Mad Pricing
Imagine if everything you bought was priced according to a formula that included ONLY the costs involved in providing it. This would comprise the salaries of all the people in the chain of provision, and any purchases required. Salaries would be determined by demand of those employed, market forces and/or some kind of approved/accepted norm. The price you pay would cover, if appropriate, for future investment as well as interest on loans (from banks instead of shareholders). There would be no dividends, just a small interest-rate, and no hidden expenses... details would be overseen by auditors.
NOW everything would be cheaper straight away. Some things would hardly change - like the prices of most vegetables, probably, and many basic items and services.
Bill Gates' first 'Windows' would still have cost £100 (or whatever is was originally), but within months would have dropped massively as costs of production plus future investment were more than exceeded by huge sales. The creation of 'Windows 8', for instance, would probably be paid for if it retailed for £1, and an ipod maybe £3...? Maybe I exaggerate? Either way, products that currently make vast profits and dish-out vast dividends due to BIG sales would reduce to just a few £/€/$ instead of the 100s as now.
OK, so the question is: WHO LOSES and WHO GAINS from this scenario?
First, inventors and manufacturers would lose nothing - except what they might have received as shareholders. Remember, they can demand any salary their employer agrees to. If Steve Jobs reckoned he was worth $10m/year + royalties for every item he invented that's sold by his firm, then that's accounted for in this scenario. Likewise for his team, perhaps the whole outfit.
So if ONLY shareholders would lose - and now are removed from the equation - then no-one loses. Which means the buyer gains.... but not only the buyer. If an ipod costs £3, then millions of us would buy a other things too - like maybe a holiday abroad, a new kitchen, a 3D TV (for a tenner?)...
The fact is that if costs were not hyped just so a handful of idle spivs can pocket £bns, then loads more businesses would flourish - because loads more people would afford their products/services. So the economy would BOOOOOM.... Not only would we all be loadzbetteroff and benefit in all kinds of ways, but the more worthwhile of the many business start-ups that notoriously fail, would now survive. All would benefit: business, us, and govt. Only City spivs and their idle clients lose.
But "NO", scream those ultra-powerful City clients/parasites and corporate mobsters who rule and cream £$bns every day from the multitudes. Their aim is NOT to evolve a great (if also capitalist) society, but to keep as many of us as possible near the breadline so we'll slave and scrape along in the rut the bastards trained us for through relentless propaganda and so-called 'education': fodder for their profit. What do they care for small start-up outfits that might someday threaten their monopoly? The more that fold, the more the BIG outfits like it - cf: RBS deliberately bankrupting successful small businesses for profit.
Such is the MADNESS of unregulated capitalism. Like for a 'runaway' psychopath, which is synonymous with the capitalist method, business is its own worst enemy - and everyone else's worst enemy too... UNLESS you're a member of the ELITE.