EU Regulators Expected to Decide on Apple's Acquisition of Beats By July 30

[linuxcooldude]

Of course it is a routine check

But Apple buying their way into a market and using their weight to squash out other competitors can be an anti-competitive move and something the EU will examine.

Acquiring companies in of itself is a standard practice used by many. How is Apple using its weight when its already behind in streaming music, with declining download music sales?

 

[zipa]

Acquiring companies in of itself is a standard practice used by many. How is Apple using its weight when its already behind in streaming music, with declining download music sales?

They aren't. There's nothing to see here, just move along. Every major merger/acquisition will be reviewed. EU officials do 300-400 reviews like this yearly, there is absolutely nothing newsworthy in this case.

 

[Quu]

Acquiring companies in of itself is a standard practice used by many. How is Apple using its weight when its already behind in streaming music, with declining download music sales?

I'm not saying they are. I'm saying it will be something the EU will examine. That is what they do. That is what this whole review is about they look at the deal from all angles.

 

[rossome]

You mean you miss the idea of a person you never met, which you created based on things you read on the internet. And yes, your Steve would never do things like use illegal drugs. Except when he did.

I never said anything about drugs. What a ridiculous and irrelevant statement for you to have made, equating Steve's sense of style and adventurism with the likes of Dre's filthy childishness. Get a brain.

 

[zipa]

I never said anything about drugs. What a ridiculous and irrelevant statement for you to have made, equating Steve's sense of style and adventurism with the likes of Dre's filthy childishness. Get a brain.

What the...? Are you dumastudetto's long lost twin brother or something?

 

[Z400Racer37]

Your logic is flawed.

No it's not.

Of course a company should be able to do with it's assets what it deems correct. However not when it intends to purchase another company and in the process fundamentally change the market, making possibly essential to the customer products (A monopoly exists when there are no substitutes) more expensive, shutting out a number of consumers. I'm currently consulting a company that produces flu vaccines and that is in the process of being acquired. It is essential that antitrust procedures are started to avoid the flu vaccines going up in price. It is a given that this would happen. Both the acquiring as well as the acquired company agree that this would happen.

So the company should have the right to do their assets what it deems correct, unless it raises prices or does something else that you disagree with? Interesting philosophy. What does a flu shot cost anyways, $20? Really lol. So what if they did charge $40? The extra profit margin would allow them to invest more heavily in their production line, and therefore have the financial capacity to address more people over time if there was a demand for such investment. If another individual thought that their profit margins were too high or, “abusive,” then they would have every right to open a plant of their own and produce them at a lower-cost, which would force prices down. As if they were exorbitant to begin with…

A monopoly is a monopoly because there are no competitors and no substitutes. In many cases entry barriers are so high in a monopoly that a new entrant will have no chance, even if they could offer their product at lower prices.

Do you have an example of "many cases,” because I can't think of a single scenario in which investment capital wouldn't be able to overcome barriers to entry if the profit margins in that industry were high enough to make the investment worthwhile.

Sorry, but you apparently fail to realise how a pure monopoly works.

The only pure monopolies that I'm aware of are the ones that are enforced by the government. So I guess there goes that.

If there is a true monopoly and the product is essential to you as a consumer than YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy the product or try to live without it. There would be no substitute.

1.) There has been no such thing as a true monopoly in a free market in history.

2.) Just because you need something that I produced, does not give you a right to FORCE me to sell it to you at a price that you like. You don't have a right to force me to do anything.

3.) "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy the product or try to live without it.”

… is it just me or is that a choice? Again, you do not have a right to MY things because you need them. They are MINE. Do you understand the concept of private property, and private ownership? What if I hadn't invested MY time, and MY labor, and MY resources, and MY mental faculties to produce that product, and therefore the product didn't even exist? Would that reduce your NEED for it? No. If I do end up innovating and producing that product that you need, does that give you the right to STEAL it from me? If it does, then what is the moral infraction that is being committed by a bank robber? What if he NEEDS the money to pay for something that would save his life? Is he no longer guilty of theft?

Example: the flu vaccine. In a true monopoly there would be only one company that produces the vaccine. They could price it at any level. People need to buy it or they get ill.

No, they could not price it any level sustainably, because the higher the margins, the more attractive that industry becomes to potential competitors. If the margins become high enough, then investment capital is burden to entering the industry. Simple. Besides, when your prices come down, your adjustable market is significantly larger than when prices are high to the point where people can't afford them in mass. Just look at TVs. Flat screens were $10,000, they weighed a ton, the resolution sucked, and only rich people could buy them. Now you can get an equivalent screen size for about 1/30th the price, the quality is way higher, and most people have many TVs in their homes. Do you think this would've been the case if they had left the prices “abusively" high? What if one company had gone in there and bought up all the production lines for making TVs, and then raised the prices to $20,000 bucks a pop? There addressable market wouldn't be nearly the size that it is today. Are you seriously telling me that investment capital would not flow into that industry, to overcome the BARRIERS TO ENTRY, and begin investing in the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR fabrication facilities that are required to produce TVs in mass? Investment capital, and therefore competitors would've sprouted up all over the place to take advantage of those massive profit margins, they would've started producing and selling TVs at a lower cost to consumers, and competition would have again lowered those prices, and put that "abusive" company out of business, or at least drastically shrink their profit margins. What are they going to buy every single competitor that sprouts up? Where were they get the money to buy up all those competitors? The scenario simply do not happen without enforcement from the government.

Wrong again. This might be true for the electronics market, but there are many industries where entry barriers simply are too high. This explains it quite well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

The only example of an insurmountable barrier to entry is one that is imposed by the government. Everything else can be addressed by investment capital if the return on the investment is deemed sufficient. This would inherently place of on the margins that a business could charge. Examples of these abusive, non-government enforced monopoly simply do not exist in history. You seriously think the electronics industry has low barriers to entry?? Why don't you go make a cell phone yourself then if it’s so darn cheap and easy?? lmao.

 

[Z400Racer37]

That's not theft, that's not fascism, that's regulation.

That you're selling hotdogs for $2, and I put a gun to your head and tell you that you're going to sell them to me for $1 or not sell them at all, that is a violation of your rights, that is theft, and it is evil. When a government does that to a business, or an individual, that's called fascism. The level to which you "need" a product is not a factor in determining the definition of these actions. You do not have a right to seize or control my stuff no matter how badly you think you need my things. They are MINE. They belong to ME. Do you understand those concepts? Just because you don’t like he negative implications of the word associated with the actions you describe, does not mean that the use of the word is absurd, emotive, or hyperbolic. In this case it simply means that you either don't know the meaning of the word, or you refuse to accept the meaning of the words, neither of which is my fault or my problem. If you are in favor of these initiations of force against peaceful individuals and businesses, then at least have the guts to call these actions what they are.

If you want to live in a completely laissez-faire capitalist society where the winner takes all and everyone else can go to hell then that's fine, but most of us don't.

...If I were the type to use absurd, emotive, hyperbolic terms like "evil" I'd describe your free market utopia as such.

Force is evil. I would never force you, or anyone else to do something that they didn't want to because it would benefit me in some way. Complete, laissez-faire capitalism is the only system in which the initiation of force by ANY entity is COMPLETELY illegal. Anyone who initiates force in a system like this, has committed a crime and should be thrown in jail. Therefore, it is the ONLY moral system in which society can function. It does not possess the capacity to allow the use of force, and therefore, it does not possess the capacity to be evil, as badly as you might want that to be the case.

Even in America most people are in favor of regulation; you must think 99% of people are fascists.

Well then I guess most people are wrong. If most people agree 2+2 = 5, does that make them right? No. When the government initiates force against businesses to control what they can or can't do with "their property,” that is fascism. As well-intentioned as people might be when they vote for this, that is inherently what they are voting for, the only variable is the magnitude. If you don't like it, that's too bad. Maybe you would be happier if you went somewhere where reality is more to your liking.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you own multiple guns to protect yourself from them?

Idiot.

If it were the only decent product available, then yeah, I would. Hell, I buy products so yeah, I do. The alternative would be either going without, or going with an inferior solution - in effect suffering for ones principles. If those are your choices as a consumer that's not exactly worked out best for you has it?

Let's try to get this straight again. You do NOT have a right to SOMEONE ELSE'S STUFF. It belongs to THEM. IF they decide that they want to sell it to you, then they have every right to do so at the price that THEY deem appropriate. IF you choose to buy the product at that price, then you have inherently IDENTIFIED VALUE in that product that EXCEEDED the price you paid. You identify this YOURSELF when you said that you would be "suffering" for your principles if you went without it. Therefore, you are BETTER OFF with the product, instead of the money in your hands. There is no “suffering for one's principles" in this transaction. The standard here is not what works out best for the consumer, but what is are the rights of the individual who OWNS the property they are selling. If you don't like it, then make the product yourself, and then YOU can choose what YOU do with YOUR product. Until then, THANK the person who made the product that you just bought, for doing it CHEAPER, and BETTER than you could have done it yourself, because you are, in fact, better off.

As has been pointed out, there are such things as barriers to entry.

So? How do you think the company who is currently in that industry with the "barrier to entry" got there in the first place? By INVESTING CAPITAL into a RISKY environment, to try to make a PROFIT by attempting to provide something that was believed to have potential VALUE to CONSUMERS. You think it would be more difficult for someone else to VERIFY that something DOES have value, and then invest the capital to overcome the barriers to entry in order to compete with the company who is "abusing" customers? Is that the argument? Let's be realistic here…

It may surprise you to learn this, but people who succeed in a capitalist system aren't guaranteed to be the most moral people.

People who succeed in pure capitalism, are REQUIRED to have provided VALUE in excess of the materials they consumed. If you make something for $60, and then sell it for $100, that means that the $60 worth of things that you assembled or at least $40 more to the people who bought that item and it's assembled/finished form. You have therefore provided VALUE to the world. If you can get rich off of doing that, then that's terrific. That means that you provided value to so many people, that they were willing to give up their money in exchange for that valuable product that you manufactured. That is incredibly virtuous. Basic fact.

I've even heard it said that capitalism, by definition, rewards greed and the selfish application of cunning.

You've heard it said by someone who was wrong. Are you reading this on a computer? Did somebody deceive you into buying this computer? No? Well how can they have not received you? They were capitalist weren’t they? Didn't they make up PROFIT off of you and everything?? Greedy cunning bastards...

Unless you want the smartest, hardest working, most selfish and greedy people to walk away with almost all the world's wealth while extorting the ordinary person then you need regulation.

If by "wealth" you need money, and how exactly is that a bad thing? Why would you not want the smartest, hardest working, most self-interested people investing their own capital to try to create products, or provide services to a population noted increased their standard of living? Real wealth is defined as one standard of living. Would you rather be an extremely rich aristocrat 400 years ago, or a poor person today? Poor people today have air-conditioning, heat, running water, sewage, refrigerators, food that they can buy in stores, cell phones, computers etc. How many of those things did the wealthiest aristocrats have 400 years ago? Exactly 0. how did we get these things that we have today? Smart, hard-working, selfish people looking to make a PROFIT, INVESTED their capital into RISKY ventures in an attempt to provide VALUE to people in order to increase their standard of living. That's how capitalism works, and we have experienced the most incredibly vibrant, and exponential increase in the standard of living of man since it's nascent implementation in 1776. Fact.

Final note - who says we have an inherent right to "own" resources anyway? That right is granted by society, there's no reason at all it should be absolute and unrestricted.

Really? You, along with “society” have granted me the right to keep a portion of the things that I have worked to acquire and possess? What in the hell makes you think that YOU have some inherent right to things that I worked to produce?!?! What in the hell makes you think that YOU are entitled to the fruits of MYT labor?!? Do you consider me your slave???? Are you under the dillusion that you inherently own a portion of the things I earn?? And what percentage by the way? How much of MY life is EVERYONE ELSE entitled to? You say CAPITALISM isn’t guaranteed produce moral people, and yet, you have no problem with TAKING MY THINGS by FORCE at GOVERNMENT GUNPOINT?!?!?! And you call my reference to fascism hyperbole??? Holy freaking crap.

----------

*cough*Microsoft*cough*

*cough*I have a Mac*cough*Microsoft never forced me to do anything*cough*that doesn't make any sense*cough*cough*

 

[lk400]

I never said anything about drugs. What a ridiculous and irrelevant statement for you to have made, equating Steve's sense of style and adventurism with the likes of Dre's filthy childishness. Get a brain.

Your response is extremely rude and childish, so I don't think you can really judge, can you.

As for not saying anything about drugs, you said, and I quote "Apple’s newest executive, who's been recorded multiple times advocating ... illegal drug use..."

Given you can't even remember your own rant, or work out how to read your own posts, are you certain it is me who should, as you put it, get a brain?

 

[lordofthereef]

Why is the NSA sticking its big nose into European email, cloud data, etc.?

I doubt you will find many people justifying this...

 

[peterdevries]

No it's not.

Yes it is. Your business knowledge has holes. You don't fully grasp what entry barriers and monopolies are and how they really work. In addition you think that enough investment capital can overcome every entry barrier (which it might), whereas in reality no investor would be interested to invest because the upfront investment is too high with a very uncertain return.

So the company should have the right to do their assets what it deems correct, unless it raises prices or does something else that you disagree with? Interesting philosophy. What does a flu shot cost anyways, $20? Really lol. So what if they did charge $40? The extra profit margin would allow them to invest more heavily in their production line, and therefore have the financial capacity to address more people over time if there was a demand for such investment.

Do you have any idea of how many millions of people would not have access to medicines if it would work that way? It is exactly what we are trying to avoid in the example that I gave you. Every dollar increase in the cost of a vaccine reduces the amount of people that receive treatment and increases deaths. It is a live or death business where every dollar and every minute counts. The project that I'm currently working on has incredibly tight deadlines, because any delay in getting the vaccine to market will kill people.

If another individual thought that their profit margins were too high or, “abusive,” then they would have every right to open a plant of their own and produce them at a lower-cost, which would force prices down. As if they were exorbitant to begin with…

I really recommend you to read up on entry barriers and competition (search for "Porter" on Harvard Business Review). The point is that the entry barrier in the vaccines business is incredibly high. The investment and time needed to establish an R&D and production facility, get all support functions in place including regulatory affairs, data management, clinical quality assurance etc. is so incredibly high (would cost billions and tens of years) that no investor consortium would even think to start something like that.

Do you have an example of "many cases,” because I can't think of a single scenario in which investment capital wouldn't be able to overcome barriers to entry if the profit margins in that industry were high enough to make the investment worthwhile.

Lots: pharmaceuticals (not generics), nuclear energy production, airlines, semiconductor manufacturing, mass-market automobiles.

The point is that of course enough investment would overcome these barriers, however in real life investors would not be interested due to the massive investment needed and the time it takes to start generating a profit.

The only pure monopolies that I'm aware of are the ones that are enforced by the government. So I guess there goes that.

That is because the government does a good job of making sure monopolies aren't created. And considering you know the government monopolies, what is your opinion on their service quality, pricing and innovative capabilities? Extend that to a non-governmental monopoly and you have your answer to what will happen.

2.) Just because you need something that I produced, does not give you a right to FORCE me to sell it to you at a price that you like. You don't have a right to force me to do anything.

Again, this is not how it works. Imagine you have terminal cancer and there is only one producer of that medicine on the planet because they bought out the competitors. Lots of people in the USA and elsewhere would become very unhappy if after the buy-out the price of the medicine tripled. People would die, and you could potentially die also if you wouldn't be able to pay the price. These anti-trust regulations are in place to regulate the market in situations where society would be impacted adversely if one producer starts controlling. With adverse impact I mean in the sense that a large amount of people would lose their jobs, would die, would not have access to services or products necessary to participate in society etc.

It is an absolute certainty that without competition prices go up. There is a whole body of work by Michael Porter on this at the Harvard Business Review. Arguing that this won't happen is nonsense.

3.) "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy the product or try to live without it.”

… is it just me or is that a choice? Again, you do not have a right to MY things because you need them. They are MINE. Do you understand the concept of private property, and private ownership? What if I hadn't invested MY time, and MY labor, and MY resources, and MY mental faculties to produce that product, and therefore the product didn't even exist? Would that reduce your NEED for it? No. If I do end up innovating and producing that product that you need, does that give you the right to STEAL it from me? If it does, then what is the moral infraction that is being committed by a bank robber? What if he NEEDS the money to pay for something that would save his life? Is he no longer guilty of theft?

Again, this is not how it works. Companies rely on each other and people rely on products. In my many examples of the pharmaceutical industry it is clearly demonstrated that people would die. If there would be a monopoly in telecommunication your company might go out of business because you can't pay the higher prices anymore. These market regulating instruments are there to avoid that these things happen, because they have happened before. They are there to protect customers (from dying, going out of business, going broke) for products that are essential and have no substitute.

No, they could not price it any level sustainably, because the higher the margins, the more attractive that industry becomes to potential competitors. If the margins become high enough, then investment capital is burden to entering the industry. Simple. Besides, when your prices come down, your adjustable market is significantly larger than when prices are high to the point where people can't afford them in mass. Just look at TVs. Flat screens were $10,000, they weighed a ton, the resolution sucked, and only rich people could buy them. Now you can get an equivalent screen size for about 1/30th the price, the quality is way higher, and most people have many TVs in their homes. Do you think this would've been the case if they had left the prices “abusively" high? What if one company had gone in there and bought up all the production lines for making TVs, and then raised the prices to $20,000 bucks a pop? There addressable market wouldn't be nearly the size that it is today. Are you seriously telling me that investment capital would not flow into that industry, to overcome the BARRIERS TO ENTRY, and begin investing in the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR fabrication facilities that are required to produce TVs in mass? Investment capital, and therefore competitors would've sprouted up all over the place to take advantage of those massive profit margins, they would've started producing and selling TVs at a lower cost to consumers, and competition would have again lowered those prices, and put that "abusive" company out of business, or at least drastically shrink their profit margins. What are they going to buy every single competitor that sprouts up? Where were they get the money to buy up all those competitors? The scenario simply do not happen without enforcement from the government.

I keep saying it again, but it doesn't work like that. This is what would happen, and if you don't believe me go read up on your business literature. Let's stay with your example. Let's say suddenly there is a monopoly in flat screens, which currently have an average price of about USD 399,-. The monopolist suddenly has an incredibly high buying power with panel producers and can set his own price. The reason being that the panel producer is now producing for only one customer. So, the price of the panel goes down. This will have an impact on the profitability of the panel producer (which is already low).
But for the monopolist this is good, because it increases their margin. Likewise the monopolist can now dictate prices to its customers, the retailers. It could very well increase the price of its TV's by 20%. The retailers have no possibility to accept this, and are forced to reduce their margins because a price hike would impact sales. Less people would buy the TV's. So they are forced to eat into their own margin. On a global scale this would impact a large number of companies and persons. In addition innovation would slow down, because there is no reason to fear any competitor. Over time the producer controls ever more of the entire supply chain. It will purposely increase the barriers to entry so newcomers are discouraged.

Without competition in the TV industry we would all still be looking at CRT tubes that weigh 120 pounds. Just imagine what will happen now Apple stops working on Aperture, which is the only real competitor to lightroom. The price might not go up initially but it will over time, and more so than it would have if Aperture were still there.

The only example of an insurmountable barrier to entry is one that is imposed by the government. Everything else can be addressed by investment capital if the return on the investment is deemed sufficient. This would inherently place of on the margins that a business could charge. Examples of these abusive, non-government enforced monopoly simply do not exist in history. You seriously think the electronics industry has low barriers to entry?? Why don't you go make a cell phone yourself then if it’s so darn cheap and easy?? lmao.

The electronics industry has low barriers to entry. You can call up an OEM and stamp your logo on a cheap cellphone, tablet, TV or whatever you like and start selling. It is the production segment that has relatively high barriers to entry.

Examples of true monopolies in existence:

• DeBeers diamonds
• Many airlines have exclusive connections (look the prices of those up and compare those to connections with many alternatives)
• Many local electricity providers
• Many local Pay TV providers

It is true that monopolies are rare, which is the result of a working regulatory environment. What we are faced with more often are markets that gravitate towards a monopoly where the few competitors see the opportunity in coordinating pricing to maximise their own profit to the detriment of their customers.

The points you are disputing are very well documented in business literature. Your argumentation proves that you are not sufficiently aware of how these things work in real life. Sorry.

 

[peterdevries]

That you're selling hotdogs for $2, and I put a gun to your head and tell you that you're going to sell them to me for $1 or not sell them at all, that is a violation of your rights, that is theft, and it is evil. When a government does that to a business, or an individual, that's called fascism. The level to which you "need" a product is not a factor in determining the definition of these actions. You do not have a right to seize or control my stuff no matter how badly you think you need my things. They are MINE. They belong to ME. Do you understand those concepts? Just because you don’t like he negative implications of the word associated with the actions you describe, does not mean that the use of the word is absurd, emotive, or hyperbolic. In this case it simply means that you either don't know the meaning of the word, or you refuse to accept the meaning of the words, neither of which is my fault or my problem. If you are in favor of these initiations of force against peaceful individuals and businesses, then at least have the guts to call these actions what they are.

What you fail to realise is that many companies have specific statements in their mission statements indicating their service to society. Many companies have achieved their goals in this regard and have become something more than just a "profit generation structure". E.g. pharmaceutical companies, telecommunications companies, energy generation companies and that list goes on and on.
These companies serve a function to society where other companies and private persons rely on their products to exist and to survive. By definition, in a monopoly there are no substitutes and competitors. These regulations ensure competition and innovation are upheld to ensure pricing fitting to market conditions and development of new products.

 

[zipa]

*cough*I have a Mac*cough*Microsoft never forced me to do anything*cough*that doesn't make any sense*cough*cough*

What you as an individual had in the 1990's is completely irrelevant to the market as whole.

I think you might be one of those who mistakenly believe that a monopoly can only exist if someone has 100% market share. But it is not relevant how one defines monopoly, the question is not about monopolies, but a dominating market position.

And yes, as a consumer I'm really, really happy that my government tells everyone who wants to do business with me e.g. that they'll have to provide warranty and support for whatever I purchase for the entire expected lifespan of the product and not force me to spend even more money still on some ****** applecare or other such tripe.

If the government doesn't step in to protect the consumers, who would?

 

[Atlantico]

Bad move.

Apple stock is up over 50% since Steve passed away.

No good move, since I don't own stock in a company that wastes my money.

----------

Actually they probably can't. Remember Ping? Mobile Me? Until recently iCloud was anaemic junk.

You would have thought too that Google + would have had Facebook beat in two minutes flat given Google's might. But it's now a flop that pollutes other Google offerings as they flog the dead horse.

Beats streaming had a pretty decent launch and the headphones (either junky, overpriced, often both) have been a massive success, convincing the youth market, that probably spent $30 on headphones pre-Beats, to spend $300. And that's one thing that set US capitalism apart from, say, European capitalism - 'good marketing' of a crap product is respected rather than cynically written off as a sort of fraud.

Beats is a Google+

Nobody uses any of its digital services.

 

[mazz0]

That you're selling hotdogs for $2, and I put a gun to your head and tell you that you're going to sell them to me for $1 or not sell them at all, that is a violation of your rights, that is theft, and it is evil. When a government does that to a business, or an individual, that's called fascism. The level to which you "need" a product is not a factor in determining the definition of these actions. You do not have a right to seize or control my stuff no matter how badly you think you need my things. They are MINE. They belong to ME. Do you understand those concepts? Just because you don’t like he negative implications of the word associated with the actions you describe, does not mean that the use of the word is absurd, emotive, or hyperbolic. In this case it simply means that you either don't know the meaning of the word, or you refuse to accept the meaning of the words, neither of which is my fault or my problem. If you are in favor of these initiations of force against peaceful individuals and businesses, then at least have the guts to call these actions what they are.



Force is evil. I would never force you, or anyone else to do something that they didn't want to because it would benefit me in some way. Complete, laissez-faire capitalism is the only system in which the initiation of force by ANY entity is COMPLETELY illegal. Anyone who initiates force in a system like this, has committed a crime and should be thrown in jail. Therefore, it is the ONLY moral system in which society can function. It does not possess the capacity to allow the use of force, and therefore, it does not possess the capacity to be evil, as badly as you might want that to be the case.

The inverse, though, of forcing somebody to give up some of what they have is simply assuming everybody has the right to whatever they can aquire for themselves. See my final point.

An example: a man has a huge supply of a drug that has both recreational uses and applications in emergency medical care. Walking down the street he passes a road accident. One of the people involved is dying. The man takes a bottle of pills out of his pocket, leans against a lamp post watching the person die, and takes one of his pills. A doctor on the scene notices this and informs the man that if he doesnt give them one of his pills the person hurt in the accident will die. Is it still wrong, in your view, to take one of the man's pills by force?

Well then I guess most people are wrong. If most people agree 2+2 = 5, does that make them right? No. When the government initiates force against businesses to control what they can or can't do with "their property,” that is fascism. As well-intentioned as people might be when they vote for this, that is inherently what they are voting for, the only variable is the magnitude. If you don't like it, that's too bad. Maybe you would be happier if you went somewhere where reality is more to your liking.

I agree, majorities are often wrong in my opinion too. I was just surprised, not really sure why I mentioned it.

Idiot.

I'm sorry, that was rude of me.

Let's try to get this straight again. You do NOT have a right to SOMEONE ELSE'S STUFF. It belongs to THEM. IF they decide that they want to sell it to you, then they have every right to do so at the price that THEY deem appropriate. IF you choose to buy the product at that price, then you have inherently IDENTIFIED VALUE in that product that EXCEEDED the price you paid. You identify this YOURSELF when you said that you would be "suffering" for your principles if you went without it. Therefore, you are BETTER OFF with the product, instead of the money in your hands. There is no “suffering for one's principles" in this transaction. The standard here is not what works out best for the consumer, but what is are the rights of the individual who OWNS the property they are selling. If you don't like it, then make the product yourself, and then YOU can choose what YOU do with YOUR product. Until then, THANK the person who made the product that you just bought, for doing it CHEAPER, and BETTER than you could have done it yourself, because you are, in fact, better off.



So? How do you think the company who is currently in that industry with the "barrier to entry" got there in the first place? By INVESTING CAPITAL into a RISKY environment, to try to make a PROFIT by attempting to provide something that was believed to have potential VALUE to CONSUMERS. You think it would be more difficult for someone else to VERIFY that something DOES have value, and then invest the capital to overcome the barriers to entry in order to compete with the company who is "abusing" customers? Is that the argument? Let's be realistic here…

By investing capital (generally, of course, this capital came from people who were lucky enough to be born with more than the average person) and by being cunning, manipulative, hard working and selfish. Being successful doesn't prove you've done anything good.

People who succeed in pure capitalism, are REQUIRED to have provided VALUE in excess of the materials they consumed. If you make something for $60, and then sell it for $100, that means that the $60 worth of things that you assembled or at least $40 more to the people who bought that item and it's assembled/finished form. You have therefore provided VALUE to the world. If you can get rich off of doing that, then that's terrific. That means that you provided value to so many people, that they were willing to give up their money in exchange for that valuable product that you manufactured. That is incredibly virtuous. Basic fact.

I cant believe I even need to explain this point with an example. OK, let's say you're dominant in an industry. You're making billions. Somebody else comes along with an innovative idea. Your industry is heavily reliant upon a rare natural resource. So you buy it all, pre-ordering all that could possibly be produced in the next fifty years. The company with the innovative idea therefore cannot bring their idea to market, and the consumer can't buy it. How exactly is that best for the consumer? Having a dominant market position demonstrates you played the game well, not that you provided the best possible product the consumer could hope for.

You've heard it said by someone who was wrong. Are you reading this on a computer? Did somebody deceive you into buying this computer? No? Well how can they have not received you? They were capitalist weren’t they? Didn't they make up PROFIT off of you and everything?? Greedy cunning bastards...

If by "wealth" you need money, and how exactly is that a bad thing? Why would you not want the smartest, hardest working, most self-interested people investing their own capital to try to create products, or provide services to a population noted increased their standard of living? Real wealth is defined as one standard of living. Would you rather be an extremely rich aristocrat 400 years ago, or a poor person today? Poor people today have air-conditioning, heat, running water, sewage, refrigerators, food that they can buy in stores, cell phones, computers etc. How many of those things did the wealthiest aristocrats have 400 years ago? Exactly 0. how did we get these things that we have today? Smart, hard-working, selfish people looking to make a PROFIT, INVESTED their capital into RISKY ventures in an attempt to provide VALUE to people in order to increase their standard of living. That's how capitalism works, and we have experienced the most incredibly vibrant, and exponential increase in the standard of living of man since it's nascent implementation in 1776. Fact.

I agree, our current system of capitalism (one which includes regulation, of course) has proved better than any other system anyone has yet tried on a large scale. However, acheiving a positive outcome doesnt prove something is the best solution, and more significantly, doesnt prove the people involed were moral people. It would be accurate to say that capitalism sometimes takes advantage of selfish people to acheive some noble ends.

A persons actions having a positive effect doesn't make that person moral. Say a man wakes up one day and decides to go out and kill a random person in the street. He grabs his knife and stabs the first person he comes accross. Turns out he's killed a terrorist who was about to blow up a school. Doesnt make him a good man.

Really? You, along with “society” have granted me the right to keep a portion of the things that I have worked to acquire and possess? What in the hell makes you think that YOU have some inherent right to things that I worked to produce?!?! What in the hell makes you think that YOU are entitled to the fruits of MYT labor?!? Do you consider me your slave???? Are you under the dillusion that you inherently own a portion of the things I earn?? And what percentage by the way? How much of MY life is EVERYONE ELSE entitled to? You say CAPITALISM isn’t guaranteed produce moral people, and yet, you have no problem with TAKING MY THINGS by FORCE at GOVERNMENT GUNPOINT?!?!?! And you call my reference to fascism hyperbole??? Holy freaking crap.

Essentially it all boils down to that last point doesn't it? You believe that you have a right to anything you can get, provided you've "worked" for it. I simply don't take that right as fundamental. If you think about it, your assertion that I'm claiming a 'right' to 'your stuff' doesn't make any sense, as I dont 100% recognise your concept of 'your stuff'. Are you actually producing anything out of nothing? What about your home - did you produce the land that sits on? Why is your 'right' to that so fundamental?

The whole right of ownership is not an inherent law of the universe, its a human construct, a concept invented by society. Therefore it is subject to whatever conditions and limitations society places on it. Unless you're aware of some physics that renders it a fundamental law.

NOTE: apologies for any weird spelling/punctuation errors, iOS 8 beta 2 is being intermittently weird.

 

[mazz0]

If by "wealth" you need money, and how exactly is that a bad thing? Why would you not want the smartest, hardest working, most self-interested people investing their own capital to try to create products, or provide services to a population noted increased their standard of living? Real wealth is defined as one standard of living. Would you rather be an extremely rich aristocrat 400 years ago, or a poor person today? Poor people today have air-conditioning, heat, running water, sewage, refrigerators, food that they can buy in stores, cell phones, computers etc. How many of those things did the wealthiest aristocrats have 400 years ago? Exactly 0. how did we get these things that we have today? Smart, hard-working, selfish people looking to make a PROFIT, INVESTED their capital into RISKY ventures in an attempt to provide VALUE to people in order to increase their standard of living. That's how capitalism works, and we have experienced the most incredibly vibrant, and exponential increase in the standard of living of man since it's nascent implementation in 1776. Fact.

Sorry, I forgot an obvious point. A great number of the examples of progress you've given were the product of state spending, either directly or via catalysts of technological progress such as the military, space programme, and blue sky scientific research without immediately obvious market applications (the kind companies don't fund). Ie they were funded by tax (ie the state taking what's 'yours'). Would you rather live in a world where that hadn't happened?