I've got nothing against "capitalism" or growing wealth, but at some point, capitalism starts running amok in ways that are not beneficial.

-Renegade (February 04, 2011, 07:54 PM)

Going back to the core of your argument, Renegade, I don't think many would disagree with this statement. On the other hand, there seems to be little appetite among voters (particularly American voters) for state intervention in the economic process. And it's still America's view on this issue that matters most. America is still (just) the economic engine of the world.

Sometimes it's difficult to have these conversations across national boundaries because our own histories and teachings mean we have very different working definitions of capitalism or socialism, right-wing or left-wing.

For example, viewed from the comfort of my armchair here in the UK, American politics seems a very frightening beast. You have a right-wing party (the Democrats), an extreme right-wing party (Republicans) and another large political organisation (the Tea Party), for people for whom even the Republicans don't seem right-wing enough. Terrifying.

This is using the modern, narrow definition of right-wing to mean the extent to which you accept state intervention in everyday life (through taxation, or regulation).

The most right-wing party in the UK (the Conservatives) has as its leader a man who is a great champion of our national health care system (the state-funded NHS, free to everyone at the point of delivery), the same NHS that was vilified in TV ads by American Republican politicians during the "Obamacare" debate. Republican ads described the "nightmare" of being treated in the UK's "socialist" medical system. In the hands of American right-wing politicians, the word socialist has no definition. It simply means "a bad thing". To many people in the UK (including the Conservative Prime Minister) the NHS is one of the greatest achievements in Britain's history.

But of course the NHS is not immune from the capitalist model, indeed it interacts with it every day. Drug companies sell drugs at a price, and the state either pays up, or patients don't get the drugs (see Nudone's earlier post).

This has been concentrating my mind over the last year. I was diagnosed with cancer at a time when I had no employment and little savings. Without the NHS, I would have been in big(ger) trouble.

Ultimately, the length of time I will survive depends on whether I get access to new and expensive drugs. By a curious coincidence, shortly before I was diagnosed, a British television programme showed the curious process through which drugs are approved for use -- using as an example the very drug I am likely to need soon.

It's called Revlimid. The NHS will pay a maximum of £30,000 per patient (about $48,000) "per year of good life" for a single drug. The drug company wanted £45,000 a year per patient for Revlimid. The NHS refused use of the drug. So the drug company came back a few months later and said "okay, £42,000". The NHS has some discretion in paying more for what are seen as "end-of-life" drugs. They actually showed the committee's voting session on TV. The eighteen-member vote on whether they should pay £42,000 per year per patient for Revlimid tied at 9-9. The chairman's casting vote was yes. So I should get the drug. Which means that other patients with other conditions will be denied drugs, because the budget is always finite.

Allegedly, Revlimid was a "relatively inexpensive" drug to develop. It is an extremely profitable drug for the company. I try to be realistic about these things, but it is difficult not to conclude that drug companies hold health services to ransom.

I can't believe I'm jumping to the defence of the big corporations, but a few things need to be said.

To the best of my knowledge, printing and distributing a book is a minor part of overall publishing costs. I think a standard hardback print run for a mainstream novel costs less than £1 per book. So if publishing companies are looking to maintain the same level of profits on ebooks that they obtain on print books, you're not going to see a huge reduction in prices. But yes, prices should be slightly cheaper than print books.

Secondly, if you're looking to rip people off, there are many, many better industries to do it in than book publishing.

Thirdly, yeah, I don't like DRM either. I don't buy DRM'd products. Or if I do, I might choose to break the DRM afterwards (I have no moral problem with doing that once I have bought the product). But lately, I actually find myself sympathising with the book/music publishers. Because I know so few young people who will pay for digital files. Of any sort. Music, video, software. Many young people seem to think you're nuts if you pay for ones and zeros. Mass copying of files among groups of friends appears to be the norm. It has nothing to do with price. It's a generational thing. A whole generation is growing up that somehow seems to have no moral qualms about digital theft. If I were a book publisher, I would use DRM. There, I've said it.

And in general: I worked for a big multi-national for many years (not a book publisher). Yep, they are utterly and absolutely focussed on maximising profits in any way they can. It's their job. The role of any company is to "maximise the long-term return to shareholders". And who are the shareholders?

You and me. The vast majority of shares are owned by financial institutions. Pension funds. Insurance companies. Other financial institutions. Investing our money. The return you get on your pension or other fund, or whether your company/government can afford to pay you a decent pension when you retire, depends on how these funds perform. It's all circular. The pension funds put huge pressure on big companies to maximise returns. Because you and I demand the best possible pension when we retire. We "get ripped off" at one end, we get a better pension at the other. It's no use blaming "the rich". There really aren't very many of them. Statistically, they're irrelevant. We're the ones demanding a decent pension and the right to sit and do nothing for 20 years when we retire. So it's swings and roundabouts. That's how capitalism works. There are alternatives...

Apart from the e-ink, the best thing about the Kindle (for me) is that you can email documents to it as an attachment (Word document, HTML, plain text, whatever) and a few seconds later the document appears on your Kindle, formatted and ready to read. The Kindle server converts the document to Kindle format on the fly.

It makes it very easy to use the Kindle to read any long documents. And of course other people can email documents to your Kindle too (hence the value of services such as Instapaper).