4 ms·

I'm sorry, but that still does not make sense to me. The US (meaning really, the American people) is expected both to innovate and subsidize the world? Come o

I'm sorry, but that still does not make sense to me. The US (meaning really, the American people) is expected both to innovate and subsidize the world? Come on, now. If the US develops it, why shouldn't the US benefit the most? If prices keep going the way they have over the past 40 years, we're not going to be able to afford all these fancy treatments and drugs, anyway. Imagine a corporation developing a product, then marketing it for sale, yet not only not giving its employees a corporate discount, but making them pay more for it. Again, how does that make sense?

colechristensen 5y ago
Welcome to macroeconomics, free trade, globalization, and simple business strategy, topics which can't be adequately conveyed in a forum comment. Almost every product you buy benefits from the lower costs of labor and everything else in foreign economies in one way or another. The flip side is you generally have to lower your own prices to sell in those economies as well. You could try to keep prices constant globally, but in much of the world there would just be 0 sales. The strategy is to make up for a smaller profit margin with larger volume. Buy at a discount from foreign countries, sell at a discount to foreign countries, as a result, pull their economies closer to your own and create new markets for your higher grade products. Everyone on HN is always on about selling your product for what people will pay for it (usually with regards to raising prices) and paying employees market rates. Well it works both ways and you sell your products for what you can get, especially when their is moral pressure all around to not be seen profiting too much from the poorest countries.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  This is not a sustainable phenomenon, though. Americans can't continue to pay an increasing portion of their income to healthcare while exporting the benefits to everyone else. That's simply absurd. It's all right here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/24/this-chart-is-best-explanation-middle-class-finances-you-will-ever-see/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/24/this-char... You can't keep squeezing people for more and more and expect to get anywhere in a sustainable fashion. This is the road to collapse. What does macroeconomics say about that?
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    All economics is cyclical, prices will rise until the pressure causes them to reverse the trend. Pretend any economic trend over a short period will continue forever and they’ll all be unsustainable.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      I'm sorry, but a "cyclical trend" that lasts nearly the length of a human life is not a cyclical trend. What this is is the tendency for the rate of profit to fall coming home to roost. These are probably the last days of capitalism as we know it.
Axsuul 5y ago
The analogy that the people in the US are “employees” of pharm companies is the wrong analogy. There is no obligation here. Companies price discriminate all the time. It’s capitalism. I run a SaaS and offer lower pricing to businesses from lower cost countries. But it doesn’t mean I’m subsidizing costs thanks to richer countries. It’s so I’m not leaving money on the table.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Have you ever stopped to consider for even one second that maybe capitalism is the problem? That maybe there should be an obligation? As I said in my other comment, you can't keep squeezing people for more and more and more and expect it to be sustainable. What good are fancy new drugs and treatments when nobody can afford them, even with insurance?
  - Axsuul 5y ago
    Would we still have these new drugs without capitalism? There still needs to be incentive and capitalism is the best model we have for that. It's the government that needs to implement policies however to make them more available for everyone. Humans can't be relied upon to develop novel solutions for the good of everyone -- there has to be something in it for them. That's just how they operate unfortunately. Long-term solutions require the right incentives.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Where's the incentive if people can't afford them? You're thinking too small if you think capitalism is the only system with incentives. You're locked into the idea that capitalism is the only possible economic system, and you can't see that there can be alternatives (a.k.a. "capitalist realism"). Why do you think it's reasonable that we could fix a problem created by capitalism by doing more capitalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism
briHass 5y ago
> The US (meaning really, the American people) is expected both to innovate and subsidize the world? See also, military spending. There's certainly an argument to be made that the US doesn't need to have quite the level of worldwide engagement it does, but what would that result in? Would China being an uncontested military superpower be good or bad for the world?

colechristensen 5y ago

Welcome to macroeconomics, free trade, globalization, and simple business strategy, topics which can't be adequately conveyed in a forum comment. Almost every product you buy benefits from the lower costs of labor and everything else in foreign economies in one way or another. The flip side is you generally have to lower your own prices to sell in those economies as well. You could try to keep prices constant globally, but in much of the world there would just be 0 sales. The strategy is to make up for a smaller profit margin with larger volume. Buy at a discount from foreign countries, sell at a discount to foreign countries, as a result, pull their economies closer to your own and create new markets for your higher grade products. Everyone on HN is always on about selling your product for what people will pay for it (usually with regards to raising prices) and paying employees market rates. Well it works both ways and you sell your products for what you can get, especially when their is moral pressure all around to not be seen profiting too much from the poorest countries.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
This is not a sustainable phenomenon, though. Americans can't continue to pay an increasing portion of their income to healthcare while exporting the benefits to everyone else. That's simply absurd. It's all right here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/24/this-chart-is-best-explanation-middle-class-finances-you-will-ever-see/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/24/this-char... You can't keep squeezing people for more and more and expect to get anywhere in a sustainable fashion. This is the road to collapse. What does macroeconomics say about that?
- colechristensen 5y ago
  All economics is cyclical, prices will rise until the pressure causes them to reverse the trend. Pretend any economic trend over a short period will continue forever and they’ll all be unsustainable.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but a "cyclical trend" that lasts nearly the length of a human life is not a cyclical trend. What this is is the tendency for the rate of profit to fall coming home to roost. These are probably the last days of capitalism as we know it.

Axsuul 5y ago

The analogy that the people in the US are “employees” of pharm companies is the wrong analogy. There is no obligation here. Companies price discriminate all the time. It’s capitalism. I run a SaaS and offer lower pricing to businesses from lower cost countries. But it doesn’t mean I’m subsidizing costs thanks to richer countries. It’s so I’m not leaving money on the table.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Have you ever stopped to consider for even one second that maybe capitalism is the problem? That maybe there should be an obligation? As I said in my other comment, you can't keep squeezing people for more and more and more and expect it to be sustainable. What good are fancy new drugs and treatments when nobody can afford them, even with insurance?
- Axsuul 5y ago
  Would we still have these new drugs without capitalism? There still needs to be incentive and capitalism is the best model we have for that. It's the government that needs to implement policies however to make them more available for everyone. Humans can't be relied upon to develop novel solutions for the good of everyone -- there has to be something in it for them. That's just how they operate unfortunately. Long-term solutions require the right incentives.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Where's the incentive if people can't afford them? You're thinking too small if you think capitalism is the only system with incentives. You're locked into the idea that capitalism is the only possible economic system, and you can't see that there can be alternatives (a.k.a. "capitalist realism"). Why do you think it's reasonable that we could fix a problem created by capitalism by doing more capitalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism

briHass 5y ago

> The US (meaning really, the American people) is expected both to innovate and subsidize the world? See also, military spending. There's certainly an argument to be made that the US doesn't need to have quite the level of worldwide engagement it does, but what would that result in? Would China being an uncontested military superpower be good or bad for the world?