<p>leanid,</p>
<p>You’re not paying necessarily for scarcity in that case, you’re paying for cost of development. People, when buying software, often complain that the disc “doesn’t cost anything.” They therefore overlook the thousands upon thousands of man hours put into making that piece of software.</p>
<p>Besides, what’s to stop you from installing Linux?</p>
<p>I don’t have any microsoft products on my drive :), there are choices out there</p>
<p>“xiggi - What is a fair profit margin? See my response to barrons. From that I would guess that Exxon’s IS excessive.”</p>
<p>Is 11% really excessive? How about this small company’s profitability:</p>
<p>Profitability<br>
Profit Margin (ttm): 42.46%
Operating Margin (ttm): 65.04% </p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SLM[/url]”>SLM Corporation (SLM) Valuation Measures & Financial Statistics;
<p>SLM Corporation, through its subsidiaries, offers education finance in the United States. The company engages in funding, delivering, and servicing support for education loans primarily through its participation in The Federal Family Education Loan Program.</p>
<p>The company is also known as Sallie Mae or the good people who make on living by exploiting government loopholes in education finance.</p>
<p>I dunno about you, xiggi, but I’ve been pretty satisfied so far with my Sallie Mae services. But hey, I guess I should be angry that they’re profiting or something. Down with capitalism, and all that!</p>
<p>UMDAD - Right, but would you rather drink a pint of oil? The perceived necessity of a product (not to mention that ugly little “prestige factor”) can scare the consumer into paying much more for it than it is worth – and the corporations know it! And beer? Oh, the marketers can have a field day with all the psychological angles, thus allowing prices to be way above costs. </p>
<p>Really, if only the consumer could disentangle from the constant onslaught of advertisers… Imagine going into a store with no preconceived notions of what he “needs” and what he is willing to pay. Wow, the consumer would then actually have to think for himself (a frightful prospect for most) and decide what he will buy and what he feels is a fair price! ----- IMPOSSIBLE</p>
<p>leanid,</p>
<p>So you’re for censorship of advertisement?</p>
<p>UCLAri, companies such as Sallie Mae were the targets of the recent changes in education funding bills. The issue is not that they made a profit, but that that they do by pushing the limits to predatory and abusive practices. Their financial results are simply obscene given that most of their activity revolves around the government guaranteed programs where all downside is mitigated by spurious possibilities of extraordinary gains.</p>
<p><a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/14/news/fortune500/sallie_fortune_122605/index.htm[/url]”>http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/14/news/fortune500/sallie_fortune_122605/index.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLAri - I know I am paying for development costs, but they are COSTS nonetheless. If they are bona-fide costs of developing the product, fine, I have no problem. But, if they are like toll roads, collecting money long after they have been paid for, then I do have a problem with that.</p>
<p>If you are implying that I am anti-capitalist, I am not. I am however deeply opposed to the unbridled sort, as are, I am guessing, the overwhelming majority of thinking people. What is your position?</p>
<p>As some have pointed out–monopolies typically don’t last forever (excluding government approved ones) and even Microsoft has some minor competitors now. That’s the market system.</p>
<p>emeraldkity - I tried, but I couldn’t make it stick. People I do business with expect to receive a document in .doc format. OpenOffice emulation works sometimes, sometimes not. I put Linux on a computer at home - nobody else in my family will use it, because stuff off the web looks funny on the page. etc. The reason I don’t have an answer for the monopoly is that standardization actually is pretty helpful. But when a private company owns the standards, you have a situation which is ripe for economic abuse.</p>
<p>UCLAri - yes, I favor censorship of advertising. After evidence was uncovered proving that tobacco companies intentionally targeted young people so they could get them addicted before they had more will power and common sense than to smoke (thereby earning billions in profits for the tobacco companies and leaving a lot of people dead and dying of cancer) I think the argument for banning advertising of cigarettes was justified.</p>
<p>leanid,</p>
<p>As long as customers are willing to pay for MS software, prices will stay high. If everyone started actually doing their homework and used open source software and Linux systems, you’d see MS prices drop real fast.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The majority of people also seem to think that American Idol is worth watching. I tend not to develop most of my opinions from majority beliefs. I’m for less government intervention, especially when it’s not needed.</p>
<p>
Perhaps it is apples and oranges, but I would argue that you have it backwards. Since when is a business who must make money for its shareholders and who provides jobs and goods, restricted in terms of the profit that it can make (when there is no restriction on how much it can lose if things don’t go well). Yet the homeowner, who bought their home for shelter, not profit, and who received a government subsidy to do so, is allowed to take advantage of their situation and make a huge windfall profit. I would say it should be the other way around, if anything.</p>
<p>My dear UCLAri - Why do I get the feeling that you like to jump to conclusions? I am for fair and decent advertising. Unlike some who are possibly entertained by the garbage that is endlessly thrown at us. I would welcome a (pardon the expression) “kinder, gentler” (and more honest!) form of selling one’s goods.</p>
<p>UCLAri - I said “thinking people”.</p>
<p>So, government controls on unfettered capitalism is not needed? Great, I want to be with you, what barony do you control?!</p>
<p>leanid,</p>
<p>Show me a conclusion that was jumped to, and I’ll gladly apologize. </p>
<p>What is “fair and decent advertising,” anyway?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, the ad hominem attack, how I love thee. </p>
<p>What does feudalism have to do with this, anyway? And who just was talking about “jumping to conclusions?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can always go with Apple.</p>
<p>It’s not like computer consumers have only ONE choice in everything. </p>
<p>But yes, in the case of computers, standardization is actually a good thing. Don’t believe so? Let’s go back to the days of Amigas, PCs, Apples, and Commodores and you tell me with a straight face that things were “better.”</p>
<p>UCLAri - Touche! Ha, ha, I did not mean to "attack " you. Now, what is your position on uncontrolled capitalism? Do you suppose there is any similaity between it and fuedalism? Hmm…</p>
<p>Completely uncontrolled capitalism doesn’t work, largely because some country is always going to set tariffs, meaning that tariffs effectively become necessary anyway.</p>
<p>It also avoids the fundamental issues of oligopoly and monopoly formation.</p>
<p>What I’m against is silly policies like “sin taxes.” Why should I be taxed out my nose when I want to buy a beer, just because some people aren’t capable of controlling themselves? I’m for policy based on economic thinking, not emotional appeals about how people got lung cancer because they smoke (Naw, really? Next they’ll tell us that McDonald’s can make you fat!)</p>
<p>I mean, c’mon… why should I not be allowed to get my huge bucket of fries just because Tubby McIHavenoselfcontrol can’t figure out how to take care of himself? It’s absurd. </p>
<p>No, there is no similarity between capitalism and feudalism, mostly because feudalism uses land as the the fundamental unit of wealth. Many feudal lords in Europe and Japan had little need for actually producing anything of material worth, and very few actually did. The strength of feudalism lies in allowing people who have feudal resources to devote themselves to the arts and sciences. This, arguably, is why many of the so-called “renaissance men” developed within feudal regimes.</p>
<p>So you would have it all “based on economic thinking”. Fine, when we have all shed our needless emotions – and guess what, most decisions are based on them (look at how people vote, for one) – then we can all participate in sound economic thought…</p>
<p>True that land was Feudalism’s form of wealth, but it was wealth all the same. And, it was wealth not only owned but CONTROLLED by the few - the aristocracy. The peasant was protected by his lord in times of war – as long as he worked the land which did not belong to him. Allow me to draw the analogy. From everything we see and hear these days, it certainly looks like big business has formed an aristocracy of it own, or is trying to – we still have the option of not buying their products, however massive a movement like that would be – not that it is likely. If we did, we would lose the “protection” of knowing that we have bought something of value. So, are we “forced” to accept the world on the “lords of industry’s” terms just as the peasants were on the lords of the land’s? Oh, no, not here… this is the land of the free! It is just that some have more “freedom” than others… and they are off in supranational corporations looking for the cheapest global workforce they can find, while not only biting, but cutting off the hand that fed them in their infancy, with little to no regard for obligation to the nation which allowed them to rise and flourish in the first place.</p>