Advocates for choice generally aren't big on having choice at point A eliminate the possibility to make choices at points B-G. That's what Apple has done.

The majority of the computing world doesn't work like this. You have a choice of hardware. A choice of OS. A choice of different softwares for internet browsing, word processing, music playing. The iplatform has a proven track record of limiting the software that competes with its own developed applications.

The App(le) store as the only legal avenue to buy software for the platform is a step away from consumer choice, and consequently a step back in computing.

The government would include all the informaton that they know already and then you would fill in the rest =- the way this is set up, they don't put your taxes to pay in there. You are responsible to add in what else you earned, just like today.

Whether its collusion among publishers, affection of a reader, or the limit of time to shop, too many non-economic factors effect the personal decision to buy a book.

Publishers are trying ot take advantage of the predictable irrationalities of purchasers. For example, I have noted that paper backs are now showing u pin two sizes - the same story, but one book is 6 inches tall and the other is 9 inches tall. Font size makes up the difference inside. The taller book is ~$3-5 more expensive. This is a great example of too expensive. And that discounts the regular upward price pressure of inflation that economists suggest is necessary for business to work at all.

In short, economic arguments are cute theory and all, but have little place in discussing the real life action of humans.

Do they need to be? It's not like writers/artists/musicians are traditionally known for understanding the business of publishing music/art/literature. They just know how the system screws them.

Let's see - the artists feel screwed. The purchaser feels screwed. Hmm... maybe the distributes are screwing both of them in order to squeeze money out of both ends?

Which is why economics is fundamentally flawed. It takes apriori a model of humanity that is inaccurate and bases the entire discipline on it.

Go read Arielly or Kahnemena and Tversky and understand that human decision making is flawed by consistent, predictable behaviors that counter the economic definition of rational.

I prefer to Blame Lucas for inventing the word.