Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltAlum
Your point is valid, but you don't have to fill your car up with microsoft to get to and from work. Maybe they should be taken to task as well, but that's beside the point here.
|
No, but for 90% of the people, you have to fill your computer up with problematic, artificially overpriced and continuously upgraded MS software before you can actually use a computer (and for many, that means "work" too).
Additionally, I'm sorry to say that most people do indeed get to choose whether or not to purchase gas. Ride your bike to the bus station, take the light rail, carpool, whatever - the American "driving lifestyle" is not a right or a duty, is it?
If you live in a city too small for public transit, you can likely find non-car transportation (because there simply is not that much distance to cover). If the distance is too great, you can likely find public transportation. Most people refuse, because it is an inconvenience - well, we pay for convenience, and the oil companies profit off sloth.
It's demand - not need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltAlum
Sorry, but profits setting new records every quarter while prices to the consumer skyrocket are a problem in my mind.
What was the first quarter number -- something like $26 Billion?
In the first quarter alone?
|
Why is this a problem, given that every other company is allowed to set prices at, essentially, "whatever will maximize my profit" (which can be read as "whatever someone will pay")? At what point do we say "well, we'll allow the Invisible Hand to guide our economy . . . except for when it's inconvenient for me or gets too expensive, then I'll whine about it" and think that's OK?
This is akin to complaining about insurance profits - you can always self-insure, or shop around, or take an active role . . . and those are the things that will eventually reduce insurance overhead and profit, not complaining to ineffectual Congressional hearings. You have options - and, likely, the best option is for you to pay $4/gal for gasoline. As long as you continue to pay, they'll continue to charge - and that's OK. There is no duty to reduce profits for the "greater good" - altruism is of limited utility, and don't you think asking for it is selfish?
To put it another way - some people live in crappy, government-sponsored apartments out of necessity. You don't sell your house, move into a smaller one and give them part of the earned equity so they can move into a slightly better apartment, right?
Threaded Mode
