10 ms·

From an economic and policy perspective, unfortunately, Turing is doing everything right. This is an economically misguided point of view. Free market decision

by ken47 11y ago

From an economic and policy perspective, unfortunately, Turing is doing everything right. This is an economically misguided point of view. Free market decision-making can only be argued to be optimal in a free market system, which pharma is not, a distinction which the decision-makers certainly were intelligent enough to understand. Free market mechanisms either need to be put in place, or we need to stop allowing its actors to behave as though it were one. As it stands, even from an economics point of view, this sort of behavior is simply immoral. It gives economics a bad name when you try to argue that such decision-making is economically defensible. It is never economically optimal to make decisions that can directly lead to the deaths of citizens in the host society, in exchange for higher profits. The reading of free market theory with which most people, including its founder, would agree, is one where the goal is to maximize utility, not wealth. This is a vitally important distinction, and one that the layperson often overlooks. Without it, a free market system becomes nothing more than a war of sociopaths. [1] Sadly, online discussions often degenerate into witch-hunts with the assumption that if we stop this one guy, then everything will be fine. It's not sad at all. People are understandably outraged, as it is a natural human reaction to such callous life-and-death decision-making. If you truly believe in your statement, I'd reflect on why you are unable to relate to the majority of people around the internet who are very angry about this. [1] http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/adam-smith... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>I'd reflect on why you are unable to relate to the majority of people around the internet who are very angry about this. The same way I don't relate to the "Obama is a Muslim" narrative on the internet or "9/11 was an inside job" narrative. I think appealing to outrage culture on the internet isn't the bulletproof argument you think it is.
- ken47 11y ago
  I don't think your examples are sufficiently similar to the subject matter to make this a compelling argument.
  - varelse 11y ago
    Methinks I'm going to HN hell for presenting the disagreement here as a logical fallacy, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum For I agree with drzaiuslordofthenukedfallenearthgetyourhandsoffmeyourdamneddirtygorilla even though I think I'm not a sociopath. And that's because I also think this is an excellent case for the government to step in and provide the strong parental middle-finger to Martin Shkreli that he deserves so we can still get the free market that does bring so much good and yet also punish the sociopaths who exploit its unavoidable corner cases like this. See Goedel's incompleteness theorem about why, broadly, there will always be corner cases (yeah yeah inconsistent statements in any consistent system, sue me). See also I prefer Obamacare because all the other attainable alternatives are worse (In the same way I would prefer single-payer like medicare, but unless Bernie Sanders is our next president, we're not getting it).
tmd83 11y ago
I'm not sure I understand the point about economics being about utility vs. wealth. If its free market then aren't people free to choose between utility vs. wealth and in such case pure free market don't have much defense against a few sciopaths trampling all over the not so sociopaths?
- ken47 11y ago
  It's almost never pointed out that Adam Smith, in his free market theory, was arguing for the efficacy of "enlightened" self-interest. I encourage readers to research this aspect of his theory, and how it contrasts with "unenlightened" self-interest. I think most reasonable people would agree that Adam Smith would categorize this CEO's behavior as unenlightened.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Since all markets are human inventions--there's no "free market" particle--what you're getting at is: Let's invent a system that makes explicit the choice of dollars over human lives, and let's call that "the free market". And of course, since freedom is one of those ideas that, in popular use, has been oversimplified to uselessness (e.g. freedom is good, more freedom is more good, without nuance), this "free market" thing sounds like inevitably good--the more freedom, the better, right? Even if it makes us uncomfortable, how can you say no to the "free market"? Even if, as you yourself seem to acknowledge is vulnerable to sociopathic manipulation, if (some, maybe only a few, maybe even those sociopaths) people want to build a system that normalizes choosing dollars over lives, how can you resist the "free market"? Easy: it's all human inventions, and I for one don't want sociopaths telling me how to build an economy.
  - varelse 11y ago
    I hate to agree that this sort of manipulation is inevitable in a free market, but I do. It's either that, or broadly, no more cheap #$%^ on Amazon. So what do you pick? Occasional sociopaths or social good at the expense of everything else getting more expensive? Because assuming the majority loves buying cheap #$@!, this seems like an absolute poster child for the US government to step in and countergame him by directly funding and fast-forwarding new generics. Just announcing such intent ought to be be enough to ruin Martin Shkreli's career, no?
JDiculous 11y ago
The problem is that the economic system that not only allows this, but incentivizes it. Witch hunting isn't going to fix a fundamentally broken economic system. We need to admit that our system is not optimal, and fix it. Rational people are always going to act in their own best self-interest.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  Rational people are always going to act in their own best self-interest. Well then, we should fix the system by eliminating all people who are less then 100% perfectly rational. You go first.
- flurpitude 11y ago
  I agreed with you up to the last sentence. I see no reason to call rational only wholly selfish behaviour.
- ken47 11y ago
  That brokenness is entirely dependent on what you mean by self-interest. I recommend reading up on the concept of "enlightened self-interest," which was popular during Adam Smith's era, and theoretically leads to far less "broken" systemic outcomes.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>It is never economically optimal to make decisions that can directly lead to the deaths of citizens in the host society, in exchange for higher profits. When the short term profits are great and the long term costs are too far for you to personally realize... it seems to make great sense. Now it may not be optimal for society at large, but that doesn't matter when society at large isn't making the decision. For the one choosing, short of laws to punish them and with methods to launder any social guilt, it is economically optimal.
codexon 11y ago
The reading of free market theory with which most people, including its founder, would agree, is one where the goal is to maximize utility, not wealth. This is a vitally important distinction, and one that the layperson often overlooks. I would argue that human life is not limitless in utility and the free market establishes a price range on it. Like it or not, there is a price tag on the utility of a human life. If you need to spend 100k per year on drugs to live and you cannot make 100k per year, then the free market has decided that your life is not worth the cost because you are not creating 100k worth of value to trade 100k worth of drugs you are taking out of the market. I don't think it is reasonable to say that a market in which you arbitrarily decide that a human life has unlimited utlity is a "free" market at all. We can all agree that jacking up the price of a life-saving drug to save more money is despicable, but we would be lying to ourselves if we pretended this wasn't part of the free market.
- ken47 11y ago
  I suppose the statement you are latching onto is where I said that it is never economically optimal to allow someone to die in exchange for higher profit, so allow me to clarify. In this case, it seems nearly impossible to make a concrete case that links this monopolistically-determined price increase to something that comes close to morally justifying the potential loss of human lives. And as we know, pharma is not a free market in general, and is certainly not in this specific case, so the idea of the free market setting the price on lives seems inapplicable here.
  - codexon 11y ago
    I don't see how pharma is not a free market in this case. The drug in question isn't even protected by a patent anymore. Other companies are free to create a generic version of it. Government regulation has nothing to do with this. The free market has everything to do with this. The price of a life saving drug is worth either all your money or however much the seller wants to charge for it, as decided by the free market.
    - bduerst 11y ago

by ken47 11y ago

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>I'd reflect on why you are unable to relate to the majority of people around the internet who are very angry about this. The same way I don't relate to the "Obama is a Muslim" narrative on the internet or "9/11 was an inside job" narrative. I think appealing to outrage culture on the internet isn't the bulletproof argument you think it is.

ken47 11y ago
I don't think your examples are sufficiently similar to the subject matter to make this a compelling argument.
- varelse 11y ago
  Methinks I'm going to HN hell for presenting the disagreement here as a logical fallacy, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum For I agree with drzaiuslordofthenukedfallenearthgetyourhandsoffmeyourdamneddirtygorilla even though I think I'm not a sociopath. And that's because I also think this is an excellent case for the government to step in and provide the strong parental middle-finger to Martin Shkreli that he deserves so we can still get the free market that does bring so much good and yet also punish the sociopaths who exploit its unavoidable corner cases like this. See Goedel's incompleteness theorem about why, broadly, there will always be corner cases (yeah yeah inconsistent statements in any consistent system, sue me). See also I prefer Obamacare because all the other attainable alternatives are worse (In the same way I would prefer single-payer like medicare, but unless Bernie Sanders is our next president, we're not getting it).

tmd83 11y ago

I'm not sure I understand the point about economics being about utility vs. wealth. If its free market then aren't people free to choose between utility vs. wealth and in such case pure free market don't have much defense against a few sciopaths trampling all over the not so sociopaths?

ken47 11y ago
It's almost never pointed out that Adam Smith, in his free market theory, was arguing for the efficacy of "enlightened" self-interest. I encourage readers to research this aspect of his theory, and how it contrasts with "unenlightened" self-interest. I think most reasonable people would agree that Adam Smith would categorize this CEO's behavior as unenlightened.
Frondo 11y ago
Since all markets are human inventions--there's no "free market" particle--what you're getting at is: Let's invent a system that makes explicit the choice of dollars over human lives, and let's call that "the free market". And of course, since freedom is one of those ideas that, in popular use, has been oversimplified to uselessness (e.g. freedom is good, more freedom is more good, without nuance), this "free market" thing sounds like inevitably good--the more freedom, the better, right? Even if it makes us uncomfortable, how can you say no to the "free market"? Even if, as you yourself seem to acknowledge is vulnerable to sociopathic manipulation, if (some, maybe only a few, maybe even those sociopaths) people want to build a system that normalizes choosing dollars over lives, how can you resist the "free market"? Easy: it's all human inventions, and I for one don't want sociopaths telling me how to build an economy.
- varelse 11y ago
  I hate to agree that this sort of manipulation is inevitable in a free market, but I do. It's either that, or broadly, no more cheap #$%^ on Amazon. So what do you pick? Occasional sociopaths or social good at the expense of everything else getting more expensive? Because assuming the majority loves buying cheap #$@!, this seems like an absolute poster child for the US government to step in and countergame him by directly funding and fast-forwarding new generics. Just announcing such intent ought to be be enough to ruin Martin Shkreli's career, no?

JDiculous 11y ago

The problem is that the economic system that not only allows this, but incentivizes it. Witch hunting isn't going to fix a fundamentally broken economic system. We need to admit that our system is not optimal, and fix it. Rational people are always going to act in their own best self-interest.

ubernostrum 11y ago
Rational people are always going to act in their own best self-interest. Well then, we should fix the system by eliminating all people who are less then 100% perfectly rational. You go first.
flurpitude 11y ago
I agreed with you up to the last sentence. I see no reason to call rational only wholly selfish behaviour.
ken47 11y ago
That brokenness is entirely dependent on what you mean by self-interest. I recommend reading up on the concept of "enlightened self-interest," which was popular during Adam Smith's era, and theoretically leads to far less "broken" systemic outcomes.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>It is never economically optimal to make decisions that can directly lead to the deaths of citizens in the host society, in exchange for higher profits. When the short term profits are great and the long term costs are too far for you to personally realize... it seems to make great sense. Now it may not be optimal for society at large, but that doesn't matter when society at large isn't making the decision. For the one choosing, short of laws to punish them and with methods to launder any social guilt, it is economically optimal.

codexon 11y ago

The reading of free market theory with which most people, including its founder, would agree, is one where the goal is to maximize utility, not wealth. This is a vitally important distinction, and one that the layperson often overlooks. I would argue that human life is not limitless in utility and the free market establishes a price range on it. Like it or not, there is a price tag on the utility of a human life. If you need to spend 100k per year on drugs to live and you cannot make 100k per year, then the free market has decided that your life is not worth the cost because you are not creating 100k worth of value to trade 100k worth of drugs you are taking out of the market. I don't think it is reasonable to say that a market in which you arbitrarily decide that a human life has unlimited utlity is a "free" market at all. We can all agree that jacking up the price of a life-saving drug to save more money is despicable, but we would be lying to ourselves if we pretended this wasn't part of the free market.

ken47 11y ago
I suppose the statement you are latching onto is where I said that it is never economically optimal to allow someone to die in exchange for higher profit, so allow me to clarify. In this case, it seems nearly impossible to make a concrete case that links this monopolistically-determined price increase to something that comes close to morally justifying the potential loss of human lives. And as we know, pharma is not a free market in general, and is certainly not in this specific case, so the idea of the free market setting the price on lives seems inapplicable here.
- codexon 11y ago
  I don't see how pharma is not a free market in this case. The drug in question isn't even protected by a patent anymore. Other companies are free to create a generic version of it. Government regulation has nothing to do with this. The free market has everything to do with this. The price of a life saving drug is worth either all your money or however much the seller wants to charge for it, as decided by the free market.
  - bduerst 11y ago