4 ms·
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
by 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 agoHey, 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.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoCome on, pharmaceutical prices are controlled already, by the tiny number of companies in that market. Which is the opposite of a 'free market'. Its obvious to me we're not discussing this in good faith any more. Pendantry will get us nowhere.
- SilasX 7y agoI’m arguing in good faith.