People are consumers of something... There is no differentiation necessary. There is a difference between Goods that are basic to survival and goods that you can live without. You are completely forgetting about the Producer which is the only reason why the product exists in the first place. They have a right to sell the item at whatever cost they think its worth. If people pay for it thats good for both parties. Since both Groups are benefiting from the transaction. Though if the Producer realizes he isn't selling enough then he'll reduce the price in order to get more income/profit for his work.
Well if the price is too high for people, people wont pay for it. Lets say for example if Intel and Nvidia increased the price for their PC goods because of the lack of competition it'll just drive more and more people away towards other platforms such as ARM, Consoles, etc.. Other example Alcoa had a Monopoly on Aluminum in the world for many years... They couldn't charge too much because consumers just bought steel instead.If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.
Monopolies are not bad in themselves they are the sole producer of the good. If another corporation wants to come in to compete and can provide lower cost goods they can do so. A monopoly always has to be mindful of this.If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.
Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.
They can't charge too much for a product or they'll attract a competitor as soon as they charge too high of a price. The wait for a product isnt that long... It takes just a few years for a product to be RD and put out to be sold.
Most electronics can last at least 10 years with proper maintenance so there is no need to upgrade. (Still using computers from 2001 in my work). If the monopoly charges too high a price they also can delay upgrade cycles for the consumers.
These are all true... though you are obviously against the businesses who provide the good/service and feel entitled to their labor.Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.
You do not deserve a lower price. If the producer/seller lowers the price then you buy it! Vote with your wallet trying to garner Morality because you think the price is too high is short sighted and foolish.





Reply With Quote

Bookmarks