10 ms·

In a world where investors invest in photo sharing apps and social media websites because of the potential billion dollar payouts - why would you limit the pote

In a world where investors invest in photo sharing apps and social media websites because of the potential billion dollar payouts - why would you limit the potential drug payouts without limiting the social media app payouts? Over time, would limiting the potential profits in life-saving drugs increase or decrease the number of life-saving drugs developed? In an economy where people can choose to work in any field, and investors can choose to invest their money in any field - what better way is there to allocate the people and money resources than by letting people voice how valuable something is with their wallets? Do you want to force someone to buy a third car instead of buying a new drug treatment? If you understand the invisible hand theory (actually understand it, not just the everyman's definition) I think it's difficult to (a) argue against in general and (b) argue against for certain life-saving industries especially.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Actually, horror of horrors, if I could I'd take a giant antitrust bat to about half the technology sector (which would hurt profits). I urge urge urge you to reevaluate your understanding of economics as well. I recently made a book recommendation on here, I'd like to make it again. 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang Economism by James Kwak And no it's not at all hard to argue against the invisible hand theory although I'd really like to not do that here. But just consider how far physics has advanced since the 18th century, why don't you think economics has done the same? Just think about what you're actually proposing for a second. There are no scenarios where the invisible hand works against laypeople? I think that's incredibly naive.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kevinnk 9y ago
  I've recommended to plenty of people that they read "Principles of Macroeconomics" by Greg Mankiw, but weirdly enough no one has. Maybe I just didn't urge urge urge them enough? Actually, if you believe economics hasn't changed since the 18th century you really should read it. Who knows, maybe you'll even reevaluate your understanding of economics.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Principles is the exact wrong thing for someone casually interested in economics to read. It's the proliferation of the belief that Econ 101 is "real econ" when it's anything but. You can get an undergrad degree in Econ and still have no real understanding of how the economy works. Sure you'll have a simple model but that model will fail over and over again because it's far too simplified. That's why I recommend Economism. It's inoculation to Econ 101.
    - cgmg 9y ago
      Please enlighten us as to how your non-mainstream model is superior. The burden of proof is on you. Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject.
      - mrout 9y ago
        ECON101 isn't 'mainstream economics'. It's incredibly simplified economics.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject. Perhaps it was worded poorly but if you reread you can actually see that's the opposite of what I said.
    - kevinnk 9y ago
      I don't really care if people understand "real econ" (whatever that means) but most people haven't even progressed past a folk understanding of economics. Having at least a cursory understanding of why, e.g., price controls lead to scarcity is really a requirement to create an informed criticism of any part of Econ 101. To get to that point, reading through an intro level textbook is exactly what is needed.
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
- stupidhn 9y ago
  >if I could I'd take a giant antitrust bat to about half the technology sector (which would hurt profits). That'd be nice on an island. Otherwise, have fun competing against technology behemoths from other nations, some receiving subsidization from the government.
tuna-piano 9y ago
I think where we probably agree is that the patent system (which is of course what grants the monopoly pricing power) needs reformation. I think where we disagree is that I don't think I (or anyone else) knows how much resources society should spend on drug treatments. I strongly believe that the best way to determine how much money society should spend on drug treatments is just to let all the individuals decide how much they should spend on drug treatments (or insurance which covers drug treatments). (This is not saying, however, that you can't have transfer programs which transfer wealth from rich->poor) In the end, the failures of central planned economies are the same as the failures of central planned sectors, including healthcare.
- foota 9y ago
  I think here's the issue, an individual can only decide to spend on a life saving drug treatment if it exists.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- emodendroket 9y ago
  If your choices are to take a drug or die obviously you will do whatever you can to pay, but that hardly means the price is reasonable.
rokhayakebe 9y ago
You know you are correct. When a photo sharing app sells for billions everyone interviews the founders and praises them. When you save 10 lives and charge billions you are a criminal. I am not sure which one is right or wrong, but it certainly isn't fair to the drug makers.
- tuna-piano 9y ago
  You summarize my feelings exactly, in a very clear way that demonstrates the absurdity of the situation.
  - dasil003 9y ago
    In a vacuum it appears absurd, but to understand why people feel this way, you have to look at the big picture of health care costs spiraling out of control and people literally having to choose between food or meds. Middle class people without health insurance and good retirement savings can end up in poverty because of an unexpected illness. Any attempt at health insurance reform gets twisted and maimed into baseless political showboating—I know several people who voted for Trump because they actually believe he can lower their health insurance bills, the fools. When people think of a photo sharing app they are thinking of breezy fun social media times. When people think of rare disease treatments the sentiment is much darker a priori. I'm not saying drug companies are to blame for the current situation (hate the game not the player), but emotionally it's obvious why there is judgement about profiting from that situation.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      The problem with the typical person's view of this issue is that it confuses two very different things: price and affordability. Drugs should be priced at a level such that pricing them higher doesn't create enough additional benefit from new drugs to outweigh the extra cost, and pricing them lower causes loss in the benefit from new drugs to outweigh the savings from lower price. That should be decided at a society-wide level. Affordability is then about transferring money from rich people to poor people so they can buy the appropriately-priced drug.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Actually, horror of horrors, if I could I'd take a giant antitrust bat to about half the technology sector (which would hurt profits). I urge urge urge you to reevaluate your understanding of economics as well. I recently made a book recommendation on here, I'd like to make it again. 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang Economism by James Kwak And no it's not at all hard to argue against the invisible hand theory although I'd really like to not do that here. But just consider how far physics has advanced since the 18th century, why don't you think economics has done the same? Just think about what you're actually proposing for a second. There are no scenarios where the invisible hand works against laypeople? I think that's incredibly naive.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kevinnk 9y ago
I've recommended to plenty of people that they read "Principles of Macroeconomics" by Greg Mankiw, but weirdly enough no one has. Maybe I just didn't urge urge urge them enough? Actually, if you believe economics hasn't changed since the 18th century you really should read it. Who knows, maybe you'll even reevaluate your understanding of economics.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Principles is the exact wrong thing for someone casually interested in economics to read. It's the proliferation of the belief that Econ 101 is "real econ" when it's anything but. You can get an undergrad degree in Econ and still have no real understanding of how the economy works. Sure you'll have a simple model but that model will fail over and over again because it's far too simplified. That's why I recommend Economism. It's inoculation to Econ 101.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    Please enlighten us as to how your non-mainstream model is superior. The burden of proof is on you. Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject.
    - mrout 9y ago
      ECON101 isn't 'mainstream economics'. It's incredibly simplified economics.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject. Perhaps it was worded poorly but if you reread you can actually see that's the opposite of what I said.
  - kevinnk 9y ago
    I don't really care if people understand "real econ" (whatever that means) but most people haven't even progressed past a folk understanding of economics. Having at least a cursory understanding of why, e.g., price controls lead to scarcity is really a requirement to create an informed criticism of any part of Econ 101. To get to that point, reading through an intro level textbook is exactly what is needed.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
stupidhn 9y ago
>if I could I'd take a giant antitrust bat to about half the technology sector (which would hurt profits). That'd be nice on an island. Otherwise, have fun competing against technology behemoths from other nations, some receiving subsidization from the government.

tuna-piano 9y ago

I think where we probably agree is that the patent system (which is of course what grants the monopoly pricing power) needs reformation. I think where we disagree is that I don't think I (or anyone else) knows how much resources society should spend on drug treatments. I strongly believe that the best way to determine how much money society should spend on drug treatments is just to let all the individuals decide how much they should spend on drug treatments (or insurance which covers drug treatments). (This is not saying, however, that you can't have transfer programs which transfer wealth from rich->poor) In the end, the failures of central planned economies are the same as the failures of central planned sectors, including healthcare.

foota 9y ago
I think here's the issue, an individual can only decide to spend on a life saving drug treatment if it exists.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
emodendroket 9y ago
If your choices are to take a drug or die obviously you will do whatever you can to pay, but that hardly means the price is reasonable.

rokhayakebe 9y ago

You know you are correct. When a photo sharing app sells for billions everyone interviews the founders and praises them. When you save 10 lives and charge billions you are a criminal. I am not sure which one is right or wrong, but it certainly isn't fair to the drug makers.

tuna-piano 9y ago
You summarize my feelings exactly, in a very clear way that demonstrates the absurdity of the situation.
- dasil003 9y ago
  In a vacuum it appears absurd, but to understand why people feel this way, you have to look at the big picture of health care costs spiraling out of control and people literally having to choose between food or meds. Middle class people without health insurance and good retirement savings can end up in poverty because of an unexpected illness. Any attempt at health insurance reform gets twisted and maimed into baseless political showboating—I know several people who voted for Trump because they actually believe he can lower their health insurance bills, the fools. When people think of a photo sharing app they are thinking of breezy fun social media times. When people think of rare disease treatments the sentiment is much darker a priori. I'm not saying drug companies are to blame for the current situation (hate the game not the player), but emotionally it's obvious why there is judgement about profiting from that situation.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The problem with the typical person's view of this issue is that it confuses two very different things: price and affordability. Drugs should be priced at a level such that pricing them higher doesn't create enough additional benefit from new drugs to outweigh the extra cost, and pricing them lower causes loss in the benefit from new drugs to outweigh the savings from lower price. That should be decided at a society-wide level. Affordability is then about transferring money from rich people to poor people so they can buy the appropriately-priced drug.