Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt (RPM)
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>No, no and no. You leftist have this extreme cognitive disonnance within you. You think every sector has some special properties that needs it's own special schemes, and you usually end up hurting the ones you want to protect. We still have a similar Book Law. It sets a minimum price for all recent domestically published books, which noone is allowed to discount before x amount of time has passed. All sorts of idiot arguments are used to defend it "it protects the niche-litterature", "it protects the small independent retailer", it protects everything that is nice.
> I would have though the simple answer to this is that LVT does not do much good in cases like Amazon where any premises are miles out of town in cheap land environments.But this is ,to some extent, a development (ad absurdum?) of the tendency of supermarkets to move out of town to freestanding middle-of-nowhere sites: land is cheaper ,particularly for car parks.Amazon has sucked all the stock out of small independent book shops by offering big discounts , centralised it, and instead of drawing customers to them in cars, like supermarkets ,despatches books by delivery systems. However we used to have a Net Book Agreement in the UK which stopped this: this was the last vestige of Resale Price Maintenance ,a system by which manufacturers would not supply shops unless they agreed not to discount the recommended retail price. This protected the small and medium size shops from predatory discounting by the big operators as all prices for branded goods were the same.<
First of all, you have to take one step back, what is the purpose of this legislation you are about to defend? Is it to protect litterature or people selling litterature? Is there any good reason to think that making litterature more expensive helps the final consumer in any way? Makes him appreciate niche litterature more? Makes towns prettier?
Ofcourse not. What the minium prices have done is to concentrate publishers/bookstore ownership even more than would be the case without. The independent bookstores, the independent publishers, they do everything they can to compete in other ways, they are real innovators, and wouldn't flinch to use those "lassez faire" (said in a overbearing manner, eyes rolling) methods of discounts and frequent bargain sales(because they have a wider variety of titles, they have to get them through quickly). In fact the market for foreign litterature which is not subject to the same minimum pricing, is thriving, because it acts in a free pricing environment.
People through Amazon and other online retailers, order more books because they are cheap, niche books that no bookstores would bother to take in, everyone gains if you look at the actual cause of promoting litterature, not protecting some idea of who is supposed to sell it.
The rule of thumb when it comes to specific legislation that is intended to protect some portion of the market, is that you *always* hurt the marginal producers, there are always some unintended consequence that distorts the market in favour of someone big who can adapt to it, you create barriers to entry, and the consumer never gains from increasing prices.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> > > > > If I write a book and it sells well for
> > > > > 5 years, where am I being paid many times?
> > > >
> > > > You are being paid each time someone buys one.
> > > > Surely this is obvious.
> > >
> > > I am not. Over 5 years if the book
> > > makes say £100,000 and then publication halts,
> > > then I have been paid once for that book run.
> > No. If you had been paid a flat fee,
> > that would be one payment.
> Roy, so what!
> If I get paid one fee at the end of a book run or drip fed each time a book is sold, it doesn't matter. One thing that is clear, it is MY book and MY work.No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers. For whose work YOU are being paid multiple times.
> The most recorded song in history, by countless artists, is "Yesterday" written by Paul McCartney. He gets a royalty for each record sold, or played on air, by those who copy.Getting paid millions of times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> Those who copy still make money as well.Some do, some don't. How would that be relevant?
> I see nothing wrong with that. Paul McCartney has never stopped any of them recording his song.Then why would they pay him for doing nothing?
> All the proceeds of his original go to him and rightly so..No, it is not just "his original," but all the other arrangements and versions as well.
> > > He took someone else's effort.He indisputably did.
> > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
> > OWN effort, creating a new product which
> > others did not create.
> He did not.
> He took the efforts of other authors R&D and rolled it into one book.No, he did his own R&D, making one better book using ideas from worse books.
> I have always thought of doing the same myself. Within a few weeks a "new" book can be knocked up by using other people's efforts. I am sure it happens all the time.And there is nothing wrong with it.
> > > > > What about the case of a large companyBecause they refuse to know the facts about how land titles and other privileges, which are no part of a free market, steal from the productive and give to the privileged.
> > > > > making millions using your work and you get nothing?
> > > >
> > > > Good for them: it means they are more productive
> > > > and efficient than their competitors, who have
> > > > access to the same knowledge and ideas. If you
> > > > want to get paid for your work, make an arrangement
> > > > to get paid before it enters the public domain.
> > >
> > > That is pure naivety.
> > It is fact.
> Many Socialists claim all the free market does is allow most money to gather with a few percent of the population.
> They claim a free for all does this so control, or state ownership is needed. We see it now with powerful corporations.I see powerful corporations enriching themselves through privilege, not the free market.
> The right never thought through their ideal - the repercussions of when the free-market is rigged or monopolized.The right thinks freedom consists in the privileged being free to remove others' freedom with government's help.
> Roy, you have this ideal of a free for all re: patents and copyright. I agree with it in principle. But when thought through it falls apart.No, it does not.
> The money will rise to the top.<sigh> How much money do Paul McCartney, DisneyCorp, etc. have under the CURRENT system, John?
> I know it is not right. I do not know the solution to the problem - because I have never thought it through.That's OK. I have.
-- Roy Langston