4 ms·

There would be no reason to make promises to these companies if they do make the world a better place in some way. A company worth billions cannot possibly get

There would be no reason to make promises to these companies if they do make the world a better place in some way. A company worth billions cannot possibly get there without making society better. But there are always tradeoffs. Something that makes society great in some way is also likely to make society not great in some other way. As before, every act comes with negative externalities.

UncleMeat 3y ago
See I just don't agree with this at all. We've clearly seen an example where a company can grow its net worth while making the world worse. It requires our current system of laws - but that's the world that we live in. This isn't a property of negative externalities. This is a property of social value being entirely disconnected from cash. Saving a rich person's life and a poor person's life has the same value to society. But a rich person can pay far more money to have their life saved than a poor person can.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Said laws are created by society to benefit society. A pharmaceutical company is able to create an apparent 10x more value under such laws because they are delivering on the value of that regulated market along with the value of their product. Of course, as before, no benefit is consequence free. We see in the example that said benefit means that some people may not have access to drugs, which negatively affects society in other ways. That doesn't mean society sees no benefit. There are always tradeoffs. Something can be a benefit and detriment at the same time. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that you think that society should see better access to drugs as being a higher priority than the benefits it expects from the regulated market? But clearly society, which is free to repeal or change said laws as it sees fit, disagrees. Society will certainly never please all individuals. That's a tradeoff of having a society.
jchanimal 3y ago
Don't over-idealize the market, N is not infinity. That is, "making society better" (for who?)
- randomdata 3y ago
  Society is better for seeing the pharmaceutical market regulations it desires carried out. Yes, that does mean individuals who cannot access/afford drugs will be worse off, but thems the breaks of living in a society. Society can never cater to everyone. Someone will always be harmed by society. After all, society can repeal the regulation if it wanted to – it created the regulations! But clearly it doesn't want to, because society recognizes it as a benefit and is willing to pay, perhaps as much as 10x more according to previous comments, to see that value delivered. That may not suit your or my fancy, but, again, society cannot cater to everyone. Naturally, even society itself is both beneficial and detrimental, just like everything else. Tradeoffs, as always.
  - jchanimal 3y ago
    That’s just a “we’re in the best of all possible worlds” argument. The market should be shaped by people towards human aims. That means it’s useful to compare and contrast different regulatory captures and advocate for change. You’re basically saying there shouldn’t be discourse.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      The market is shaped by human aims. The laws we speak of were not handed down by aliens. They were specifically created by society for the benefit of society. There is no such thing as a best possible world. Not two people would ever be able to agree what that even is. Every benefit comes with a detriment. It's just a matter of what tradeoffs do you want to accept. Society has made its choice, seeing a regulated market as being more important than access to drugs for all (for now; that choice is fluid and able to change in the future should society change its views, but trying to predict the future is well beyond this discussion).

UncleMeat 3y ago

See I just don't agree with this at all. We've clearly seen an example where a company can grow its net worth while making the world worse. It requires our current system of laws - but that's the world that we live in. This isn't a property of negative externalities. This is a property of social value being entirely disconnected from cash. Saving a rich person's life and a poor person's life has the same value to society. But a rich person can pay far more money to have their life saved than a poor person can.

randomdata 3y ago
Said laws are created by society to benefit society. A pharmaceutical company is able to create an apparent 10x more value under such laws because they are delivering on the value of that regulated market along with the value of their product. Of course, as before, no benefit is consequence free. We see in the example that said benefit means that some people may not have access to drugs, which negatively affects society in other ways. That doesn't mean society sees no benefit. There are always tradeoffs. Something can be a benefit and detriment at the same time. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that you think that society should see better access to drugs as being a higher priority than the benefits it expects from the regulated market? But clearly society, which is free to repeal or change said laws as it sees fit, disagrees. Society will certainly never please all individuals. That's a tradeoff of having a society.

jchanimal 3y ago

Don't over-idealize the market, N is not infinity. That is, "making society better" (for who?)

randomdata 3y ago
Society is better for seeing the pharmaceutical market regulations it desires carried out. Yes, that does mean individuals who cannot access/afford drugs will be worse off, but thems the breaks of living in a society. Society can never cater to everyone. Someone will always be harmed by society. After all, society can repeal the regulation if it wanted to – it created the regulations! But clearly it doesn't want to, because society recognizes it as a benefit and is willing to pay, perhaps as much as 10x more according to previous comments, to see that value delivered. That may not suit your or my fancy, but, again, society cannot cater to everyone. Naturally, even society itself is both beneficial and detrimental, just like everything else. Tradeoffs, as always.
- jchanimal 3y ago
  That’s just a “we’re in the best of all possible worlds” argument. The market should be shaped by people towards human aims. That means it’s useful to compare and contrast different regulatory captures and advocate for change. You’re basically saying there shouldn’t be discourse.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    The market is shaped by human aims. The laws we speak of were not handed down by aliens. They were specifically created by society for the benefit of society. There is no such thing as a best possible world. Not two people would ever be able to agree what that even is. Every benefit comes with a detriment. It's just a matter of what tradeoffs do you want to accept. Society has made its choice, seeing a regulated market as being more important than access to drugs for all (for now; that choice is fluid and able to change in the future should society change its views, but trying to predict the future is well beyond this discussion).