I'm sorry, but the difference between $12.99 and $9.99 is precisely a cost (hurt) to the consumer of $3. It's certainly a reduction in consumer surplus and, when multiplied by the millions of books sold every year, is a meaningful impact.
Except that the hurt is widely distributed at the higher price, but not at the lower price (where it's felt by a few large publishers).
This kind of unequal distribution can cause the slight lessening of pain for a large number of people to mortally wound the few actually producing content, leading to a serious destabilizing of the market, which requires that both parties have something to provide.
Which was the point of the GP comment, and something you didn't even remotely address, instead making a pedantic point about words chosen for effect.
Not only is this measurable, but laws of supply and demand are pretty well established economic theory. I'm honestly surprised to see such gesticulation about economics in a start-up oriented forum.
