3 ms·

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 d

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.
      - vacri 13y ago
        Then why aren't you supporting the government's actions here? The government is suggesting fixing the issue by removing protectionist legislation, and enabling the 'buyer' half of your comment a fairer field. Government isn't talking about setting prices, but by recommending a higher degree of free-market competition.
        inopinatus 13y ago

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.
    - vacri 13y ago
      Then why aren't you supporting the government's actions here? The government is suggesting fixing the issue by removing protectionist legislation, and enabling the 'buyer' half of your comment a fairer field. Government isn't talking about setting prices, but by recommending a higher degree of free-market competition.
      - inopinatus 13y ago