5 ms·
Yeah, but we (consumers) don’t usually see full exploitation of that principle as a good thing. Like, when pharmaceutical companies charge exorbitant prices for
by Uehreka 3y ago
Yeah, but we (consumers) don’t usually see full exploitation of that principle as a good thing. Like, when pharmaceutical companies charge exorbitant prices for lifesaving drugs just because they can, that’s bad.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWhat are you talking about? The reason they still do so is because the majority of voters aren’t too bothered by it.
- yieldcrv 3y agoThat’s … reductionist, any voter that attempts to find a representative for a non-party line cause gets gaslit by rapid partisans about hating women or a marginalized group because its not their top cause guiding all voting decisions. voters dont have control of their representatives either way
- yieldcrv 3y agorabid*
- MichaelZuo 3y agoNo it's not reductionist, it's the truth. Reductionist would be different, for example if it implied that change is impossible, or that voters will always stay the same, or that there is a guaranteed inevitability, etc... Maybe your reading your own thoughts into someone else?
- yieldcrv 3y agookay, voters don’t have control of their representatives and nobody has floated a constitutional amendment
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIf you genuinely believe voters have literally no control over their representatives in the US, I highly doubt you would spend time writing comments on HN about pharmaceutical pricing and not on more important matters.
- smoldesu 3y agoMartin Shkreli wasn't convicted for manipulating medicine prices, just outrunning his shareholders. We, the consumers, don't get a damn word about what we want. Unless the free market says it's a bad thing, you're stuck enjoying whatever the corps decide the fight-of-the-week is.