4 ms·

Won't you just get similar cost in the form of bureaucracy?

• TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Bureaucracy is rarely as expensive as aggressive profiteering. In fact the opposite is more likely. If pharma is nationalised - or better, internationalised - it would become economic to fund solutions for common conditions that aren't currently considered profitable.
  • throwaway3157 7y ago
    > Bureaucracy is rarely as expensive as aggressive profiteering. Have you seen the DoD and other gov entity contracting? Perhaps we can expect the same level of contracting that the DoD has today, outsourcing those expensive mistakes to others, for them to take the blame/fall/ I can see a situation where pharma bureaucrats refuse to approve or pursue things, because government mistakes are more unforgivable than business mistakes (where failure and experiments are often encouraged). I would expect more layers of approval/red-tape to develop as no-one wants to accept the blame of approving.
    • Seenso 7y ago
      >> Bureaucracy is rarely as expensive as aggressive profiteering. > Have you seen the DoD and other gov entity contracting? DoD contracting seems like worst of both worlds: a combination of bureaucracy, aggressive profiteering, and rare real-world evaluation of the products. I'm kinda surprised military production hasn't been nationalized. It seems like it's mainly done by a handful of companies that are almost wholly dependent on government contracts, and the government is loathe to steer too much work away from any of these entities in order to preserve their capability.
  • s1artibartfast 7y ago
    >it would become economic to fund solutions for common conditions that aren't currently considered profitable. How would eliminating the profit margin make it more economically attractive develop these products? Perhaps more solutions would be developed, but they would have to be subsidized.
• evanlivingston 7y ago
  That doesn't seem to be true in terms of public education, libraries, the postal service or transportation.
  • zeveb 7y ago
    I think this must be a case of Poe's Law in action: I really can't tell if you're serious or joking!
    • evanlivingston 7y ago
      What I know is that the USPS is often the cheapest and easiest way to send a package. The number of services they offer outpaces FedEx and UPS. What I pay in taxes for public schools is magnitudes cheaper than the average private school tuition. The taxes I pay in exchange for access to nearly every single book for free is a helluva lot cheaper than buying a single book new or used. Paying for a ride of a public bus is a lot cheaper than uber or lyft. I assume the cost of bureaucracy is what we collectively pay for in taxes. If what I pay in taxes for these public services is cheaper than purchasing these goods and services through for-profit vendors, I think I can safely say I do not get a similar cost in bureaucracy. Additionally, even if these things were slightly more expensive than the "free market" I would be willing to pay more and help share the burden of ensuring everyone had universal access.
      • gowld 7y ago
        The USPS has a legal monopoly to make it artificially cheaper than competitors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service Private schools are on par with public schools ($10k/yr) for the same kind of school, with large class sizes. Expensive private schools are far better "product" than public schools with small classes and better extracurriculars and amenities. Your property taxes are subsidized by taxes paid by non-school-families.
        • evanlivingston 7y ago