5 ms·

Upvoted because although I agree with your sentiment, the arguably free market in this case, at this point is going to ramp up production as efficiently as poss

by loceng 6y ago

Upvoted because although I agree with your sentiment, the arguably free market in this case, at this point is going to ramp up production as efficiently as possible. I assume all of these companies are each going to make $ billions even if they overproduce. They're also making a name for themselves/furthering their brand awareness, no doubt every 5-10 years we may have a similar pandemic to counter if bad actors rally to spread viruses, at an exponential rate too via different factors. The best defense is a good offense: UBI so people can survive regardless of working, and culturally people not believing that being safe and wearing a mask isn't preventing their freedoms; culturally that this is an issue is a sign of multi-generational dis-ease progression from citizens not being given enough, organized suffering/suppression of the masses for control/submission purposes. Andrew Yang's core policies will break apart the duopoly and "take the boot off of people's throats" - and then people can start to heal these deep wounds, open their hearts, allow their IQ and reasoning skills to open up/develop, to develop empathy, etc.

IgorPartola 6y ago
Pfizer is reporting that they have vaccine doses ready that nobody is picking up. Besides, I personally don’t believe the free market is capable of telling states what to do or even knows what would be the most efficient way to distribute the vaccines.
- loceng 6y ago
  Right, I remember seeing that headline - that's due to the Trump administration's incompetence and/or treason; can't do much about that except correct the system, break apart the duopoly and the power of what has become the limited players in mainstream media; Andrew Yang's Journalism Dollars and Democracy Dollars both would help counter this adequately, along with his UBI/Freedom Dividend policy and Ranked Choice Voting - 4 simple policies, along with government option for healthcare - would powerfully shift the system immediately, and put the US on an exponential path again, without so much friction, allowing thriving for everyone; the buying power of "$1,000"/month increases exponentially as we automate more and more processes. Edit to add: Sorry about lazy people downvoting you, whenever I talk about Bitcoin - pro-Bitcoiners don't qualitatively engage, just a quick hit of dopamine satisfies them and suppresses contrarian thoughts that aren't financially incentivized like their Bitcoin propaganda and behaviour is.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  > I personally don’t believe the free market is capable of telling states what to do States, as functional governmental bodies, are supposed to be able to handle this. The free market is a tool and it's a good tool for some things like maximizing vaccine production. It's not the best tool for things like resource distribution when those resources need to be distributed at a loss - we literally want to spend money to fix this and it's ok to be less efficient on the cost side if it leads to better immunity.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Let's make this simpler and more accessible. You are the CEO of Google you wake up on March 1, 2020 and realize that a malware worm is spreading across your servers, damaging systems and in some cases even the hardware. The long term impact on the systems that are infected and later recovered is unclear but early evidence already suggests it's not good. Do you: (a) Drop everything and concentrate all your resources on containing and eradicating the worm, using all available internal and external methods. (b) Tell each department head that the worm is their problem and continue to pretend that it's business as usual. The subcontractors will figure this out because it's in their best interest to do so. Free market works. If you choose (b) please show your work.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      Do you have any evidence that suggests Pfizer is pretending that it's business as usual or is doing anything short of producing and distributing vaccine as fast as they possibly can?
      - IgorPartola 6y ago
        I am making the analogy to the federal government, not Pfizer.
    - lostapathy 6y ago
      The problem with that line of logic is that states are a lot more like contractors than employees - the feds can only exert so much control. And a lot of the states are frankly incapable of taking direction even if they wanted to. These are entities that run DMVs like, well, DMV offices - no amount of oversight/yelling/etc from the feds is going to get new IT systems online at the state level in short order in many states.

by loceng 6y ago

IgorPartola 6y ago

Pfizer is reporting that they have vaccine doses ready that nobody is picking up. Besides, I personally don’t believe the free market is capable of telling states what to do or even knows what would be the most efficient way to distribute the vaccines.

loceng 6y ago
Right, I remember seeing that headline - that's due to the Trump administration's incompetence and/or treason; can't do much about that except correct the system, break apart the duopoly and the power of what has become the limited players in mainstream media; Andrew Yang's Journalism Dollars and Democracy Dollars both would help counter this adequately, along with his UBI/Freedom Dividend policy and Ranked Choice Voting - 4 simple policies, along with government option for healthcare - would powerfully shift the system immediately, and put the US on an exponential path again, without so much friction, allowing thriving for everyone; the buying power of "$1,000"/month increases exponentially as we automate more and more processes. Edit to add: Sorry about lazy people downvoting you, whenever I talk about Bitcoin - pro-Bitcoiners don't qualitatively engage, just a quick hit of dopamine satisfies them and suppresses contrarian thoughts that aren't financially incentivized like their Bitcoin propaganda and behaviour is.
vorpalhex 6y ago
> I personally don’t believe the free market is capable of telling states what to do States, as functional governmental bodies, are supposed to be able to handle this. The free market is a tool and it's a good tool for some things like maximizing vaccine production. It's not the best tool for things like resource distribution when those resources need to be distributed at a loss - we literally want to spend money to fix this and it's ok to be less efficient on the cost side if it leads to better immunity.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Let's make this simpler and more accessible. You are the CEO of Google you wake up on March 1, 2020 and realize that a malware worm is spreading across your servers, damaging systems and in some cases even the hardware. The long term impact on the systems that are infected and later recovered is unclear but early evidence already suggests it's not good. Do you: (a) Drop everything and concentrate all your resources on containing and eradicating the worm, using all available internal and external methods. (b) Tell each department head that the worm is their problem and continue to pretend that it's business as usual. The subcontractors will figure this out because it's in their best interest to do so. Free market works. If you choose (b) please show your work.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    Do you have any evidence that suggests Pfizer is pretending that it's business as usual or is doing anything short of producing and distributing vaccine as fast as they possibly can?
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      I am making the analogy to the federal government, not Pfizer.
  - lostapathy 6y ago
    The problem with that line of logic is that states are a lot more like contractors than employees - the feds can only exert so much control. And a lot of the states are frankly incapable of taking direction even if they wanted to. These are entities that run DMVs like, well, DMV offices - no amount of oversight/yelling/etc from the feds is going to get new IT systems online at the state level in short order in many states.