3 ms·

> if your politicians is giving away your tax money to corporations then the solution isn't to give those politicians even more money or power Please. Lobbyin

by cced 4y ago

> if your politicians is giving away your tax money to corporations then the solution isn't to give those politicians even more money or power Please. Lobbying + gerrymandering > deregulation > look ma, government inefficient let's reduce spending > reduced government capacity > look ma, government inefficient let's reduce spending > reduced government capacity > .. Ever heard of the revolving door or regulatory capture? Who is served by a reduction in government spending? In what world is "let's cut government spending and further provide privatized corporations with the means by which to provide the necessities of life for the population" a sound objective when the stated goal of corporations is to maximize profits and provide infinite growth? Just this week: Eli Lilly announced [1] that it would cap insulin prices at $35. Why is that? In order to maximize profits. California announced [2] that it would start producing it's own insulin. Tell me why, in an efficient market, the government would need to step in and start it's own production [2] or even mandate [1] price caps? What does this say about the state of competition prior? Did EL just recently find efficiencies that allows it to _still_ profitably produce and sell a vial of insulin, which costs $10 to produce, at a reduced price of $35 (from "over $300")? Of course not! Free market at work. It only took the inefficient guberment to step in for _competition_ to materialize. [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/health/eli-lilly-insulin-prices-diabetes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/health/eli-lilly-insulin-pric... [2]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/8/23200404/california-insulin-drug-prices-governor-newsom https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/8/23200404/california-insuli...

hbrn 4y ago
> Free market at work. It only took the inefficient guberment to step in for competition to materialize. Your lack of knowledge on the matter mixed with self-righteousness is astounding. I suggest you to research beyond newspaper headlines. Insulin that's being sold today is very different from insulin that was invented a century ago. The reason it's so different is precisely because private businesses had incentives to innovate, which resulted in prolonged patient lives. You know what slows down modern insulin from becoming cheap in the US, even after patents have expired? A government agency called FDA. By the time you can get your generic insulin to the market, it might become obsolete. Competition isn't materialized, it is artificially limited by the bureaucratic government. (not to mention that patents themselves are also enforced by the government, but that's a much more complex topic) In order to get cheaper insulin you need less government, not more. Evidently, that's why insulin is cheaper in India, China, or Mexico. > Tell me why, in an efficient market, the government would need to step in and start it's own production [2] or even mandate [1] price caps? Californian local production of insulin is an attempt, we've yet to see the results. It is quite possible that those funds would be better off spent on directly buying insulin instead of producing it. Oh and by the way, you know how California plans to "produce" the insulin in the first years of the program? By outsourcing it to private companies. Isn't it convenient that those exist? And, as illustrated earlier, price caps are a government "crutch" to cover a bigger government (FDA) inefficiency.

by cced 4y ago

hbrn 4y ago

> Free market at work. It only took the inefficient guberment to step in for competition to materialize. Your lack of knowledge on the matter mixed with self-righteousness is astounding. I suggest you to research beyond newspaper headlines. Insulin that's being sold today is very different from insulin that was invented a century ago. The reason it's so different is precisely because private businesses had incentives to innovate, which resulted in prolonged patient lives. You know what slows down modern insulin from becoming cheap in the US, even after patents have expired? A government agency called FDA. By the time you can get your generic insulin to the market, it might become obsolete. Competition isn't materialized, it is artificially limited by the bureaucratic government. (not to mention that patents themselves are also enforced by the government, but that's a much more complex topic) In order to get cheaper insulin you need less government, not more. Evidently, that's why insulin is cheaper in India, China, or Mexico. > Tell me why, in an efficient market, the government would need to step in and start it's own production [2] or even mandate [1] price caps? Californian local production of insulin is an attempt, we've yet to see the results. It is quite possible that those funds would be better off spent on directly buying insulin instead of producing it. Oh and by the way, you know how California plans to "produce" the insulin in the first years of the program? By outsourcing it to private companies. Isn't it convenient that those exist? And, as illustrated earlier, price caps are a government "crutch" to cover a bigger government (FDA) inefficiency.