4 ms·

In short, it's because if the MBAs that head large corporations were dieticians they'd try to make everyone anorexic to save on their grocery bills. If they we

In short, it's because if the MBAs that head large corporations were dieticians they'd try to make everyone anorexic to save on their grocery bills. If they were home builders they'd remove half the shingles from the roof and one hinge from every door, as well as remove the handles from toilets forcing you to open the tank every time you wanted to flush. Of course they would personally pocket all the savings, and use it to buy for themselves everything they deny to everyone else in the name of "efficiency". I guarantee you none of the pharmaceutical company execs are going to miss one dose of their meds.

candiodari 3y ago
Actually it's the MBAs at the government that want the cheapest price for every drug, and are unwilling to pay even tiny amounts for things like supply security. For instance, if the government changed it's rules that price is a competition, and instead of the order going 100% to the "winner", it would go 70% to the winner, 20% to the second place, 10% to the third, that would help a lot.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  That's a good idea. We'd have to be careful that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place aren't actually the same company though (perhaps under different names / legal identities).
- scottLobster 3y ago
  You say that like the government is the only buyer in town. That said I wouldn't mind an award scheme like that, government should support an entire economic ecosystem, not pick exclusive winners and losers. Big military contracts tend to be intentionally split among multiple defense contractors for this very reason. However, looking at other sectors, somehow Toyota and Honda seem to make decent money off of low-margin Corollas and Civics with superior build quality, but American car manufacturers are ditching their sedans because they "aren't profitable enough". Many of our supply chain issues strike me as something similar. American business leaders love to claim "hate the game not the player" when they do something predatory, but then bitch and moan when the government occasionally tries to make the game less predatory. Likewise they'll cheat, but when regular people try to cheat as well they get called out with "yeah we cheated but two wrongs don't make a right!". Funny how that 1st wrong is always in their favor, and it's only the 2nd wrong that isn't allowed to happen and must be punished. I don't trust the government, but I trust the private sector even less. Never mind that private sector lobbying is half the reason I don't trust the government.
  - Incipient 3y ago
    >private sector lobbying Honestly half the problem is you call bribery "lobbying". Why on earth companies are allowed to donate mega millions to a politician is insane.
    - andrekandre 3y ago
      > Why on earth companies are allowed to donate mega millions to a politician is insane. because companies are people and people have free speech and money is a form of speech (according to the supreme court anyways) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_election_commission_%282010%29 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_e... and soon corporations will be able to vote https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-06-30/delaware-house-approves-bill-allowing-business-entities-to-vote-in-towns-municipal-elections https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-06-30/delaware-...
      - taylodl 3y ago
        Companies ARE NOT people and SCOTUS ruling otherwise doesn't make it any more true. That's one of the poorest decisions SCOTUS has ever made and it needs to be revisited.
        hayst4ck 3y ago
        I think the dissent was prescient: From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC): He argued that the court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
      - Incipient 3y ago
        Blimey. You lot are in trouble. I'd say do something about it, but your corporate overlords won't let you!
roncesvalles 3y ago
It's misplaced incentives. Often the easiest way to get a promotion is to pawn off a little bit of the soul of the company or brand.

candiodari 3y ago

Actually it's the MBAs at the government that want the cheapest price for every drug, and are unwilling to pay even tiny amounts for things like supply security. For instance, if the government changed it's rules that price is a competition, and instead of the order going 100% to the "winner", it would go 70% to the winner, 20% to the second place, 10% to the third, that would help a lot.

Buttons840 3y ago
That's a good idea. We'd have to be careful that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place aren't actually the same company though (perhaps under different names / legal identities).
scottLobster 3y ago
You say that like the government is the only buyer in town. That said I wouldn't mind an award scheme like that, government should support an entire economic ecosystem, not pick exclusive winners and losers. Big military contracts tend to be intentionally split among multiple defense contractors for this very reason. However, looking at other sectors, somehow Toyota and Honda seem to make decent money off of low-margin Corollas and Civics with superior build quality, but American car manufacturers are ditching their sedans because they "aren't profitable enough". Many of our supply chain issues strike me as something similar. American business leaders love to claim "hate the game not the player" when they do something predatory, but then bitch and moan when the government occasionally tries to make the game less predatory. Likewise they'll cheat, but when regular people try to cheat as well they get called out with "yeah we cheated but two wrongs don't make a right!". Funny how that 1st wrong is always in their favor, and it's only the 2nd wrong that isn't allowed to happen and must be punished. I don't trust the government, but I trust the private sector even less. Never mind that private sector lobbying is half the reason I don't trust the government.
- Incipient 3y ago
  >private sector lobbying Honestly half the problem is you call bribery "lobbying". Why on earth companies are allowed to donate mega millions to a politician is insane.
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > Why on earth companies are allowed to donate mega millions to a politician is insane. because companies are people and people have free speech and money is a form of speech (according to the supreme court anyways) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_election_commission_%282010%29 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_e... and soon corporations will be able to vote https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-06-30/delaware-house-approves-bill-allowing-business-entities-to-vote-in-towns-municipal-elections https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-06-30/delaware-...
    - taylodl 3y ago
      Companies ARE NOT people and SCOTUS ruling otherwise doesn't make it any more true. That's one of the poorest decisions SCOTUS has ever made and it needs to be revisited.
      - hayst4ck 3y ago
        I think the dissent was prescient: From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC): He argued that the court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
    - Incipient 3y ago
      Blimey. You lot are in trouble. I'd say do something about it, but your corporate overlords won't let you!

roncesvalles 3y ago

It's misplaced incentives. Often the easiest way to get a promotion is to pawn off a little bit of the soul of the company or brand.