3 ms·

Aside from the question, it should be remembered that in free market economy the price of a thing is (close to) what people are willing to pay for it, not how m

Aside from the question, it should be remembered that in free market economy the price of a thing is (close to) what people are willing to pay for it, not how much it costs to make. I have a feeling that new generations of people need to learn this again every decade or so.

gumballindie 3y ago
In free market economy people are also free to criticise pricing and raise awareness when something is overpriced. Feels like we shouldnt remind people that we dont live in a corporate dictatorship. We are free to dislike things including pricing.
- nrabulinski 3y ago
  I think the point was that the only effective way is for people to vote with their wallet as otherwise apple wouldn’t be a trillion dollar company
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    I am - never buying apple products again for multiple reasons, and i am happy to see people sharing their opinion, so that indeed we can make an informed decision about our vote. Edit: A company’s value doesnt always equal quality products. Cigarette makers are highly valued and quite detrimental to society and ones health.
    - nrabulinski 3y ago
      Re edit: yes, and? Nobody said anything about the quality of their products. Also, again, nobody said we can’t criticize the price, just that simply talking about it won’t change anything as long as people will keep buying the products.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        In my view, the more we educate, the more people will change their view. Most people arent able to consider criteria beyond a nice case design and user interface, and fall for “scary fast” slogans. Which may or may not be accurate. That’s why we need people with knowledge to deep dive into how things work, and share their findings. I once fell for apple’s clever marketing and never again. Looking back at how low quality and specs mabook pros have been i dont see how this changed with recent versions - probably are fast and power efficient as advertised but likely suck in all other areas.
kccqzy 3y ago
But it's fun to speculate the cost of BoM and guess the profit margins. Probably just regular work for financial analysts but puzzle games for the rest of us.
avidphantasm 3y ago
As someone who thinks that a global socialist/communist system (which we have never had in modern times) would make most people and the planet better off, I agree with you completely. It is not unconscionable for Apple to charge what it does under a Capitalist system. If you think it is, you might be a socialist and not realize it.
- jostylr 3y ago
  Do you have any good recommendations for a serious dive into the trade-offs for a socialist/communist system and comes out pro-socialist, one that takes into account the analysis of Austrian economics as well as the historical tragedies of those (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ...) who have claimed to rule as socialist? In ideal capitalism, the basic bargain is increased wealth for all at the cost of there being losers and extreme winners along with failures of endeavors being an essential ingredient to overall societal success. It is based on choices being made by individuals to maximize what they value given the options at hand. What is the bargain in ideal socialism? Historically, it looks like equality for the non-elites being pushed over wealth creation. Is there a different trade-off being proposed. There are, after all, no solutions, just trade-offs. In the context of this thread, what would the options in the computer market be in an ideal socialist society? Would there be many choices? Who would make those decisions? Who would make the products and why them? How would one determine how to distribute the product? Why would innovation happen, particularly how would one idea triumph over a differing one, particularly over a status quo idea that pushes out entrenched interests? Would dissent be allowed? How would it be addressed? I would also be interested in an honest analysis of environmental stewardship questions of socialist versus capitalist. From what I have read, environmental destruction has been way worse under government management (Soviets were notorious, but also the US military and its private contractors) than private management unless that private management is somehow being directed and/or protected by the government. Is there a reason to believe socialists would be good stewards of the environment? What is the incentive structure of the people in the system to make that happen? Under a true capitalist system, it is not getting sued for destroying other people's properties as well as the ability to profit off of well-managed lands. Also, under anarcho-capitalism, voluntary associations that can be categorized as socialism/communism can easily arise and would be perfectly acceptable, but the reverse is not true. Why would socialist voluntary associations not be sufficient, i.e., why would enforced collectivization be necessary and morally correct? In a certain sense, anarcho-capitalism is what emerges when the right of secession is taken to the individual level while global socialism is explicitly disallowing any secession. Why is uniform collectivization of all humans under a single controlling entity a good thing? Again, I am hoping for a reference accepted by pro-socialists that thoughtfully addresses these questions.

gumballindie 3y ago

In free market economy people are also free to criticise pricing and raise awareness when something is overpriced. Feels like we shouldnt remind people that we dont live in a corporate dictatorship. We are free to dislike things including pricing.

nrabulinski 3y ago
I think the point was that the only effective way is for people to vote with their wallet as otherwise apple wouldn’t be a trillion dollar company
- gumballindie 3y ago
  I am - never buying apple products again for multiple reasons, and i am happy to see people sharing their opinion, so that indeed we can make an informed decision about our vote. Edit: A company’s value doesnt always equal quality products. Cigarette makers are highly valued and quite detrimental to society and ones health.
  - nrabulinski 3y ago
    Re edit: yes, and? Nobody said anything about the quality of their products. Also, again, nobody said we can’t criticize the price, just that simply talking about it won’t change anything as long as people will keep buying the products.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      In my view, the more we educate, the more people will change their view. Most people arent able to consider criteria beyond a nice case design and user interface, and fall for “scary fast” slogans. Which may or may not be accurate. That’s why we need people with knowledge to deep dive into how things work, and share their findings. I once fell for apple’s clever marketing and never again. Looking back at how low quality and specs mabook pros have been i dont see how this changed with recent versions - probably are fast and power efficient as advertised but likely suck in all other areas.

kccqzy 3y ago

But it's fun to speculate the cost of BoM and guess the profit margins. Probably just regular work for financial analysts but puzzle games for the rest of us.

avidphantasm 3y ago

As someone who thinks that a global socialist/communist system (which we have never had in modern times) would make most people and the planet better off, I agree with you completely. It is not unconscionable for Apple to charge what it does under a Capitalist system. If you think it is, you might be a socialist and not realize it.

jostylr 3y ago
Do you have any good recommendations for a serious dive into the trade-offs for a socialist/communist system and comes out pro-socialist, one that takes into account the analysis of Austrian economics as well as the historical tragedies of those (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ...) who have claimed to rule as socialist? In ideal capitalism, the basic bargain is increased wealth for all at the cost of there being losers and extreme winners along with failures of endeavors being an essential ingredient to overall societal success. It is based on choices being made by individuals to maximize what they value given the options at hand. What is the bargain in ideal socialism? Historically, it looks like equality for the non-elites being pushed over wealth creation. Is there a different trade-off being proposed. There are, after all, no solutions, just trade-offs. In the context of this thread, what would the options in the computer market be in an ideal socialist society? Would there be many choices? Who would make those decisions? Who would make the products and why them? How would one determine how to distribute the product? Why would innovation happen, particularly how would one idea triumph over a differing one, particularly over a status quo idea that pushes out entrenched interests? Would dissent be allowed? How would it be addressed? I would also be interested in an honest analysis of environmental stewardship questions of socialist versus capitalist. From what I have read, environmental destruction has been way worse under government management (Soviets were notorious, but also the US military and its private contractors) than private management unless that private management is somehow being directed and/or protected by the government. Is there a reason to believe socialists would be good stewards of the environment? What is the incentive structure of the people in the system to make that happen? Under a true capitalist system, it is not getting sued for destroying other people's properties as well as the ability to profit off of well-managed lands. Also, under anarcho-capitalism, voluntary associations that can be categorized as socialism/communism can easily arise and would be perfectly acceptable, but the reverse is not true. Why would socialist voluntary associations not be sufficient, i.e., why would enforced collectivization be necessary and morally correct? In a certain sense, anarcho-capitalism is what emerges when the right of secession is taken to the individual level while global socialism is explicitly disallowing any secession. Why is uniform collectivization of all humans under a single controlling entity a good thing? Again, I am hoping for a reference accepted by pro-socialists that thoughtfully addresses these questions.