Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[BananaStand]

I thought you weren't trying to appeal to morality. Stop using words like "shafted"

Also, your entire analysis assumes that the school administrator has no idea WHY he's unprofitable. Usually analysis of a problem helps determine the best solution. Your whole premise assumes that management is totally blind, and is just throwing the highest +EV darts they can pull out of their asses.

Here on planet earth, it works differently.

1. increase prices - same product with higher price, consumer gets shafted

Why should consumers be totally insulated from price increases? Why is it a "shafting" if a business passes its higher costs on to its customers. Who is doing the shafting here?

2. cut costs - worse product for same price, consumer gets shafted (or in best case no effect, when just trimming excess from the company)

If the cost cuts are targeted at fraud, waste, and abuse, then how does the product get worse? Why is the best case 'no effect'? Is it possible that a more streamlined and efficient business could provide better service?

Maybe I lay off a long-tenured teacher who has accumulated decades worth of salary increases, and then replace him with two entry-level teachers. Two teachers for the price of one would certainly NOT result in shafting of the customer.

In a macro sense, the threat of this practice may motivate more experienced teachers to continuously enhance their skills and increase their value, thus justifying their higher price. In other words, teachers are forced to get better if they wish to continue to prosper.

That's the opposite of shafting the consumer.

3. invest in marketing - same product with higher price, consumer gets shafted

This presumes that the marketing efforts are fruitless. Maybe the marketing attracts new customers. That additional revenue improves profits. The quality of the product, and the price to the individual consumer remain unchanged. Who's getting shafted?

4. invest in product - better product with same price, consumer benefits

In what fucked up reality does a business add costs (invest in product) and not pass that cost on to the consumer? In order for the price to stay the same, the improvements need to attract new customers. If you are willing to stipulate that as a possibility, why won't you recognize that possibility in #3???

How are you assuming that #3 will result in a higher price, but #4 wont. They're both investments that increase costs.

Also, if you add costs, and offer the same price, how are you addressing the profitability problem that caused this debate in the first place?