4 ms·

I humbly suggest not expecting and tolerating corruption.

wmf 6y ago
In a neoliberal world, buying the vaccine isn't really corruption.
creddit 6y ago
How is it corruption if it's the official policy to auction off some of the vaccine to top bidders? It’s basically a tax on the wealthy.
- aqme28 6y ago
  How is that preferable to a regular tax on the wealthy?
  - umeshunni 6y ago
    Because a regular tax wouldn't get them vaccines
    - aqme28 6y ago
      That's kind of the idea. A regular tax and distribution also wouldn't keep vaccines from people who need them most.
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    They are not countering each other, do they? Why not do both? And ATM why not execute a measure that is the one more acceptable to everyone, I.e. auction? I doubt any typical citizens would be mad at auction off 1% and use the fund to increase the total supply by 10% or even 100%.
    - aqme28 6y ago
      Because the distribution proposed is taking vaccines away from the people who need them most. If the problem is funding, then lets raise funds. We don't need to sacrifice our vaccine distribution for that.
      - justicezyx 6y ago
        Did you see the number I am proposing? How is that getting 110% or even 200% of the planned supply "taking away from the people who need them most"? I think it's quite easy to setup the logistics of auction in such a way that it would have no impact on the distribution to the normal people. The rich can utilize their own expensive network of operators or let them figure out a way to get their precious vaccines and leave the mass infrastructure for the people needs them most. "Let's raise funds" auction is rasing funds. And it's perfectly sensible to setup other channels of fund raising as well. And again, auction is not countering anything else one can propose. It's about getting the rich to shoulder their fair share of running the society. After all their fortune comes from the society, they have more stake in maintaining and keep it running.
        aqme28 6y ago
        You're assuming that more money can increase the supply, but I don't believe that is true.
    - wmf 6y ago
      The supply of vaccine doesn't appear to be constrained by money.
      - justicezyx 6y ago
        Oh, that's something I don't expect. Then it makes less sense to do auction. But, I still need evidence that money is not the constraints, or it could not help resolve other constraints. Please enlighten me with what you know.
  - creddit 6y ago
    Did I say it was?
justicezyx 6y ago
By this, you disagree with the OP? Mind you, any large system has good and bad parts, and they can change roles under different circumstances, across different time periods; some change fast and some slow; some never come back, and some can hop back and forth. Auction with small amount of highly daughter after goods is a reasonable approach to demand fair share of social responsibility from the rich. After all, why do we want to grant them the same cheapness that they inevitably are entitled to but are not really fair to others? Apologize if you meant differently.
twblalock 6y ago
Some people see this as corruption, but the correct way to see this is as an opportunity to get rich people to give money to everyone else. When rich people are trying to give away money, we should try to direct that money to good causes. We have an opportunity to do that here. What would you prefer: that rich people give away money, or that they keep all of it to themselves? If they want to give it away we should certainly be interested in how to direct it. If they keep it to themselves, nobody benefits except them.
- aqme28 6y ago
  I think the fundamental issue here is that they're not giving their money away for free. They're taking life-saving medication from people who need it more. People will die preventable deaths when we auction off our supply.
  - tarboreus 6y ago
    That doesn't really make sense. There has to be a point, and likely it's a pretty low figure, at which the life-saving value of getting and using money offsets whatever downside comes with giving a rich person the vaccine. Obviously receiving $100 billion for one vial of vaccine would be an appropriate tradeoff, you can save any number of lives with that money. Once you acknowledge this, it's also obvious that a much smaller amount would also save lives. An auction would likely kick up low to mid five figures, maybe even six figures, and the utility of that money is almost certainly higher than the single vial. This is even before you consider that the vaccine will wind up in the hands of rich people anyway, with no additional utility to anyone.
Theory5 6y ago
We expect it because it happens enough that to believe there will come a time it won't happen is foolish. Tolerating, however isn't something that should happen. Though as people are discussing, maybe in this case turn it from corruption where it'll pad some people's pockets to a legitimate way to fund initiatives to help the less fortunate can be beneficial. Is it right? No, but humanity rarely follows what's right when its more beneficial to certain people to follow the wrong paths.

wmf 6y ago

In a neoliberal world, buying the vaccine isn't really corruption.

How is it corruption if it's the official policy to auction off some of the vaccine to top bidders? It’s basically a tax on the wealthy.

aqme28 6y ago
How is that preferable to a regular tax on the wealthy?
- umeshunni 6y ago
  Because a regular tax wouldn't get them vaccines
  - aqme28 6y ago
    That's kind of the idea. A regular tax and distribution also wouldn't keep vaccines from people who need them most.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  They are not countering each other, do they? Why not do both? And ATM why not execute a measure that is the one more acceptable to everyone, I.e. auction? I doubt any typical citizens would be mad at auction off 1% and use the fund to increase the total supply by 10% or even 100%.
  - aqme28 6y ago
    Because the distribution proposed is taking vaccines away from the people who need them most. If the problem is funding, then lets raise funds. We don't need to sacrifice our vaccine distribution for that.
    - justicezyx 6y ago
      Did you see the number I am proposing? How is that getting 110% or even 200% of the planned supply "taking away from the people who need them most"? I think it's quite easy to setup the logistics of auction in such a way that it would have no impact on the distribution to the normal people. The rich can utilize their own expensive network of operators or let them figure out a way to get their precious vaccines and leave the mass infrastructure for the people needs them most. "Let's raise funds" auction is rasing funds. And it's perfectly sensible to setup other channels of fund raising as well. And again, auction is not countering anything else one can propose. It's about getting the rich to shoulder their fair share of running the society. After all their fortune comes from the society, they have more stake in maintaining and keep it running.
      - aqme28 6y ago
        You're assuming that more money can increase the supply, but I don't believe that is true.
  - wmf 6y ago
    The supply of vaccine doesn't appear to be constrained by money.
    - justicezyx 6y ago
      Oh, that's something I don't expect. Then it makes less sense to do auction. But, I still need evidence that money is not the constraints, or it could not help resolve other constraints. Please enlighten me with what you know.
- creddit 6y ago
  Did I say it was?

justicezyx 6y ago

By this, you disagree with the OP? Mind you, any large system has good and bad parts, and they can change roles under different circumstances, across different time periods; some change fast and some slow; some never come back, and some can hop back and forth. Auction with small amount of highly daughter after goods is a reasonable approach to demand fair share of social responsibility from the rich. After all, why do we want to grant them the same cheapness that they inevitably are entitled to but are not really fair to others? Apologize if you meant differently.

twblalock 6y ago

Some people see this as corruption, but the correct way to see this is as an opportunity to get rich people to give money to everyone else. When rich people are trying to give away money, we should try to direct that money to good causes. We have an opportunity to do that here. What would you prefer: that rich people give away money, or that they keep all of it to themselves? If they want to give it away we should certainly be interested in how to direct it. If they keep it to themselves, nobody benefits except them.

aqme28 6y ago
I think the fundamental issue here is that they're not giving their money away for free. They're taking life-saving medication from people who need it more. People will die preventable deaths when we auction off our supply.
- tarboreus 6y ago
  That doesn't really make sense. There has to be a point, and likely it's a pretty low figure, at which the life-saving value of getting and using money offsets whatever downside comes with giving a rich person the vaccine. Obviously receiving $100 billion for one vial of vaccine would be an appropriate tradeoff, you can save any number of lives with that money. Once you acknowledge this, it's also obvious that a much smaller amount would also save lives. An auction would likely kick up low to mid five figures, maybe even six figures, and the utility of that money is almost certainly higher than the single vial. This is even before you consider that the vaccine will wind up in the hands of rich people anyway, with no additional utility to anyone.

Theory5 6y ago

We expect it because it happens enough that to believe there will come a time it won't happen is foolish. Tolerating, however isn't something that should happen. Though as people are discussing, maybe in this case turn it from corruption where it'll pad some people's pockets to a legitimate way to fund initiatives to help the less fortunate can be beneficial. Is it right? No, but humanity rarely follows what's right when its more beneficial to certain people to follow the wrong paths.