4 ms·

HN Monday: "It's an atrocity when Walmart/Amazon use their monopoly/sony power to force down supplier prices. That's unsustainable, destroys market signals, and

by SilasX 7y ago

HN Monday: "It's an atrocity when Walmart/Amazon use their monopoly/sony power to force down supplier prices. That's unsustainable, destroys market signals, and hugely disincentivizes the production process for goods." HN Tuesday: "It's awesome when governments use their monopsony power to force down pharmaceutical prices, that has no downsides except for lower profits for someone who didn't deserve them anyway."

acomjean 7y ago
Lets note that we can see what people are paying in other countries for medicine and its less that we in the US pay. Not to mention there has been some egregious mark ups. Drug companies are highly regulated anyway, and the "free market" is failing, which is why the market price for some generics is increasing.
- SilasX 7y ago
  Amazon: "We can see what other markets charge for these goods and it's more than we charge. And the free market's failing. So, there's nothing to worry about regarding what we're doing."
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Be fair, the 'victims' in those two scenarios are vastly dissimilar. Just noticing "force down prices' is a common phrase, is disingenuous.
- SilasX 7y ago
  That's the point: the sympatheticness of the victim is completely irrelevant to the dynamic, yet seems to be enough to treat the cases as different.
  - rocha 7y ago
    Do you think that the current pharmaceutical prices in the US are the result of fair market valuation?
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Not irrelevant. One is a monopolist trying to force down free market prices by fiat. The other is a free market yearning to force down prices by monopolists.
    - SilasX 7y ago
      The common dynamic is that all suppliers are faced with a situation, now and going forward, that they must accept an arbitrarily low profit to continue making the good. Do you think that's only happening in one of those cases? If not, you agree that the the identities of the victims don't break the similarity.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Yes. But in one case its anti-competitive and trying to stifle a free market. In the other its trying to foster a freer market. Thus the different views on each on HN, every day and for good reason.
        SilasX 7y ago
        That's not a difference, that's a reframing. In both cases, in practice, the sellers cannot expect to get more than some really low profit rate, and therefore don't invest in supplying any high-demand good, because the risk is higher and the profits are the same. That's bad.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Hey, it wasn't me trying to frame this as some unreasonable bias by HN. And its laughable, reframing big pharma as some poor unprofitable wretches.
        SilasX 7y ago
        >Hey, it wasn't me trying to frame this as some unreasonable bias by HN. I wasn't saying HNers are biased, I'm saying they're inconsistent in reasoning about these cases. (They're biased too, but that wasn't the criticism I was making here.) >And its laughable, reframing big pharma as some poor unprofitable wretches. It's even more laughable thinking that "whether pharmas are unprofitable wretches" is relevant to the economic effects of pseudo-price controls after the fallacy and inconsistency are explained.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
monster99 7y ago
Difference is, one is about the populations health. Given that the US is backwards when it comes to healthcare. Given the sea of corruption inside the US since it is an oligarchically run state where the citizens basically have no rights (if in doubt look at IP law).
- SilasX 7y ago
  That's the point: the dangers of these pseudo-price controls are irrelevant to whether the goods are health related. Do you believe that it's great when Walmart does this for aspirin, but horrible when they do it for lawnmowers?
  - monster99 7y ago
    I don't believe in the ideologies of the time, call me a doubting thomas that the human race is actually intelligent. I know too much about how human beings and corporations actually function to believe in free market mythology. See here for if you want more acedemic take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 There are all sorts of things wrong in reality with how capitalism actually functions. The reality is most people are too irrational and too stupid for any market to function as a "market". The videogame "market" is a perfect example. For the first 20-30 years of PC game history, we were getting good software for a fair price. Then the masses got internet and shit went sideways. AKA people started buying software they didn't own, nor control, giving super powers to corporations to extort them and engage in all sorts of abusive practices and raise prices astronically because the internet now gave them access to people with addictive tendencies and impulse control problems 24/7 and in order to gather the worlds evolutionary unlucky regarding gambling addiction all games now have microtransactions. I watched my hobby be destroyed, my software robbed and my os infested with dishonest code because stupid got internet. Before the internet Microsoft and game companies had no incentive undermine software ownership because it was impossible to do so. The market for videogames today is a market for lemons, a total shit show of broken games, stolen games, etc. Because a rational game buyer would never buy a piece of software that a corporation controlled.
- 7y ago

by SilasX 7y ago

acomjean 7y ago

Lets note that we can see what people are paying in other countries for medicine and its less that we in the US pay. Not to mention there has been some egregious mark ups. Drug companies are highly regulated anyway, and the "free market" is failing, which is why the market price for some generics is increasing.

SilasX 7y ago
Amazon: "We can see what other markets charge for these goods and it's more than we charge. And the free market's failing. So, there's nothing to worry about regarding what we're doing."

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Be fair, the 'victims' in those two scenarios are vastly dissimilar. Just noticing "force down prices' is a common phrase, is disingenuous.

SilasX 7y ago
That's the point: the sympatheticness of the victim is completely irrelevant to the dynamic, yet seems to be enough to treat the cases as different.
- rocha 7y ago
  Do you think that the current pharmaceutical prices in the US are the result of fair market valuation?
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Not irrelevant. One is a monopolist trying to force down free market prices by fiat. The other is a free market yearning to force down prices by monopolists.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    The common dynamic is that all suppliers are faced with a situation, now and going forward, that they must accept an arbitrarily low profit to continue making the good. Do you think that's only happening in one of those cases? If not, you agree that the the identities of the victims don't break the similarity.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Yes. But in one case its anti-competitive and trying to stifle a free market. In the other its trying to foster a freer market. Thus the different views on each on HN, every day and for good reason.
      - SilasX 7y ago
        That's not a difference, that's a reframing. In both cases, in practice, the sellers cannot expect to get more than some really low profit rate, and therefore don't invest in supplying any high-demand good, because the risk is higher and the profits are the same. That's bad.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Hey, it wasn't me trying to frame this as some unreasonable bias by HN. And its laughable, reframing big pharma as some poor unprofitable wretches.
        SilasX 7y ago
        >Hey, it wasn't me trying to frame this as some unreasonable bias by HN. I wasn't saying HNers are biased, I'm saying they're inconsistent in reasoning about these cases. (They're biased too, but that wasn't the criticism I was making here.) >And its laughable, reframing big pharma as some poor unprofitable wretches. It's even more laughable thinking that "whether pharmas are unprofitable wretches" is relevant to the economic effects of pseudo-price controls after the fallacy and inconsistency are explained.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

monster99 7y ago

Difference is, one is about the populations health. Given that the US is backwards when it comes to healthcare. Given the sea of corruption inside the US since it is an oligarchically run state where the citizens basically have no rights (if in doubt look at IP law).

SilasX 7y ago
That's the point: the dangers of these pseudo-price controls are irrelevant to whether the goods are health related. Do you believe that it's great when Walmart does this for aspirin, but horrible when they do it for lawnmowers?
- monster99 7y ago
  I don't believe in the ideologies of the time, call me a doubting thomas that the human race is actually intelligent. I know too much about how human beings and corporations actually function to believe in free market mythology. See here for if you want more acedemic take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 There are all sorts of things wrong in reality with how capitalism actually functions. The reality is most people are too irrational and too stupid for any market to function as a "market". The videogame "market" is a perfect example. For the first 20-30 years of PC game history, we were getting good software for a fair price. Then the masses got internet and shit went sideways. AKA people started buying software they didn't own, nor control, giving super powers to corporations to extort them and engage in all sorts of abusive practices and raise prices astronically because the internet now gave them access to people with addictive tendencies and impulse control problems 24/7 and in order to gather the worlds evolutionary unlucky regarding gambling addiction all games now have microtransactions. I watched my hobby be destroyed, my software robbed and my os infested with dishonest code because stupid got internet. Before the internet Microsoft and game companies had no incentive undermine software ownership because it was impossible to do so. The market for videogames today is a market for lemons, a total shit show of broken games, stolen games, etc. Because a rational game buyer would never buy a piece of software that a corporation controlled.
7y ago