jimenato

I still don't understand. As far as I can see most goods are priced the same (if they are the same goods) whoever they are targeted at.

We go to two Mercadonas - one in Sotogrande and the other in La Linea. The prices are the same in both.

In your Richard Branson example, the goods he is buying are not the same. One is a loaf of bread, the other is a loaf of bread delivered to his island - priced differently because it is not the same thing - no other reason.

cricketman

Mercadona have the same target audience in both areas. Basically, people who are very conscious about saving money when buying food. McDs costs pretty much the same everywhere because of the same reason

Maybe my example wasnt the best put the point remains. Consumer goods are priced at an amount they will sell best at depending on the target audience, they are not simply priced at production price plus a small margin

When I went skiing a few weeks ago a burger and chips cost 30 euros everywhere. Why? Simply because thats how much people are prepared to pay (and can afford to) where I went. You could get the same dish for less than 10 euros (maybe even 5) in the middle of a Spanish city, and the production costs wouldnt be that different

amideislas

I often wonder what impact the lefties believe ideologies like this will have on society. Me thinks they rarely think through it. It's clearly an emotional response rather than a rational one.

Today, many seem to believe prosperity should be penalised at every opportunity - an increasingly popular view held most oft by those who contribute the least, yet benefit the most.

But inevitably, reality comes to pass, the human desire to prosper prevails, and the liberals are always amongst the beneficiaries.

The neo "liberals" then leverage those benefits in their quest to demand that the prosperous support those who are not (distribution of wealth), which, over a period of a generation or two, only teaches the population to rely on others for their well-being, rather than achieve it through contribution.

As more and more rely on the prosperous for their well-being, naturally, fewer and fewer contribute, those who are willing to contribute are more likely to do it elsewhere, and eventually prosperity becomes nothing more than a fleeting fancy, resulting in mass discontent, and the cycle begins all over again.

It's no wonder we're in the condition we're in.

cricketman

What are you going on about? What I describe is the current liberal capitalist model, not a socialist one

I find it incredible that a supposed advocate of the current system doesnt know that

jimenato

I suspect ami's comment was in response to me me's analysis of what they thought you meant as an alternative to the current system - i.e. that people should be charged variable prices according to their wealth. The problem stems from you not describing very well what you meant. Your skiing burger scenario works somewhat better.

amideislas

Well, like I've said before, I sometimes sense you are beginning to get it - although at times you still revert back to the nonsensical retorts of your past.

Here's another classic:

cricketman

Well thats true. I stand by that quote

It doesnt mean that I reject capitalism though. I use it to my advantage to make me and my family better off. But it is not a particular good or fair system. However, you can only play with the rules that the game gives you

Fredbargate

But if you go to the two Carrefours, La Linea and Los Barrios you will see different prices, particularly in white / electriclal goods. With La Linea usually but not always the cheapest.

amideislas

I can see how you would feel that way - since you always seem to believe that you and 5 billion others live in poverty, whilst the remaining 2 billion are trillionaires who've become that way by enslaving the rest of the population.

Still, as you come out of the darkness into reality, try to grasp that far more of the population is far better off today than before capitalism, when the vast majority of the population actually were truly impoverished, whilst only a handful of the privileged enjoyed the spoils of the vast majority of the world's wealth.

I'd be the last to claim we now have any sort of utopia, but penalising prosperity only makes it harder for those less fortunate to prosper, including yourself (or perhaps like so many like-minded armchair activists, would it only apply to others?).

cricketman

You dont actually read my posts do you?

I am not in poverty, I am one of the 1%! Certainly globally, and I'm almost there for UK/Spanish figures too. Lucky me

This is not a case of envy, but what is fair and just, right and wrong

You talk about "penalising prosperity", but most prosperous people (myself included) are only so because they are repressing other people. I repress people if I buy a piece of clothing from a Chinese factory paying poverty wages, or if I do a new project for Monstanto or Nestle (yes unfortunately these companies help pay my bills). Most aspects of modern life involve richer people exploiting poorer people.

This has been happening for hundreds of years though. The amazing buildings in London or even Sevilla are built with blood money and exploitation of other parts of the world

The system stinks

jackytoo

Going back to the OP. I am sure it is liilegal under EU laws to have different pricing structures for different nationalities

Lynn R

I think you are conveniently overlooking the fact that many things that contributed to the greater financial security and well-being of working class people were only achieved because they were fought for by socialists - old age pensions, paid holidays, sickness pay, a public health system free at the point of use, a minimum wage in many developed countries, employment rights to prevent them being hired and fired at will. The wealthy were not exactly queuing up to volunteer these things, in the UK for example those who employed servants were outraged at the prospect of having to pay National Insurance contributions for their staff.

Without these things people might still be living in fear of ending up in the workhouse, or perhaps you think that might be preferable?

amideislas

..."EU? We are an autonomous community. We abide by our own laws" as a guardia civil officer once told me at a police control ... ...as they randomly searched the car for anything they could impose some sort of fine for ... Of course they were disappointed to find nothing...

scrubbedexpat095

Actually while it is very true that socialists have always fought for those social measures you mention it was actually a Tory (well coalition) government that commissioned the Beverage report in 1941 and it was Clement Atlee in 1945 who said he would implement the report in full. As an aside I believe it was LLoyd George with the backing of Winston Churchill who implemented the first state pension in 1908 or thereabouts. As for the comment about 'the wealthy' its perhaps a good thing to remember that many of the early socialists were actually that i.e. Weathly

cricketman

Of course. They say the first working class people to have any power in Britain were The Beatles in the 60s, and two of them were verging on middle class

So no surpise that there were no poor socialists.

I hear you have to go to Eton to get a chance in British politics nowadays, I wonder what their socialist credentials are like