to stay alive.

Honestly though, if you believe that they should be able to change whatever they want, and get as much money as possible, then you are part of the reason The U.S is in the shape its in now; People got greedy and broke the system for all.

If you all hold this attitude, your going to see the middle class destroyed, then we will have the mega rich and very poor, but then again we are already moving in that direction.

There are only so many resources, does it not bother you half the population of the world simple does not have enough food or water?

BTW it makes me laugh when you guys don't want a Socialist government, but you cry to the government when an oil spill happens, going help us! and make this company put out what it should, but Capitalism, and what they push says government should stay out of the free market, so you can't have it both ways.

Also I hope they raise the price of all books by 50%, see how you guys like that

I'm curious, young socialist, but what prevents a company, say Amazon, from charging "what they want"? Here's a clue. It's something the government doesn't have to worry about when they're charging "what they want"? Here's another clue. It has to do with losing customers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Tuba

Forget 'Grapes of Wrath'.
You need to read 'Atlas Shrugged'.

[markbot]

I might pay $9.99 for a new release, but for Grapes of Wrath that's pretty absurd. $4.99 is the max I would pay for it.

[flandroid]

Originally Posted by Corran006

Wow so a lot are under the impression that greed is good. Remind me how much you like this system if you have to buy expensive drugs to stay alive.

Not to imply that pharmaceutical companies don't like to make (a lot) of money, but those 'expensive drugs' take YEARS to develop. Years of many kinds of very specifically trained professionals' salaries, plus investment in the research, all of the scientific dead ends, trials made in the hopes the drug doesn't actually harm anyone (mostly for fear of litigation rather than altruism)...

It always annoys me when people argue that drugs (or anything, really; cars, electronics, whatever) are overpriced based on the cost of their raw materials; 'this pill costs three cents to make, how dare they charge $12 for it!?' It's a really, really short-sighted view of things.

Also I hope they raise the price of all books by 50%, see how you guys like that

Where did you go? I lost sight of you behind that straw man...

[emellaich]

re: a corporation is not a person ...

Originally Posted by flandroid

Except when it is.
and, in the US specifically

Yes, that is the funny thing about the english language. It is full of ambiguities and double meanings. Most of us have ability to sort out intent from the context. Conversation would be impossible if we had to define specifically what we intended with every word we used.

Of course, I was aware of the legal definition of a corporation. However, I have no idea what it has to do with my original statement, so I didn't feel that everyone here needed an explanation of the difference between the legal role of a corporation as a person and one possessing a corporeal existence.

More relevantly, my point was that a 'corporation' does not personally experience any gains from its actions because it is not a real person (even if it is a legal entity). As I originally stated, there are two sets of people who do experience those gains: 1) Those who are employed by the corporations who gain through their salaries and their employment; and 2) The owners of the corporations who are shareholders.

This leads us to a bit of a circular argument, because in many cases those employees and owners are us. We work there and our pension plans invest in those corporations. Even those of us who work for the government tie our existence back to these 'greedy' profits -- without the profits there would be no taxes and no government jobs.

My point is that it is just lazy to point to a legal abstraction and call it greedy. It is more accurate to note that we (collectively) are greedy. We accept employment, we ask for high wages, we expect our retirement plans to earn good returns and to support us in our old age.

Pointing to corporations as greedy is a cop-out.

[karthwyne]

Originally Posted by flandroid

Not to imply that pharmaceutical companies don't like to make (a lot) of money, but those 'expensive drugs' take YEARS to develop. Years of many kinds of very specifically trained professionals' salaries, plus investment in the research, all of the scientific dead ends, trials made in the hopes the drug doesn't actually harm anyone (mostly for fear of litigation rather than altruism)...

All of which is paid for mostly by government grants - NOT the pharma company. So you are paying for that pill more than once already. Or the drug is reaching its end of exclusive cycle so they change the carrier and call it a new & improved drug and get to keep the exclusivity.

You may need to talk to some actual researchers before condemning someone else's stance.