| >> Predatory pricing, according to the linked wikipedia article, occurs when the price is set below the cost of production. I have nothing against profits, but exuberant profit which I think is the product of exploitation. Yes, strictly speaking, predatory pricing is when products are priced below cost. My point was that in the absence of competition, artificial price cutting makes it more difficult for newcomers to setup shop, and in the presence of competition, is a natural result. >> No one forces anyone to buy electricity. Actually, if you look at the law, it specifically lists certain types of public utilities, such as electricity, that must be regulated because the providers are what are called "natural monopolies". You basically are forced to buy electricity from one company (or two) and electricity is nowadays considered a necessity. But I digress. >> one person or one company making such person or company richer, while everyone else poorer. You can't look at every transaction as simply an exchange of money. By that metric, every time I buy some food, I'm becoming poorer. True, but pretty meaningless, because I would have not spent it any other way. Now are you claiming that an IPad is a "basic necessity"? People chose the IPad, even among similar knock-offs, if they chose to buy one at all. I, for one, have chosen not to buy any tablet. In any case, these buyers are basically saying, "I'm happier with an IPad than $600". Perhaps there's an externality here, where people end up wasting more time and reducing their productivity as a result of buying up IPads, and so Apple should be forced to pay that cost to society. But that's still a different issue than your claim, which is that they're priced "too high". >> thus perhaps a middle ground would be best. Note that our current economic system is not so extremely capitalist. It's capitalism + externality pricing + taxes + (other stuff that I frankly think is government mandating inefficiencies to support special interests, like subsidies). >> Which is that society should have a say on the maximum profit and remuneration of an individual and company so that society as a whole can benefit at an optimal level. I can think of another way to phrase this claim -- most people will not live any happier with $1 billion than $1 million. All that extra money could be used to increase the utility of other people by a much higher margin. But I must note: people already do donate. I'm sure you've heard of the billionaire's pledge. It's happening TODAY, in our capitalist society. Like my example with Bob and Jake, in our society, people have a choice. They have a choice to donate their billions to the plights of the world. In your world, all citizens will be forced to. So I guess to summarize:
1) I like giving people choice.
2) I think if you give government an inch, they'll take a mile. Even if capitalism and communism were identically effective theories, a government in a communist economy by definition is so much more powerful than a government in a capitalist economy... I think the corruption would be difficult to battle. EDIT: By the way, it sounds like you are pretty reasonable. However, your initial tone of "profits are evil" and that false economic policy statement "companies should price just above cost" probably pissed a lot of people off. You probably shouldn't say those things because they're not your main point anyway and they just close off people unnecessarily. As I've seen, you clearly have a more reasonable way to express your arguments anyway! |