On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 16:51, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:37:42PM -0500, Mike Jarvis wrote: > > Theoretically decreasing overhead means decreased prices for consumers, > > but we all know that never happens in the real world. > > I'm pretty sure I'm paying less for an 80GB of harddrive storage now > than I would've paid two years ago. And so on. > > If decreased overhead didn't equate to decreased price for consumers > then, > * there is a monopoly situation (see: rules & regs) > * someone else will decrease *their* price and reap the rewards
What about the case of the previously mentioned Levis? If their production costs dropped to 0, do you think the price would drop? How about sodas? I doubt production *could* get cheaper, yet neither Coke or Pepsi ever drop prices. The entire system is predicated on point 2) (someone else will decrease *their* price and reap the rewards) and the public buying the best product for the best price. They don't. Added price adds perceived value (it costs more, it must be better). If the world worked as it does in textbooks, you would be absolutly correct. And no, I don't have an answer or a better system. -- mike
