7 ms·

No. One restaurant is unlikely to be able to make billions in profit. It is unlikely to be able to make billions in profit from charging millions of people much

No. One restaurant is unlikely to be able to make billions in profit. It is unlikely to be able to make billions in profit from charging millions of people much more than a product is actually worth to produce. That is, of course, because the dinners in that restaurant are not mass produced for the millions, but finely produced for the very few. Of course most businesses try to charge the highest possible price, but that does not mean that to do so is necessarily right as far as society as a whole is concerned. What, for example, has Bill Gates done to be worth more than whole countries but win some genetic lottery. How many millions are poor and perhaps starving and how many geniuses or great inventions have we missed on because of the insane concentration of wealth that our society permits on the hand of very few people or companies? Just because communism has failed I do not think means we should all try and rip off each other through an exploitative monopoly of invention. Not Apple, nor any other business can make 30% profit which amounts to billions by morally clean means. That, I think, is what makes me uneasy.

eugenejen 15y ago
I think as long as they don't abuse power in law to protect their huge profit margin, then any one who thinks they can do better job will be rewarded handsomely and they will step in to compete. If iPhone didn't make so much money, I wonder Google and Microsoft would spend so much man power on their mobile systems. The sad thing of my home country, Taiwan , is no one has such power to make such a big profit. All electronic manufacturers fight for 0.5% margin among each others, Chinese and Koreans. Most of ic companies are heavily subsidized by government with low interest loans. They are just too big to fail. I would rather to see they can build business that not only self sustain but making profit without tax money from general public.
eugenejen 15y ago
Also I think the whole global restaurant industry is probably at the same magnitude as Apple. And the whole industry is possible making billions in profit from "Overcharging" millions of people. The power of technology for a lot of times just concentrates what was distributed, small scale into a behemoth. But at the same time, I think by blaming Apple but ignoring possibly similar industry that repeatedly rip off customers, ill treating employees, but at a distributed fashion is somewhat unfair.
stryker 15y ago
I will concede that there are many reasonable social frameworks designed to maximize societal wealth in the long run. You are simply describing your own version. After all, capitalism is one solution to this very complex problem of resource allocation. It's not without flaws, of course: e.g. externalities. That's where regulation steps in. It's possible to get companies to pay for the negative externalities they are creating or even stop altogether (see: pollution). A theme in my post will be: let's not throw the baby (capitalism) out with the bath water (negative externalities). Here are some points I came across reading your post. 1) You say that products should be priced close to their cost, that they should not charge "the highest possible price". Why? If Apple forcefully lowered their prices you could actually argue that Apple is trying to squeeze competitors out. Apple is hugely efficient. If they charge slightly above cost, do you think any other company would be able to sell anything remotely similar for a reasonable price? I know you're going to say that Apple uses underhanded means to be so efficient. I agree with that. By abusing human rights, Apple is getting a cheaper deal unfairly. But your claim that "products should be priced near cost" is flat out wrong. If the observation "Apple unfairly gets highly efficient" led to a policy "let's force all companies to sell at slightly above cost" to "benefit consumers", that would actually exacerbate the issue, with everyone rushing to abuse human rights in order to compete with Apple's efficiency. Profits are not evil. If you're going to target Apple's ethics, by all means do so, but do not use false economic arguments to support that claim. 2) You want geniuses and great inventions to come about, but then once they do (e.g. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) you don't want them to make too much money. How much is too much? For you, billions. For others, millions. Maybe even just thousands. Where do you draw the line between "too much" and "enough"? Do you think it would be a good precedent to force all companies making over a million dollars a year to donate half of it to some charity? I think this is yet another slightly irrelevant argument you make to support your main point, which is that Apple shouldn't be able to get away abusing human rights. To verify this, imagine: suppose Apple makes billions but also supports human rights everywhere by only working with legitimate companies. Do you now have respect for Apple? Or do you think they should still do more things for society? If the latter is the case, you're basically saying that all wealth should be redistributed by law, to some arbitrary degree (maybe the voters decide?). Hmm... not exactly communism, but not capitalism either. I have no additional points here, I haven't had time to imagine such a world in detail. I won't dismiss it outright, though. 3) Patent monopolies. I do agree that patents are tricky. On one hand, you want society to benefit as soon and as much as possible from new stuff. On the other hand, you want to encourage inventors to spend lots of money on research with the promise that they will be rewarded handsomely with patent monopolies. If you remove patents, you risk a world where no one will ever sink mounds of money and time into research (I would even contend that this world wouldn't be quite so bad, seeing projects like Wikipedia, as long as theft is not tolerated). If you support patents too strongly, you risk a world where society is squeezed dry even after the original inventor passes away (I believe the incumbents want this way, and it's bad). There is a middle ground here... Indeed, your last statement really is the heart of your argument, which is what you should really focus on instead of spurious economic arguments: neglecting human rights is a negative externality. We as a society should pay to uphold human rights and punish those who do not. EDIT: Some grammar issues.

eugenejen 15y ago

I think as long as they don't abuse power in law to protect their huge profit margin, then any one who thinks they can do better job will be rewarded handsomely and they will step in to compete. If iPhone didn't make so much money, I wonder Google and Microsoft would spend so much man power on their mobile systems. The sad thing of my home country, Taiwan , is no one has such power to make such a big profit. All electronic manufacturers fight for 0.5% margin among each others, Chinese and Koreans. Most of ic companies are heavily subsidized by government with low interest loans. They are just too big to fail. I would rather to see they can build business that not only self sustain but making profit without tax money from general public.

eugenejen 15y ago

Also I think the whole global restaurant industry is probably at the same magnitude as Apple. And the whole industry is possible making billions in profit from "Overcharging" millions of people. The power of technology for a lot of times just concentrates what was distributed, small scale into a behemoth. But at the same time, I think by blaming Apple but ignoring possibly similar industry that repeatedly rip off customers, ill treating employees, but at a distributed fashion is somewhat unfair.

stryker 15y ago

I will concede that there are many reasonable social frameworks designed to maximize societal wealth in the long run. You are simply describing your own version. After all, capitalism is one solution to this very complex problem of resource allocation. It's not without flaws, of course: e.g. externalities. That's where regulation steps in. It's possible to get companies to pay for the negative externalities they are creating or even stop altogether (see: pollution). A theme in my post will be: let's not throw the baby (capitalism) out with the bath water (negative externalities). Here are some points I came across reading your post. 1) You say that products should be priced close to their cost, that they should not charge "the highest possible price". Why? If Apple forcefully lowered their prices you could actually argue that Apple is trying to squeeze competitors out. Apple is hugely efficient. If they charge slightly above cost, do you think any other company would be able to sell anything remotely similar for a reasonable price? I know you're going to say that Apple uses underhanded means to be so efficient. I agree with that. By abusing human rights, Apple is getting a cheaper deal unfairly. But your claim that "products should be priced near cost" is flat out wrong. If the observation "Apple unfairly gets highly efficient" led to a policy "let's force all companies to sell at slightly above cost" to "benefit consumers", that would actually exacerbate the issue, with everyone rushing to abuse human rights in order to compete with Apple's efficiency. Profits are not evil. If you're going to target Apple's ethics, by all means do so, but do not use false economic arguments to support that claim. 2) You want geniuses and great inventions to come about, but then once they do (e.g. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) you don't want them to make too much money. How much is too much? For you, billions. For others, millions. Maybe even just thousands. Where do you draw the line between "too much" and "enough"? Do you think it would be a good precedent to force all companies making over a million dollars a year to donate half of it to some charity? I think this is yet another slightly irrelevant argument you make to support your main point, which is that Apple shouldn't be able to get away abusing human rights. To verify this, imagine: suppose Apple makes billions but also supports human rights everywhere by only working with legitimate companies. Do you now have respect for Apple? Or do you think they should still do more things for society? If the latter is the case, you're basically saying that all wealth should be redistributed by law, to some arbitrary degree (maybe the voters decide?). Hmm... not exactly communism, but not capitalism either. I have no additional points here, I haven't had time to imagine such a world in detail. I won't dismiss it outright, though. 3) Patent monopolies. I do agree that patents are tricky. On one hand, you want society to benefit as soon and as much as possible from new stuff. On the other hand, you want to encourage inventors to spend lots of money on research with the promise that they will be rewarded handsomely with patent monopolies. If you remove patents, you risk a world where no one will ever sink mounds of money and time into research (I would even contend that this world wouldn't be quite so bad, seeing projects like Wikipedia, as long as theft is not tolerated). If you support patents too strongly, you risk a world where society is squeezed dry even after the original inventor passes away (I believe the incumbents want this way, and it's bad). There is a middle ground here... Indeed, your last statement really is the heart of your argument, which is what you should really focus on instead of spurious economic arguments: neglecting human rights is a negative externality. We as a society should pay to uphold human rights and punish those who do not. EDIT: Some grammar issues.