4 ms·
Because I won't die if they're paying their players ten times market rates. They're merely entertainers. That's private money, mostly. Making a public service o
by pikzen 10y ago
Because I won't die if they're paying their players ten times market rates. They're merely entertainers. That's private money, mostly. Making a public service overpay by factors of almost 10 when it's quite literally a matter of life and death is morally wrong, yes.
Putting themselves in almost a situation of monopoly on epipens in the US (which you can't fault the high cost of entry for, I'm quite happy that medical devices have high standards) then yes, they should have a moral obligation to sell Epipens at a fair price.
- martijn_himself 10y agoI admit my example of the soccer player is a bit silly (there are plenty of families that spend half their disposable income on following their favourite team in the UK so I don't think it is entirely beside the point). I agree it is pretty grim if pricing of a medical device would literally cause death although I'm not sure that is the case. > Putting themselves in almost a situation of monopoly on epipens Monopolies are exactly why economic regulation exists.
- chimeracoder 10y ago> paying their players ten times market rates They're not paying their players ten times market rates. They're paying their players 1x market rates. The market rate for those players happens to be very high. That's the whole point.
- cmdrfred 10y agoExactly, the sports star/actor arugement is nonsensical. As far as I know the NFL is very profitable. Those players create tons of value.