So long as the capital markets were willing to continue funding loss-making future monopolists, your neighbors were going to make the choice to shop “the wrong way.” As small, local businesses lost those customers, the costs they had to charge to make up the difference would go up, making it harder and harder for you to afford to shop “the right way.”
Again, I think you are misinterpreting the phrase. The quote you provided proves it. If you’re not happy about the “right way” of buying things you can buy elsewhere, aka “vote with a wallet”. The phrase means that you pay for a product/service you are comfortable with. For example, if Amazon offers a great deal on something you’d like like to buy and the price is, let’s say, 30% lower than a regular retail price, voting with a wallet would mean that you ignore the Amazon’s deal and buy directly from a merchant.
I have, but the moment I got to the Napster Wars part I realised that the article is nothing more than the “eat the rich” rant. I despise the music labels and all the crap that happened in late 90s but it’s not an excuse to go “over the law” just because you think the law is bad. I know, there were many implications of piracy that shaped the current landscape of music industry but still, just because you don’t agree with the existing law, it doesn’t mean you should “work” around it.
Again, if you’re unhappy with record label, vote with your wallet and buy from the independent ones. The more people to vote with the wallet (in the way you misunderstood) the less power major companies will have.
it’s not an excuse to go “over the law” just because you think the law is bad… but still, just because you don’t agree with the existing law, it doesn’t mean you should “work” around it.
Then what’s a good reason to go around the law? It’d be pointless to go around a law you do agree with.
I think you misinterpreted the phrase. “Vote with your wallet” means that if you’re unhappy with a product/service, you stop using/paying for it.
This is the basic idea of capitalism. The more capital you have, the more say you have in directing the meas of production.
Some people have so much capital, they can singlehandedly decide that thousands of people are going to work on some space launch company, for example.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/12/give-me-convenience/
Food for your thought.
Again, I think you are misinterpreting the phrase. The quote you provided proves it. If you’re not happy about the “right way” of buying things you can buy elsewhere, aka “vote with a wallet”. The phrase means that you pay for a product/service you are comfortable with. For example, if Amazon offers a great deal on something you’d like like to buy and the price is, let’s say, 30% lower than a regular retail price, voting with a wallet would mean that you ignore the Amazon’s deal and buy directly from a merchant.
Are you purposefully missing the point? If the greater market is uninformed and buying inferior offering; soon that is all that will be available.
You clearly haven’t read the full essay.
I have, but the moment I got to the Napster Wars part I realised that the article is nothing more than the “eat the rich” rant. I despise the music labels and all the crap that happened in late 90s but it’s not an excuse to go “over the law” just because you think the law is bad. I know, there were many implications of piracy that shaped the current landscape of music industry but still, just because you don’t agree with the existing law, it doesn’t mean you should “work” around it.
Again, if you’re unhappy with record label, vote with your wallet and buy from the independent ones. The more people to vote with the wallet (in the way you misunderstood) the less power major companies will have.
Then what’s a good reason to go around the law? It’d be pointless to go around a law you do agree with.
Bruh… lmao…
Clearly you’re refusing to understand the phrase.