4 ms·

In these circumstances, the only reasonable procedure for a government to take is to warn pharmaceutical manufacturers that "if you do that then we'll instantl

In these circumstances, the only reasonable procedure for a government to take is to warn pharmaceutical manufacturers that "if you do that then we'll instantly nationalize you without compensation." Moreover, this ought to be enshrined in law.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
What should be done is hard to say b/c of R&D angles about producing a more effective treatment. If the money is being put to R&D or even just enabling the company to scale manufacturing, I'm pretty okay with that. Better than nationalization I think would be restrictions on executive compensation and dividends. Take away any personal upside from the decision-makers.
- jpster 7y ago
  > If the money is being put to R&D or even just enabling the company to scale manufacturing, I'm pretty okay with that. That makes sense. On the other hand, the government has deep pockets. They could buy the company, fund the R&D, and still keep the prices accessible. In pandemics, this is what we want and need. I’m also alive to all the ways in which these powers could lead to corruption and overreach in ordinary times. I oppose the Patriot Act and abhor the wars and states-of-emergency without-end. But I’m given to believe we are not in ordinary times.
  - dumbfoundded 7y ago
    It's tough to know where to draw the line. There are roundabout ways like loans, grants, tax breaks and a variety of other tools the government has without nationalization. Buying the company seems a little too much to me but it is an emergency. I don't know enough about the details to know the right decision.
hedora 7y ago
In California we’re under emergency price gouging restrictions. If you raise the price of something by more than 10%, you get fined and/or go to jail. (That’s not what happened with this drug though. They previously rose the price, and lowered it back to the original price due to Coronavirus.)

dumbfoundded 7y ago

What should be done is hard to say b/c of R&D angles about producing a more effective treatment. If the money is being put to R&D or even just enabling the company to scale manufacturing, I'm pretty okay with that. Better than nationalization I think would be restrictions on executive compensation and dividends. Take away any personal upside from the decision-makers.

jpster 7y ago
> If the money is being put to R&D or even just enabling the company to scale manufacturing, I'm pretty okay with that. That makes sense. On the other hand, the government has deep pockets. They could buy the company, fund the R&D, and still keep the prices accessible. In pandemics, this is what we want and need. I’m also alive to all the ways in which these powers could lead to corruption and overreach in ordinary times. I oppose the Patriot Act and abhor the wars and states-of-emergency without-end. But I’m given to believe we are not in ordinary times.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  It's tough to know where to draw the line. There are roundabout ways like loans, grants, tax breaks and a variety of other tools the government has without nationalization. Buying the company seems a little too much to me but it is an emergency. I don't know enough about the details to know the right decision.

hedora 7y ago

In California we’re under emergency price gouging restrictions. If you raise the price of something by more than 10%, you get fined and/or go to jail. (That’s not what happened with this drug though. They previously rose the price, and lowered it back to the original price due to Coronavirus.)