4 ms·

Over and over again we re-learn that the single proven way to distribute scarce resources is the free market. Anything else we tried led to abuses, aberrations,

by nickpp 6y ago

Over and over again we re-learn that the single proven way to distribute scarce resources is the free market. Anything else we tried led to abuses, aberrations, waste and in the end fewer people gaining access to that resource. I have seen this in the planned economy I grew up in, which was unable to provide even toilet paper to its people - but it was ok, because we didn’t have any food either. Our blindness to the simplicity, obviousness and logic of the market laws and our obsession with the forced, unnatural "fairness" and "equality" make us relearn this lesson the hard way, by paying the price. Unfortunately this time the price is in lives.

fitzie 6y ago
the flu vaccine is delivered annually by experts. now they are creating a whole new vaccine distribution system run by people who have never done it before. the politicians are celebrating their megasites as if that is suppose to impress us. I have no doubt if the money was ever counted that we're spending ten times more per shot for covid then we do for influenza, just on the distribution.
acover 6y ago
I don't think this is true. In emergencies we explicitly do not allow price gouging because it just doesn't work. If it was a free market then the vaccine would cost 10k and few of those who benefit most would get it. That's not efficient or fair.
- nickpp 6y ago
  Actually freezing prices is the best way to create long term shortages. We saw that last springs when countries with free markets kept having N95 masks available, at slightly elevated prices while countries that imposed priced controls did not have any until fall. In a free market the vaccine would’ve cost 10k for a month while producers would’ve been scrambling to increase availability and production to take advantage of this amazing opportunity. Pretty soon after the price would’ve dropped at a greatly increased availability. Right now the vaccine is free and very few lucky ones can get it. And it’s been months.
  - acover 6y ago
    I agree that price controls create shortages in the long term. The issue is that emergencies are about the short term. I would be very surprised if more money would have helped produce more vaccines. Canada is burning a billion a day to keep everything in lockdown - money does not seem relevant to the current situation. Adding it in just makes everyone pay more for the same limited amount of vaccines.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      This emergency does not seem short term. Pandemics generally aren't. There are already talks of new strains and corresponding vaccines in winter. Canada is burning billions because it has decided to prioritize COVID protection above everything else in life. It was clear from the beginning that lockdowns were a bad idea because they weren’t feasible in the long term. Alas, this is the path most of the world's government chose. We'll be paying the price for years to come...
      - acover 6y ago
        The supply constraints for the vaccine are short term. > Canada is burning billions because it has decided to prioritize COVID protection above everything else in life. It was clear from the beginning that lockdowns were a bad idea because they weren’t feasible in the long term. Alas, this is the path most of the world's government chose. We'll be paying the price for years to come... How does this relate to money being a limiting factor for vaccine production?
        nickpp 6y ago
        Do not underestimate the power of human creativity and antreprenorial spirit when correctly motivated. The ability to sell this vaccine at obscene profits would've been extremely motivating. Now I am not in pharma I don't know how exactly the extra money would've helped, but I know that in pretty much any business more money help with new hires and better people, new machines for production lines, more wild ideas being tested and discarded if not working. Also this is a supply chain issue and they would've been strongly incentivised by more profits. Even those damn syringes missing in Japan and little container bottles to store vaccines in. Finally at macro level better profits would've attracted and incentivised more entrepreneurs with more ideas and imagination. Remember, the very existence of the Moderna and BioNTech companies is due to the free market and private enterprise. Now on the more very short term an expensive vaccine would've reduce demand by making people consider alternatives and by making sure only people that really need it would get it. It would've avoided aberrations like vaccinating terminal patients or people who are not active and can very well wait for the price to come down wearing masks in the meantime. But I am afraid that the supply constraint for the vaccine is long term. Because the virus is changing. And our incentives are more aligned with prolonged lockdowns than vaccine production.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>Over and over again we re-learn that the single proven way to distribute scarce resources is the free market. No 'we' ( meaning the vast majority) do not relearn. The _never_ will.
upbeat_general 6y ago
So just to be clear you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? This is ludicrous. The “free market” isn’t for everything. The US is going to get enough shots in part because the companies are US companies.
- nickpp 6y ago
  > you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? No, I'm suggesting people should get the vaccine based on how much money they are willing to spend on it. Just like everything else. This would in effect reduce demand (most people would decide a mask is enough protection or to simply wait) and make sure that only people needing the vaccine (or their sponsors) would spend the money for it. The free market works for even more essentials like food, clothes and shelter, but suddenly is not for vaccines?! Only Moderna is a US company. BioNTech and AstraZeneca are European. The vaccine's very existence is owed to the free market and private enterprise. The failure to distribute and use the vaccine is solely due to governmental intervention.
  - robin21 6y ago
    My first reaction was "this can't possible work", but it's interesting to think about. I wonder how the market would price it. If there was a "vaccination passport" in operation to let those vaccinated travel freely, I would be happy to pay up to 1/2K to jump-the-queue. It's a minor premium on the expense of an overseas summer vacation. Would also be happy if part of the fee included a subsidy for low-income. However, morally, I would prefer to wait for first-line responders and elderly at-risk to be prioritized with first doses. Which kind of leads us back to where we started with government prioritization. Would be interesting to see how an SV startup revenue team would price it with their huge data points on pricing models. Worth an A/B test perhaps.

by nickpp 6y ago

fitzie 6y ago

the flu vaccine is delivered annually by experts. now they are creating a whole new vaccine distribution system run by people who have never done it before. the politicians are celebrating their megasites as if that is suppose to impress us. I have no doubt if the money was ever counted that we're spending ten times more per shot for covid then we do for influenza, just on the distribution.

acover 6y ago

I don't think this is true. In emergencies we explicitly do not allow price gouging because it just doesn't work. If it was a free market then the vaccine would cost 10k and few of those who benefit most would get it. That's not efficient or fair.

nickpp 6y ago
Actually freezing prices is the best way to create long term shortages. We saw that last springs when countries with free markets kept having N95 masks available, at slightly elevated prices while countries that imposed priced controls did not have any until fall. In a free market the vaccine would’ve cost 10k for a month while producers would’ve been scrambling to increase availability and production to take advantage of this amazing opportunity. Pretty soon after the price would’ve dropped at a greatly increased availability. Right now the vaccine is free and very few lucky ones can get it. And it’s been months.
- acover 6y ago
  I agree that price controls create shortages in the long term. The issue is that emergencies are about the short term. I would be very surprised if more money would have helped produce more vaccines. Canada is burning a billion a day to keep everything in lockdown - money does not seem relevant to the current situation. Adding it in just makes everyone pay more for the same limited amount of vaccines.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    This emergency does not seem short term. Pandemics generally aren't. There are already talks of new strains and corresponding vaccines in winter. Canada is burning billions because it has decided to prioritize COVID protection above everything else in life. It was clear from the beginning that lockdowns were a bad idea because they weren’t feasible in the long term. Alas, this is the path most of the world's government chose. We'll be paying the price for years to come...
    - acover 6y ago
      The supply constraints for the vaccine are short term. > Canada is burning billions because it has decided to prioritize COVID protection above everything else in life. It was clear from the beginning that lockdowns were a bad idea because they weren’t feasible in the long term. Alas, this is the path most of the world's government chose. We'll be paying the price for years to come... How does this relate to money being a limiting factor for vaccine production?
      - nickpp 6y ago
        Do not underestimate the power of human creativity and antreprenorial spirit when correctly motivated. The ability to sell this vaccine at obscene profits would've been extremely motivating. Now I am not in pharma I don't know how exactly the extra money would've helped, but I know that in pretty much any business more money help with new hires and better people, new machines for production lines, more wild ideas being tested and discarded if not working. Also this is a supply chain issue and they would've been strongly incentivised by more profits. Even those damn syringes missing in Japan and little container bottles to store vaccines in. Finally at macro level better profits would've attracted and incentivised more entrepreneurs with more ideas and imagination. Remember, the very existence of the Moderna and BioNTech companies is due to the free market and private enterprise. Now on the more very short term an expensive vaccine would've reduce demand by making people consider alternatives and by making sure only people that really need it would get it. It would've avoided aberrations like vaccinating terminal patients or people who are not active and can very well wait for the price to come down wearing masks in the meantime. But I am afraid that the supply constraint for the vaccine is long term. Because the virus is changing. And our incentives are more aligned with prolonged lockdowns than vaccine production.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

>Over and over again we re-learn that the single proven way to distribute scarce resources is the free market. No 'we' ( meaning the vast majority) do not relearn. The _never_ will.

upbeat_general 6y ago

So just to be clear you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? This is ludicrous. The “free market” isn’t for everything. The US is going to get enough shots in part because the companies are US companies.

nickpp 6y ago
> you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? No, I'm suggesting people should get the vaccine based on how much money they are willing to spend on it. Just like everything else. This would in effect reduce demand (most people would decide a mask is enough protection or to simply wait) and make sure that only people needing the vaccine (or their sponsors) would spend the money for it. The free market works for even more essentials like food, clothes and shelter, but suddenly is not for vaccines?! Only Moderna is a US company. BioNTech and AstraZeneca are European. The vaccine's very existence is owed to the free market and private enterprise. The failure to distribute and use the vaccine is solely due to governmental intervention.
- robin21 6y ago
  My first reaction was "this can't possible work", but it's interesting to think about. I wonder how the market would price it. If there was a "vaccination passport" in operation to let those vaccinated travel freely, I would be happy to pay up to 1/2K to jump-the-queue. It's a minor premium on the expense of an overseas summer vacation. Would also be happy if part of the fee included a subsidy for low-income. However, morally, I would prefer to wait for first-line responders and elderly at-risk to be prioritized with first doses. Which kind of leads us back to where we started with government prioritization. Would be interesting to see how an SV startup revenue team would price it with their huge data points on pricing models. Worth an A/B test perhaps.