4 ms·

Then free trade is out and protectionism is in. There is no cause for treating multinationals better than they treat human beings.

inopinatus 13y ago
On the contrary, it's an easy argument by contradiction. If prices should be the same everywhere, then I should pay the same for rice as a rural villager in a developing nation. But I don't, and I don't expect to, because I am relatively far more wealthy. Therefore differential price levels are acceptable in general: because otherwise our villager could not afford to eat. And that is for an essential item. To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Given this and your various other fallacious appeals to worse problems, I conclude you are beyond rational discussion. Suffice to say, you are the worst possible kind of hypocrite for arguing with us instead of being out there helping starving children.
- vacri 13y ago
  If prices should be the same everywhere, then I should pay the same for rice as a rural villager in a developing nation You forgot about transit prices. Getting rice from that village to that village is much cheaper than getting it to you. This is not the same with digital downloads, where there is zero cost difference to the vendor once the network traffic leaves their LAN. To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting. Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior. I mean, how dare anyone complain if they're not starving? How dare fat, comfortable people A complain that they're being charged more than fat, comfortable people B? After all, it is a strawman you're making, suggesting that Australians are bitching about paying more for software than people in developing nations. They're not, they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level.
  - inopinatus 13y ago
    ...they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. So the local pricing seems about right given the local distribution of wealth (the US has a much higher Gini coefficient of income/wealth disparity), which makes the price elasticity of demand much lower. there is zero cost difference to the vendor No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. In terms of standards of living, not price! No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. Yeah, they often do. Medicine, food and essentials should be kept to a reasonable cost. And I suppose you've never heard of price gouging?
    - vacri 13y ago
      Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. Which was traditionally hand-waved away because goods had a much longer shipping route to get here, plus the minimum wage was higher (meaning higher staff costs). Neither of these things have any meaning to digital downloads. No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. No market participant has a moral obligation not to ask a vendor to justify a higher price, nor to question a vendor's protectionist activities. I find it really weird that you seem to be so strongly in favour of the free market, yet also like the idea vendors can prevent third-parties reselling things through different channels, or using similar blocks to artificially constrain supply.
      - inopinatus 13y ago
        I believe that in a free market buyers and vendors should both be free to set whatever terms they like and negotiate on whatever basis they choose. Government interference in that (e.g. by regulation of who must set what price or what their T&Cs must be) is therefore, by definition, non-free.
anovikov 13y ago
It has nothing to do with multinationals. Same thing happens inside, on national markets. Clients are segmented by providers of goods/services based on what seems to them realistic assumptions of their wealth and/or will to buy their products. Those who are thought to have more cash on hand, or more in need of the product 'here and now', are charged more. It can have variable success because estimates may be way off, but that is the goal. Going onto international markets, country is a very good criteria, because GDP per capita is a well known hard figure. It would be stupid not to use it as a segmentation criteria.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  > Same thing happens inside, on national markets. This shows you have absolutely no idea what this discussion is actually about. Arbitrage, a key component of a free market, keeps major price discrimination in check within national markets. This is about corporations using the force of law to prevent arbitrage working across international boundaries.

inopinatus 13y ago

On the contrary, it's an easy argument by contradiction. If prices should be the same everywhere, then I should pay the same for rice as a rural villager in a developing nation. But I don't, and I don't expect to, because I am relatively far more wealthy. Therefore differential price levels are acceptable in general: because otherwise our villager could not afford to eat. And that is for an essential item. To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting.

nknighthb 13y ago
Given this and your various other fallacious appeals to worse problems, I conclude you are beyond rational discussion. Suffice to say, you are the worst possible kind of hypocrite for arguing with us instead of being out there helping starving children.
vacri 13y ago
If prices should be the same everywhere, then I should pay the same for rice as a rural villager in a developing nation You forgot about transit prices. Getting rice from that village to that village is much cheaper than getting it to you. This is not the same with digital downloads, where there is zero cost difference to the vendor once the network traffic leaves their LAN. To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting. Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior. I mean, how dare anyone complain if they're not starving? How dare fat, comfortable people A complain that they're being charged more than fat, comfortable people B? After all, it is a strawman you're making, suggesting that Australians are bitching about paying more for software than people in developing nations. They're not, they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level.
- inopinatus 13y ago
  ...they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. So the local pricing seems about right given the local distribution of wealth (the US has a much higher Gini coefficient of income/wealth disparity), which makes the price elasticity of demand much lower. there is zero cost difference to the vendor No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. In terms of standards of living, not price! No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. Yeah, they often do. Medicine, food and essentials should be kept to a reasonable cost. And I suppose you've never heard of price gouging?
  - vacri 13y ago
    Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. Which was traditionally hand-waved away because goods had a much longer shipping route to get here, plus the minimum wage was higher (meaning higher staff costs). Neither of these things have any meaning to digital downloads. No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. No market participant has a moral obligation not to ask a vendor to justify a higher price, nor to question a vendor's protectionist activities. I find it really weird that you seem to be so strongly in favour of the free market, yet also like the idea vendors can prevent third-parties reselling things through different channels, or using similar blocks to artificially constrain supply.
    - inopinatus 13y ago
      I believe that in a free market buyers and vendors should both be free to set whatever terms they like and negotiate on whatever basis they choose. Government interference in that (e.g. by regulation of who must set what price or what their T&Cs must be) is therefore, by definition, non-free.

anovikov 13y ago

It has nothing to do with multinationals. Same thing happens inside, on national markets. Clients are segmented by providers of goods/services based on what seems to them realistic assumptions of their wealth and/or will to buy their products. Those who are thought to have more cash on hand, or more in need of the product 'here and now', are charged more. It can have variable success because estimates may be way off, but that is the goal. Going onto international markets, country is a very good criteria, because GDP per capita is a well known hard figure. It would be stupid not to use it as a segmentation criteria.

nknighthb 13y ago
> Same thing happens inside, on national markets. This shows you have absolutely no idea what this discussion is actually about. Arbitrage, a key component of a free market, keeps major price discrimination in check within national markets. This is about corporations using the force of law to prevent arbitrage working across international boundaries.