12 ms·

“Regulation” is what permits the price discrepancy in the first place.

by NoblePublius 8y ago

aiiane 8y ago
How do you figure?
- heyjudy 8y ago
  Libertarian, monochromatic blind hatred toward all government as some monoplithic bogeyman is utopian ignorance that values anarchism, billionaire propaganda, omnipresent privatization and imposing crushing austerity on those who cannot afford it.
  - ggm 8y ago
    Hear hear.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I can't help but think that if your point is to communicate a point and/or change someone's mind, a more approachable, conversational strategy might yield more benefit. In other words, just because something can be expressed some way doesn't mean it's useful to do so.
  - robdachshund 8y ago
    If only people were so homogenized that you could put them in boxes like that. Your comment is not constructive, and you are speaking as if you have an objective argument rather than a highly subjective one. If you feel so strongly about your opinion, articulating it in the way you have done is sure to convince no one.
- mafm 8y ago
  The main reason markets existed historically was to ensure transactions were done in public. Prices were publicly observable, stolen goods were difficult so sell, etc. Having a single market everyone trades in does have efficiency advantages, but the main reason we have had organised markets in jurisdictions all over the world, for thousands of years, is because the people making the rules wanted transactions to be done out in the open to keep the people doing the transactions honest.
ggm 8y ago
Under drug IPR rules no market price can exist for many drugs because they are single source. If you want to admit a market permit Indian generics into the USA and watch prices tumble.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Under drug IPR rules no market price can exist for many drugs because they are single source. If you want to admit a market permit Indian generics into the USA and watch prices tumble. There is still a market price because the customer has an alternative. There is a second best drug. In the worst case (e.g. the only alternative is death), there is still a price because the drug company can't demand a billion dollars if the customer doesn't have a billion dollars. The fact that we get into this position of no alternative but death is problematic, but it's also how the patent system is designed to work. If the drug didn't exist, you would die. If it does exist, you have the choice between death or bankruptcy. This is still not ideal, but it's better than the original situation, and eventually the drug patent expires. There are a number of implementation failures with this, like public funding going to drug research that is subsequently patented, and a regulatory system that gives no one an incentive to do clinical trials for promising treatments they don't hold a patent on, and so on. But the basic idea is not without merit. It costs a mint to do research and trials. If there isn't money in it then companies wouldn't do it. So if there is a patented drug which is the only thing that can save your life, would you rather have to file for bankruptcy paying for it, or have it not exist because we said they're not allowed to make enough money to get them to do the R&D to begin with? In some cases there isn't really a third option. In principle you can have the government fund the research instead of depending on the market, and then not patent it so patients don't have to pay a lot. Which works fine when that finds the cure. But if it doesn't, do you still want the system that allows the market to find it as a backup, or not?
  - cheschire 8y ago
    So basically on top of dealing with the stress of a life threatening disease, you're suggesting that a family must either decide to watch a parent die, and maintain financial stability, or attempt to live and set the whole family back? That's definitely a perspective, I guess.
lhopki01 8y ago
This doesn't make any sense. If you are the sole provider of a drug that is the only drug that can cure a certain illness then it makes sense to charge every single customer exactly as much as they can afford. (probably enough to bankrupt them) You'd expect extreme price discrepancy in those cases. This applies even if the drug is just the best one for what it does. edit Unless you mean that regulation in the form of patent protections.
linuxlizard 8y ago
Found the Libertarian!
dtech 8y ago
How would the absence of regulation solve this problem?

“Regulation” is what permits the price discrepancy in the first place.

aiiane 8y ago

How do you figure?

heyjudy 8y ago
Libertarian, monochromatic blind hatred toward all government as some monoplithic bogeyman is utopian ignorance that values anarchism, billionaire propaganda, omnipresent privatization and imposing crushing austerity on those who cannot afford it.
- ggm 8y ago
  Hear hear.
- kbenson 8y ago
  I can't help but think that if your point is to communicate a point and/or change someone's mind, a more approachable, conversational strategy might yield more benefit. In other words, just because something can be expressed some way doesn't mean it's useful to do so.
- robdachshund 8y ago
  If only people were so homogenized that you could put them in boxes like that. Your comment is not constructive, and you are speaking as if you have an objective argument rather than a highly subjective one. If you feel so strongly about your opinion, articulating it in the way you have done is sure to convince no one.
mafm 8y ago
The main reason markets existed historically was to ensure transactions were done in public. Prices were publicly observable, stolen goods were difficult so sell, etc. Having a single market everyone trades in does have efficiency advantages, but the main reason we have had organised markets in jurisdictions all over the world, for thousands of years, is because the people making the rules wanted transactions to be done out in the open to keep the people doing the transactions honest.

ggm 8y ago

Under drug IPR rules no market price can exist for many drugs because they are single source. If you want to admit a market permit Indian generics into the USA and watch prices tumble.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Under drug IPR rules no market price can exist for many drugs because they are single source. If you want to admit a market permit Indian generics into the USA and watch prices tumble. There is still a market price because the customer has an alternative. There is a second best drug. In the worst case (e.g. the only alternative is death), there is still a price because the drug company can't demand a billion dollars if the customer doesn't have a billion dollars. The fact that we get into this position of no alternative but death is problematic, but it's also how the patent system is designed to work. If the drug didn't exist, you would die. If it does exist, you have the choice between death or bankruptcy. This is still not ideal, but it's better than the original situation, and eventually the drug patent expires. There are a number of implementation failures with this, like public funding going to drug research that is subsequently patented, and a regulatory system that gives no one an incentive to do clinical trials for promising treatments they don't hold a patent on, and so on. But the basic idea is not without merit. It costs a mint to do research and trials. If there isn't money in it then companies wouldn't do it. So if there is a patented drug which is the only thing that can save your life, would you rather have to file for bankruptcy paying for it, or have it not exist because we said they're not allowed to make enough money to get them to do the R&D to begin with? In some cases there isn't really a third option. In principle you can have the government fund the research instead of depending on the market, and then not patent it so patients don't have to pay a lot. Which works fine when that finds the cure. But if it doesn't, do you still want the system that allows the market to find it as a backup, or not?
- cheschire 8y ago
  So basically on top of dealing with the stress of a life threatening disease, you're suggesting that a family must either decide to watch a parent die, and maintain financial stability, or attempt to live and set the whole family back? That's definitely a perspective, I guess.

lhopki01 8y ago

This doesn't make any sense. If you are the sole provider of a drug that is the only drug that can cure a certain illness then it makes sense to charge every single customer exactly as much as they can afford. (probably enough to bankrupt them) You'd expect extreme price discrepancy in those cases. This applies even if the drug is just the best one for what it does. edit Unless you mean that regulation in the form of patent protections.

linuxlizard 8y ago

Found the Libertarian!

dtech 8y ago

How would the absence of regulation solve this problem?