- 21 Nov 2019 20:32
#15050087
You've picked a very exceptional example. Almost none of the rich have contributed anything like what the Beatles did. But let's go with it.
Let's say there is a bakery that sells 100 loaves of bread/day for $5/loaf. The customers are paying for the bread voluntarily, they think the bread is worth $5, blah, blah, blah. But here's the rub: by law, no one else is allowed to sell bread in that town. If other bakeries were allowed to compete, there would be a larger market for bread at a lower price, call it 200 loaves at $3/loaf, or even 400 loaves at $2/loaf. So even though all the customers are "voluntarily" paying $5/loaf, they like the bread, they think they are getting their money's worth, blah, blah, blah, they are nevertheless being robbed of $2 or $3/loaf through the bakery's monopoly privilege.
Do you understand that much?
The Beatles also enjoy monopoly privilege that reduces the supply of music people can enjoy, increasing the price and profit, just as the monopoly bakery does.
They had -- and have -- copyright monopolies.
See above, which explains how monopoly privilege enables robbery in the form of nominally consensual trade.
See above.
That is how monopoly privilege works: it reduces production to increase price and profit. See above. This is Economics 101.
Julian658 wrote:OK, let's try this one. I am The Beatles and I wrote a lot of music that gave immense pleasure to the listeners . In return the listeners paid a small stipend that was not much at the individual level. The listeners felt it was worth it to spend the money on the music. BTW, when one spends money the assumption is that one gets value in return. I would not spend money if I do not get value from my money. Millions of listeners felt it was worth to buy the records and hence the The Beatles became VERY RICH.
You've picked a very exceptional example. Almost none of the rich have contributed anything like what the Beatles did. But let's go with it.
Let's say there is a bakery that sells 100 loaves of bread/day for $5/loaf. The customers are paying for the bread voluntarily, they think the bread is worth $5, blah, blah, blah. But here's the rub: by law, no one else is allowed to sell bread in that town. If other bakeries were allowed to compete, there would be a larger market for bread at a lower price, call it 200 loaves at $3/loaf, or even 400 loaves at $2/loaf. So even though all the customers are "voluntarily" paying $5/loaf, they like the bread, they think they are getting their money's worth, blah, blah, blah, they are nevertheless being robbed of $2 or $3/loaf through the bakery's monopoly privilege.
Do you understand that much?
The Beatles also enjoy monopoly privilege that reduces the supply of music people can enjoy, increasing the price and profit, just as the monopoly bakery does.
How were they privileged?
They had -- and have -- copyright monopolies.
Do you mean they were talented? How did The Beatles take the wealth create by others? What wealth did the others create? Were they robbed by The Beatles?
See above, which explains how monopoly privilege enables robbery in the form of nominally consensual trade.
Steve Jobs work out of a car garaf-ge and invented the Apple computer. At the onset he was penniless, however, he designed a product that millions wanted to have. Obviously the people felt they were getting a LOT of value by purchasing Apple computers. Jobs became rich. How did he steal money from the customers? He provided a gadget that customers wanted very badly. How is this stealing? How is this stealing the wealth of others?
See above.
Could you explain this? Thanks
That is how monopoly privilege works: it reduces production to increase price and profit. See above. This is Economics 101.