structure of sales and ownership, we agree with the vendor to pay a price reflective of what the product is worth to us, the consumer. In this light, it's irrelevant that the producer only spent $2.50 to make that repeatedly-edible sandwich, because to me as a consumer such a sandwich is worth thousands. Or to return to the example of the compact disc; it's irrelevant that the producer only paid a nickel to produce each disc, because to me it's worth fifteen dollars to be able to listen to "Punch the Clock" at my leisure.
             The problem with this scenario is that it allows the producer to profit extremely at the expense of the consumer. I don't think I'd too willingly pay more than fifteen dollars for a CD, and the record companies know this. Five million CDs sold at whatever wholesale price gets them to be $15 retail is a lot more profit than five million CDs sold at some lower price. Labels could charge less, in the hopes that people would buy more CDs (and this is the guiding principle behind distribution houses like BMG and Columbia House), but in general the cost is going towards promotion and marketing, rather than towards the minimal expense of getting the discs made and into stores.
             In a capitalist organization, one concept inextricably linked to marketing and sales is that of ownership, or of intellectual property. A car company might have patent rights to manufacture and sell a particular model of car, or a record label might have the rights to make and sell a particular recording. A ham sandwich is a less specific item; anyone can make a sandwich and sell it, but only McDonald's has the legal right to call it an Arch Deluxe. This structure works well for assigning rights to the inventor or patent holder of a product - if someone designs a new kind of carburetor, they should have the right to exclusive manufacturing and marketing, without worrying about someone else capitalizing on that invention. This structure has been e...