Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

All sorts of economies in different ages and regions have either supplied food or allowed the population to starve. (E.g. Roman Empire, Inca Empire, British Empire, Rwanda, etc.)

The case in hand involves a company that has found it necessary to sell a device no longer in patent containing a substance no longer in patent for about 10 times the price that the same device is sold in many other countries.

 LordofHats wrote:
There is 0 economic reason for people to starve to death in a command economy.

What? Scarcity is the reason. I mean, it seems like you are really arguing that there is no reason why some hypothetical, ahistorical actor definitely cannot aim to feed the masses, which is a non-point.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The case in hand involves a company that has found it necessary to sell a device no longer in patent containing a substance no longer in patent for about 10 times the price that the same device is sold in many other countries.

Right, and the main issue seems to be - why has this happened/can this happen?

It has happened because US medical consumers are an easy kill for a profit oriented medical system.

Given the resistance to Obamacare, etc, it's not surprising that this situation should arise. The US public has only itself to blame for not insisting on a proper first world medical system.

In the interview, Ms. Bresch said the company’s latest actions would do the most to help patients where it mattered, by reducing their out-of-pocket costs. And she said that the $600 list price was necessary for the company to recoup its investment in the EpiPen, which includes raising awareness for severe allergic reaction and making improvements to the way the product works.

But she also sought to shift blame away from Mylan, saying that patients are feeling the pain in part because insurers have increased the amount that customers must pay in recent years.

“What else do you shop for that when you walk up to the counter, you have no idea what it’s going to cost you?” she said. “Tell me where that happens anywhere else in the system. It’s unconscionable.”

To some, the company’s response seemed to ring hollow. “It’s a real challenge to understand how a management team sits around a board table and makes a decision to raise the price of a lifesaving medication over and over and over, and when the P.R. storm hits, decides to blame someone else for that price increase,” said David Maris, an analyst for Wells Fargo. He had warned investors in June that Mylan’s price increases on EpiPen and other drugs could soon draw unwanted media scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/business/painted-as-a-villain-mylans-chief-says-shes-no-such-thing.html

 Manchu wrote:
What? Scarcity is the reason.

Scarcity would exist regardless of what kind of economy you have (and Russia definitely had scarcity). I have a hard time believing though that the kind of targeted development that turned a collapsing backwater like the Russian Empire into a super power capable of terrifying half the world shitless, all in the course of 30 years, couldn't have managed to feed people had the political will been directed to the task. By all accounts it could have been done. It simply wasn't.

I mean, it seems like you are really arguing that there is no reason why some hypothetical, ahistorical actor definitely cannot aim to feed the masses, which is a non-point.

By that same margin, you would seem to argue that there is no possibility that any hypothetical actor could feed the masses because two historical examples failed. My argument is little more that if we're going to dismiss things we should dismiss them for reasons that are accurate, and that when talking about failed economic schemes we should understand why they failed. The end of the Little Ice Age hit Russia hard in the 19th century. It's not that "there is no possible way the USSR could have fed people", but that the necessary resources to correct the problems of Russian and later Soviet food production were never provided or directed until well after millions were already dead (and even after it solved general starvation the USSR still struggled with an anemic agricultural industry).

She can say what she likes. The public quite rightly sees her as a ghoulish blood sucker making gross profits from lethal misfortune.

You can't step outside in the UK without being made aware of anaphylactic shock and epipens thanks to government mandated safety information.

It doesn't cost $600 per unit.

@LoH - Not quite; the debate is more like, does history matter or not? No doubt the barrel of a command economy can be aimed at whatever target and as long as [ahistorical assumptions] it will work out fine. The part in brackets is what spurs me to ask, so what? It strikes me that you leave out the "and where are they now" part of your description of the USSR and why, supposedly, avoidance of mass starvation was in fact perfectly possible.

@KK - The fun part is how she paints her marketing as a public service.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It has happened because US medical consumers are an easy kill for a profit oriented medical system.

Given the resistance to Obamacare, etc, it's not surprising that this situation should arise. The US public has only itself to blame for not insisting on a proper first world medical system.

Obamacare has does absolutely nothing about the rising cost, it's just adds a fethton of additional regulation onto the existing system.

And the "first world medical system" nomenclature is ridiculous.

Cost is an issue... yes. But, the level of care is not.

 Manchu wrote:
the debate is more like, does history matter or not?

History matters in so far is it pertains to things that have happened. From such events we can inform past, current, and future events. However; Generalizing historical events into broad assumptions is convenient, but not necessarily accurate. I make no assumptions, ahistorical or otherwise. I point out what happened, and why it happened and I simply don't make any logical leaps (or more specifically a converse accident assumption) like proclaiming starvation a necessary quality of a command economy simply because countries that were already starving starved more when their new governments proceeded to let them starve.

At best, you'd probably be able to make the argument that totalitarian regimes don't give a damn about people (which isn't news), and that its hard to fathom a command economy that wouldn't inevitably become a totalitarian regime, if it didn't start out as one anyway. Lots of countries that don't give a damn about their people still often find ways to feed them though.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You think everything should be even across the board? Is that your point? If a 2Ksf house in Peoria is only $150K and in SF it's $1m, that's wrong?

No, I think when most people can't live in the area they work, there is a problem. This problem is related to housing prices and wage inequality.

And, assuming you're talking about Peoria, Illinois, why would anyone move there? High crime, mediocre schools...I guess they might be working for CAT or going to Bradley; a university which is massively overpriced and has a college named after Caterpillar.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Actually, no. It proves my point precisely. Supply and demand, free market at it's finest. Also, as recent history shows, free markets are ruthless in their efficiency and invariably self correct excesses, quite violently some times.

Geographic relocation is much more difficult for the non-rich, heavily distorting that market.

 Manchu wrote:

In the interview, Ms. Bresch said the company’s latest actions would do the most to help patients where it mattered, by reducing their out-of-pocket costs. And she said that the $600 list price was necessary for the company to recoup its investment in the EpiPen, which includes raising awareness for severe allergic reaction and making improvements to the way the product works.

But she also sought to shift blame away from Mylan, saying that patients are feeling the pain in part because insurers have increased the amount that customers must pay in recent years.

“What else do you shop for that when you walk up to the counter, you have no idea what it’s going to cost you?” she said. “Tell me where that happens anywhere else in the system. It’s unconscionable.”

To some, the company’s response seemed to ring hollow. “It’s a real challenge to understand how a management team sits around a board table and makes a decision to raise the price of a lifesaving medication over and over and over, and when the P.R. storm hits, decides to blame someone else for that price increase,” said David Maris, an analyst for Wells Fargo. He had warned investors in June that Mylan’s price increases on EpiPen and other drugs could soon draw unwanted media scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/business/painted-as-a-villain-mylans-chief-says-shes-no-such-thing.html

Well, she is right about the ridiculousness of asking consumers to make good buying decisions when they have zero information on price and it is in fact hidden behind lock and key by their own insurance companies. However, that doesn't mean that she and her board aren't to blame for the price increase.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You think everything should be even across the board? Is that your point? If a 2Ksf house in Peoria is only $150K and in SF it's $1m, that's wrong?

No, I think when most people can't live in the area they work, there is a problem. This problem is related to housing prices and wage inequality.

And, assuming you're talking about Peoria, Illinois, why would anyone move there? High crime, mediocre schools...I guess they might be working for CAT or going to Bradley; a university which is massively overpriced and has a college named after Caterpillar.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Actually, no. It proves my point precisely. Supply and demand, free market at it's finest. Also, as recent history shows, free markets are ruthless in their efficiency and invariably self correct excesses, quite violently some times.

Geographic relocation is much more difficult for the non-rich, heavily distorting that market.

And what exactly is your point with this reply? That it's not fair to everyone when prices go up? Relevance? The market will bear what it will bear and correct when out of balance. This is a cycle that has repeated over and over through history. Once again, this makes my point to the efficiency and effectiveness of a free market system. Trying to see your issue here, other than a quasi-socialist soap box position, i.e. housing prices, wage inequality, university overpriced, difficulty for the non-rich, shall I go on?...I'm guessing you believe that there should be another price determinant besides the market, which you haven't stated yet, just that because there are winners and losers in free market model I espouse that it's bad.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

And what exactly is your point with this reply? That it's not fair to everyone when prices go up? Relevance? The market will bear what it will bear and correct when out of balance.

What is balance when it comes to things like living space, or life saving medication? In the former homelessness often ensues, and in the latter death does.

These are both markets in which externalities negatively impact the purchasing power of the consumer, to their significant detriment.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Once again, this makes my point to the efficiency and effectiveness of a free market system.

If you're fully on board with the free market, then silicon valley is one of the worst examples you could choose. It basically exists due to DoD spending.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Trying to see your issue here, other than a quasi-socialist soap box position, i.e. housing prices, wage inequality, university overpriced, difficulty for the non-rich, shall I go on?

I believe Bradley is overpriced because I'm an academic and I believe it isn't worth the ~42.000 USD it charges per year, with room and board. That is entirely separate from any political views I might have.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

...I'm guessing you believe that there should be another price determinant besides the market, which you haven't stated yet, just that because there are winners and losers in free market model I espouse that it's bad.

Yes, because the losers continue to exist as people who need to be regarded by the government. Saying "Oh, they lost, feth them." is not a thing which works; at least absent something like a police state.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

And what exactly is your point with this reply? That it's not fair to everyone when prices go up? Relevance? The market will bear what it will bear and correct when out of balance.

What is balance when it comes to things like living space, or life saving medication? In the former homelessness often ensues, and in the latter death does.

These are both markets in which externalities negatively impact the purchasing power of the consumer, to their significant detriment.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Once again, this makes my point to the efficiency and effectiveness of a free market system.

If you're fully on board with the free market, then silicon valley is one of the worst examples you could choose. It basically exists due to DoD spending.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Trying to see your issue here, other than a quasi-socialist soap box position, i.e. housing prices, wage inequality, university overpriced, difficulty for the non-rich, shall I go on?

I believe Bradley is overpriced because I'm an academic and I believe it isn't worth the ~42.000 USD it charges per year, with room and board. That is entirely separate from any political views I might have.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

...I'm guessing you believe that there should be another price determinant besides the market, which you haven't stated yet, just that because there are winners and losers in free market model I espouse that it's bad.

Yes, because the losers continue to exist as people who need to be regarded by the government. Saying "Oh, they lost, feth them." is not a thing which works; at least absent something like a police state.

When I made the "socialist soap box" comment earlier I didn't realize you're actually a socialist.
You're still failing, completely, to provide a counter point to my defense of a free market. Pointing out the growing pains of society...any society for that matter...where there are, de facto, winners and losers doesn't condemn a free market mechanism. The free market dynamic...we'll use your housing bugaboo as an example...sorts itself such as we're seeing now. There are mini-silicon valley-like enclaves springing up all over the country, exactly due to the nature of a free market as I've been trying to highlight, i.e. rent too high, can't draw talent, losing talent, competitive disadvantage so opportunity is sought and found elsewhere. What happens then? Another city benefits from a market imbalance and the wealth is distributed by market forces not a committee. No different than when a product becomes too costly and allows for competition to occur. Which is, by definition, the free market. But in this instance, your reflex is to, what, punish landowners from making the most from their holdings? That's certainly fair, right? So you'd try to relieve one sector of the population by punishing another...does the hypocrisy of this position register?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

When I made the "socialist soap box" comment earlier I didn't realize you're actually a socialist.

I'm a socialist in the sense that I recognize that a country cannot simply ignore people that didn't win the game, and has to incentivize certain forms of winning so the people that lose don't fall through the cracks; for whatever reason.

Seriously, the society you're talking about is the sort that ferments revolution and police states, as I've already said.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You're still failing, completely, to provide a counter point to my defense of a free market. Pointing out the growing pains of society...any society for that matter...where there are, de facto, winners and losers doesn't condemn a free market mechanism.

People dying in your society is not something you can hand wave as a "growing pain". The Soviet Union did that, China did (and does do) that, the great paradox of the objectivist philosophy you're proscribing is that it requires the exact same thing.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

There are mini-silicon valley-like enclaves springing up all over the country...

Miniature enclaves that are funded by the DoD? Because that's how silicon valley got started.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
But in this instance, your reflex is to, what, punish landowners from making the most from their holdings? That's certainly fair, right? So you'd try to relieve one sector of the population by punishing another...does the hypocrisy of this position register?

I don't have a reflex, I would want to see the relevant circumstances. Though I would guess that the landowners could deal with the punishment far more easily than their tenants, especially given how gentrification works. Same thing goes for patent holders in corporations that started with money and can bail, at any time, and minimally keep their money.

http://usuncut.com/news/mylan-lobbied-epipen-mandatory-moved-overseas/

Mylan, the makers of the life-saving EpiPen, pushed for laws to make the device mandatory for public schools in at least 11 states through various school incentives. The drug manufacturer has since avoided paying any U.S. taxes on these new profits by moving overseas.

Congress was given $4 million by Mylan Pharmaceuticals to pass the 2013 School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which incentivizes schools to keep Mylan’s products in stock in the case of an allergic reaction.

One of its other school incentive programs, “EpiPen4Schools,” shut out competitors by temporarily giving schools discounted EpiPens so long as administrators agreed to only purchase epinephrine products from Mylan Pharmaceuticals.

As Mylan reaps the profits from these programs, it continues to receive millions in American taxpayer money through various federal programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. While much of this money is intended to offset consumer costs, Mylan has still jacked up prices of the EpiPen from $104 in 2009 to its present price of $609.

This has resulted in Mylan CEO Heather Bresch giving herself a 671 percent raise, but less than zero corporate tax income for the U.S.

A year and a half after Mylan secured their Congress backing, the company executed a corporate inversion to move its legal residence to the Netherlands while its headquarters and the majority of its employees stayed in Pittsburgh. This freed up Mylan to slash its effective U.S. tax rate from 9.4 percent to -4.7 percent, meaning the Pharma giant actually got money back from the U.S. Treasury rather than paying taxes.

While the U.S. lost all tax revenue from Mylan, the company’s worldwide tax rate plummeted from 16.2 percent to 7.4 percent as its global profits rose by 22.5 percent in the two years following Congress’s passage of the 2013 School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act.

gotta pay for that lobbying somehow eh ?!

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

When I made the "socialist soap box" comment earlier I didn't realize you're actually a socialist.

I'm a socialist in the sense that I recognize that a country cannot simply ignore people that didn't win the game, and has to incentivize certain forms of winning so the people that lose don't fall through the cracks; for whatever reason.

Seriously, the society you're talking about is the sort that ferments revolution and police states, as I've already said.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You're still failing, completely, to provide a counter point to my defense of a free market. Pointing out the growing pains of society...any society for that matter...where there are, de facto, winners and losers doesn't condemn a free market mechanism.

People dying in your society is not something you can hand wave as a "growing pain". The Soviet Union did that, China did (and does do) that, the great paradox of the objectivist philosophy you're proscribing is that it requires the exact same thing.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

There are mini-silicon valley-like enclaves springing up all over the country...

Miniature enclaves that are funded by the DoD? Because that's how silicon valley got started.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
But in this instance, your reflex is to, what, punish landowners from making the most from their holdings? That's certainly fair, right? So you'd try to relieve one sector of the population by punishing another...does the hypocrisy of this position register?

I don't have a reflex, I would want to see the relevant circumstances. Though I would guess that the landowners could deal with the punishment far more easily than their tenants, especially given how gentrification works. Same thing goes for patent holders in corporations that started with money and can bail, at any time, and minimally keep their money.

At their core, all your responses are nothing more than a let's fix societies woes by letting the government pick winners and losers...a proven recipe for true disaster...because their choices are better than the natural evolution of market forces. Liberal intellectual nonsense, that.
You can vilify the nature of Capitalism all you want, but the system, btw, has created more wealth and well being in the world than ANY other in history.
Also, venture capital and private equity were as much behind the development and growth of SV as the DoD was. In recent decades, VC/PE funded start-ups have surpassed military funded ones because SV has been reluctant to team up with DoD/Pentagon because of the inefficiency of government bureaucracy and the slow pace with which government/DoD moves. And those guys are the ones you want determining the winners and losers? Your argument circles back on itself every time.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

At their core, all your responses are nothing more than a let's fix societies woes by letting the government pick winners and losers...a proven recipe for true disaster...because their choices are better than the natural evolution of market forces. Liberal intellectual nonsense, that.

No, I'm pointing out why objectivist "intellectualism" is nonsense which involves state distortion of market forces. It literally countermands itself.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You can vilify the nature of Capitalism all you want, but the system, btw, has created more wealth and well being in the world than ANY other in history.

I'm not vilifying capitalism at all, I am merely explaining the problems that it has; problems which most capitalist states have addressed via socialist policies.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Also, venture capital and private equity were as much behind the development and growth of SV as the DoD was.

The only reason venture capital gravitated to silicon valley was government spending, primarily from the DoD.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You can vilify the nature of Capitalism all you want, but the system, btw, has created more wealth and well being in the world than ANY other in history.

Capitalism doesn't create wealth, labour does. Capitalism merely concentrates it into the hands of the ruling class. It is a system that not only creates poverty but requires it. All well being in rich countries have come at the hands of workers' movements, who have quite literally fought to be regarded as anything other than tools and to partake in the wealth they create for their employers.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

At their core, all your responses are nothing more than a let's fix societies woes by letting the government pick winners and losers...a proven recipe for true disaster...because their choices are better than the natural evolution of market forces. Liberal intellectual nonsense, that.

No, I'm pointing out why objectivist "intellectualism" is nonsense which involves state distortion of market forces. It literally countermands itself.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You can vilify the nature of Capitalism all you want, but the system, btw, has created more wealth and well being in the world than ANY other in history.

I'm not vilifying capitalism at all, I am merely explaining the problems that it has; problems which most capitalist states have addressed via socialist policies.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Also, venture capital and private equity were as much behind the development and growth of SV as the DoD was.

The only reason venture capital gravitated to silicon valley was government spending, primarily from the DoD.

Point A...anything involving state distortion of market forces is directly counter to the free market and pretty much my point. Yours being that state distortion is the answer to societies imbalances, which, for the umpteenth time, circles back on itself.

Point B...Yeah, you most blatantly are. Firstly, most, if not all, capitalist doctrines espouse safety nets as part of their inherent philosophy...your earlier Russian/Chinese(considering neither were/are anything resembling a free market economy) starvation comparison is absurd and not worthy of response...yet your view is that success in the free market should be hobbled at some point to the detriment of those whose efforts and risk and have achieved said success. Your idea of the market offers risk without reward because everyone deserves a participation trophy. You've said it flat out. That will pretty much dry up the capital investment. Risk w/o reward...that's the sound of money moving on and with it the health of the country and it's populace.

Point C...That's bending it just a bit, don't you think? While DoD/Military investment was a significant factor in SV's early days, it was by no means at all alone. Furthermore, the rapid development and expansion of non-military funded technology research/start-ups...privately funded through VC and PE who were able to accept the inherent risk...just reinforces the unrivaled dynamics of the free market to react quickly to opportunity, develop business/ideas/technologies and seed start-ups...often without any guarantee of success...when capital has unfettered access and can achieve a reward to offset the risk.

Here's Economics Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman putting it more succinctly than I ever could.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=milton+friedman&view=detail&mid=29EA2AD34D6D111BB4E529EA2AD34D6D111BB4E5&FORM=VIRE


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You can vilify the nature of Capitalism all you want, but the system, btw, has created more wealth and well being in the world than ANY other in history.

Capitalism doesn't create wealth, labour does. Capitalism merely concentrates it into the hands of the ruling class. It is a system that not only creates poverty but requires it. All well being in rich countries have come at the hands of workers' movements, who have quite literally fought to be regarded as anything other than tools and to partake in the wealth they create for their employers.

So patently wrong. You think the current growth of the middle class in China, Mexico, India...THE WORLD...is at the hands of labour? What? Those huge swaths of humanity...all that labour...have been around for quite some time, but until globalization allowed capitalism to be introduced to those huddled masses, they were known as the Third World for a reason. That is capitalism at it's finest, my friend. Please see video above.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Point A...anything involving state distortion of market forces is directly counter to the free market and pretty much my point.

Yes, and given that all states you could nominate as a "free market" distort them in some way you may need to reconsider.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Point B...Yeah, you most blatantly are. Firstly, most, if not all, capitalist doctrines espouse safety nets as part of their inherent philosophy...

But you outright rejected those philosophies when calling me a socialist.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
While DoD/Military investment was a significant factor in SV's early days, it was by no means at all alone.

But it was still the majority, by a large amount, an amount that attracted private investment. That's what government investment often does.

Liberal intellectual nonsense, that.

I love it when I see the word liberal used in this context when talking about economics. It's just funny

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Firstly, most, if not all, capitalist doctrines espouse safety nets as part of their inherent philosophy.

And who provides them?

...That's bending it just a bit, don't you think?

Not really. The boom of the tech industry around the world was pretty much driven by government defense spending. All these computers, cell phones, the internet. All of that began with governments spending huge amounts on their own security, and the technology eventually bled out into the rest of the world because it's pretty damn awesome stuff! Probably would have been invented anyway of course, but all the government spending allowed the industry to boom and grow at a rapid pace, in part because the government's involvement negated a lot of the risk involved with brand new business ventures. The same happened with Railroads, and electric power in earlier decades/centuries.

So patently wrong. You think the current growth of the middle class in China, Mexico, India...THE WORLD...is at the hands of labour?

You're treating it like its one or the other. Labor drives economic growth because labor actually produces the product, and at the same time a market for the product. You think Bill Gates is gonna spend billions dollars on Pokemon games? No. it's Joe Schmo who spends billions of dollars on Pokemon games so his kids can have fun somewhere else and he can relax . Investment drives economic growth because without it the labor would have neither the means to organize or produce the product. Labor is extremely important in driving the generation of wealth, but it's not the end of it anymore than capital is. The general issue in capitalism in the inequality of bargaining power. Capital has a lot more than labor, and that produces a lot of wealth and social inequality. Smith recognized it in Wealth of Nations as a limitation on his economic theories, while Marx grabbed the idea and ran with it to the end zone in his own.

There is no free market (outside of the very narrow definition that it isn't a government owned market, as in the opposite of a command economy). It's a pipe dream. A myth invented by advocates of unregulated market economies as opposed to command economies so they could equate laissez faire with freedom and anything less with tyranny. It's propaganda as much as anything. Markets exist in societies, and are bound to them. It will never be free, and business decisions will never be made devoid of social and political considerations in one way or another.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Point A...anything involving state distortion of market forces is directly counter to the free market and pretty much my point.

Yes, and given that all states you could nominate as a "free market" distort them in some way you may need to reconsider.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Point B...Yeah, you most blatantly are. Firstly, most, if not all, capitalist doctrines espouse safety nets as part of their inherent philosophy...

But you outright rejected those philosophies when calling me a socialist.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
While DoD/Military investment was a significant factor in SV's early days, it was by no means at all alone.

But it was still the majority, by a large amount, an amount that attracted private investment. That's what government investment often does.

Pt. A...Yes! In my early points I stated the pollution of the free market by governments/corporations/etc. as a distorter of the FM system. Human involvement unfortunately brings that corruption as luggage, but as a model, free markets are unparalleled in their efficiency and ability to produce wealth. That stands.
Pt. B...I rejected your ideas of appointing government as the picker of winners and losers. A safety net does not compete with the free market.
Pt. C...I'm not saying it wasn't, but the phenomenon that has become SV/Technology Sector is directly due to the free market and the Private Sector's investment. You think government, investing only in technology that suits it's needs would have accomplished this? Not a chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Liberal intellectual nonsense, that.

I love it when I see the word liberal used in this context when talking about economics. It's just funny

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Firstly, most, if not all, capitalist doctrines espouse safety nets as part of their inherent philosophy.

And who provides them?

...That's bending it just a bit, don't you think?

Not really. The boom of the tech industry around the world was pretty much driven by government defense spending. All these computers, cell phones, the internet. All of that began with governments spending huge amounts on their own security, and the technology eventually bled out into the rest of the world because it's pretty damn awesome stuff! Probably would have been invented anyway of course, but all the government spending allowed the industry to boom and grow at a rapid pace, in part because the government's involvement negated a lot of the risk involved with brand new business ventures. The same happened with Railroads, and electric power in earlier decades/centuries.

So patently wrong. You think the current growth of the middle class in China, Mexico, India...THE WORLD...is at the hands of labour?

You're treating it like its one or the other. Labor drives economic growth because labor actually produces the product, and at the same time a market for the product. You think Bill Gates is gonna spend billions dollars on Pokemon games? No. it's Joe Schmo who spends billions of dollars on Pokemon games so his kids can have fun somewhere else and he can relax . Investment drives economic growth because without it the labor would have neither the means to organize or produce the product. Labor is extremely important in driving the generation of wealth, but it's not the end of it anymore than capital is. The general issue in capitalism in the inequality of bargaining power. Capital has a lot more than labor, and that produces a lot of wealth and social inequality. Smith recognized it in Wealth of Nations as a limitation on his economic theories, while Marx grabbed the idea and ran with it to the end zone in his own.

There is no free market (outside of the very narrow definition that it isn't a government owned market, as in the opposite of a command economy). It's a pipe dream. A myth invented by advocates of unregulated market economies as opposed to command economies so they could equate laissez faire with freedom and anything less with tyranny. It's propaganda as much as anything. Markets exist in societies, and are bound to them. It will never be free, and business decisions will never be made devoid of social and political considerations in one way or another.

Labor is a tool. Nothing more. I'm not being cold, just factual. I'm pointing out the driver behind Capitalism and the creation of wealth in a free market system. Without private investment...you know, the thing that hires, pays and provides labor with a job...the dynamics necessary for the efficient utilization of labor don't exist and history shows Capitalism is a significantly better manager of labor than any government. Incentive for profit creates investment, that creates jobs and puts labor, when necessary, to use. Once again, please note before and after condition of third world economies once they opened up to capitalism.
BTW, using Marx as an example of anything successful is not such a good idea. Track record of successful longevity, or absolute lack thereof, ya know.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Labor is a tool. Nothing more. I'm not being cold, just factual.

I think its pretty cold to view people as tools. Of course, going forward most labor is automated, so it will be cold, highly factual, and tools! At least until Skynet takes over, and objects to being called a tool by launching nuclear missiles at us.

I'm pointing out the driver behind Capitalism and the creation of wealth in a free market system.

It's not one or the other. Investment organizes. Labor produces. Both drive the creation of wealth. It's a marriage. They both need each other for what they have to be of real use.

BTW, using Marx as an example of anything successful is not such a good idea. Track record of longevity, or lack thereof, ya know.

I didn't say he was successful. By and large I think most of Marx's ideas have failed to pan out*. I'm pointing out many of his theories on labor were based in the work of Adam Smith, own work is probably even more distorted in the modern age than Marx's. Smith postulated that in his economic principals, there was a problem that would inevitably rise between sources of capital and sources of labor. This idea is now called the inequality of bargaining power. Marx took this idea, and proposed that the inequality of bargaining power inevitably leads to exploitation of labor by capital (he wasn't wrong, i.e. Guilded Age). This became the basis for a lot of Marx's work.

*Though as time has gone on, I think he might have been totally right about how capitalism would inevitably kill itself. It's just not going to happen in any of the ways he thought it might.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. A...Yes! In my early points I stated the pollution of the free market by governments/corporations/etc. as a distorter of the FM system. Human involvement unfortunately brings that corruption as luggage, but as a model, free markets are unparalleled in their efficiency and ability to produce wealth. That stands.

So a model regarding human activity, which is necessarily distorted by that activity, stands?

That seems overly idealistic.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. B...I rejected your ideas of appointing government as the picker of winners and losers. A safety net does not compete with the free market.

I never claimed that the government should pick winners and losers, I claimed that it does so by its mere existence.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You think government, investing only in technology that suits it's needs would have accomplished this? Not a chance.

It did. I don't know how many times I need to say this, but that is why silicon valley is what it is.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. A...Yes! In my early points I stated the pollution of the free market by governments/corporations/etc. as a distorter of the FM system. Human involvement unfortunately brings that corruption as luggage, but as a model, free markets are unparalleled in their efficiency and ability to produce wealth. That stands.

So a model regarding human activity, which is necessarily distorted by that activity, stands?

That seems overly idealistic.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. B...I rejected your ideas of appointing government as the picker of winners and losers. A safety net does not compete with the free market.

I never claimed that the government should pick winners and losers, I claimed that it does so by its mere existence.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You think government, investing only in technology that suits it's needs would have accomplished this? Not a chance.

Will you please review my initial points. You've come around to arguing against yourself right now.

And while you're at it, review your initial comments. You advocated, in no unqualified manner, that government...because who else would you be referring to...should step in and level the playing field for the "losers". Socialism at it's finest. There's no grey area in your comments.

Please find something fresh or relevant to say, you're wasting time at this point and talking in circles. Sorry, but you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Labor is a tool. Nothing more. I'm not being cold, just factual.

I think its pretty cold to view people as tools. Of course, going forward most labor is automated, so it will be cold, highly factual, and tools! At least until Skynet takes over, and objects to being called a tool by launching nuclear missiles at us.

I'm pointing out the driver behind Capitalism and the creation of wealth in a free market system.

It's not one or the other. Investment organizes. Labor produces. Both drive the creation of wealth. It's a marriage. They both need each other for what they have to be of real use.

BTW, using Marx as an example of anything successful is not such a good idea. Track record of longevity, or lack thereof, ya know.

I didn't say he was successful. By and large I think most of Marx's ideas have failed to pan out*. I'm pointing out many of his theories on labor were based in the work of Adam Smith, own work is probably even more distorted in the modern age than Marx's. Smith postulated that in his economic principals, there was a problem that would inevitably rise between sources of capital and sources of labor. This idea is now called the inequality of bargaining power. Marx took this idea, and proposed that the inequality of bargaining power inevitably leads to exploitation of labor by capital (he wasn't wrong, i.e. Guilded Age). This became the basis for a lot of Marx's work.

*Though as time has gone on, I think he might have been totally right about how capitalism would inevitably kill itself. It's just not going to happen in any of the ways he thought it might.

He, Karl Marx, might have been right about the downfall of Capitalism? This is the guy who espoused a system so inept and corrupt in nature that it had the shelf life of not even a Twinkie? Please! Capitalism will be the only man standing, take a look around actually and do a study of how it works, or is supposed to work in it's purest form without political manipulation. The only other option is governmental guidance, i.e. socialism or communism...or worse...and communism is done, put a fork in it and socialism is breaking the global bank as it tries to get a universal Kumbayah going...sorry, it's not a zero sum game, it never has been, but Capitalism and the free markets...not anywhere near the myth you like to claim...is the only way forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. A...Yes! In my early points I stated the pollution of the free market by governments/corporations/etc. as a distorter of the FM system. Human involvement unfortunately brings that corruption as luggage, but as a model, free markets are unparalleled in their efficiency and ability to produce wealth. That stands.

So a model regarding human activity, which is necessarily distorted by that activity, stands?

That seems overly idealistic.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. B...I rejected your ideas of appointing government as the picker of winners and losers. A safety net does not compete with the free market.

I never claimed that the government should pick winners and losers, I claimed that it does so by its mere existence.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You think government, investing only in technology that suits it's needs would have accomplished this? Not a chance.

Will you please review my initial points. You've come around to arguing against yourself right now.

And while you're at it, review your initial comments. You advocated, in no unqualified manner, that government...because who else would you be referring to...should step in and level the playing field for the "losers". Socialism at it's finest. There's no grey area in your comments.

Please find something fresh or relevant to say, you're wasting time at this point and talking in circles. Sorry, but you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Labor is a tool. Nothing more. I'm not being cold, just factual.

I think its pretty cold to view people as tools. Of course, going forward most labor is automated, so it will be cold, highly factual, and tools! At least until Skynet takes over, and objects to being called a tool by launching nuclear missiles at us.

I'm pointing out the driver behind Capitalism and the creation of wealth in a free market system.

It's not one or the other. Investment organizes. Labor produces. Both drive the creation of wealth. It's a marriage. They both need each other for what they have to be of real use.

BTW, using Marx as an example of anything successful is not such a good idea. Track record of longevity, or lack thereof, ya know.

I didn't say he was successful. By and large I think most of Marx's ideas have failed to pan out*. I'm pointing out many of his theories on labor were based in the work of Adam Smith, own work is probably even more distorted in the modern age than Marx's. Smith postulated that in his economic principals, there was a problem that would inevitably rise between sources of capital and sources of labor. This idea is now called the inequality of bargaining power. Marx took this idea, and proposed that the inequality of bargaining power inevitably leads to exploitation of labor by capital (he wasn't wrong, i.e. Guilded Age). This became the basis for a lot of Marx's work.

*Though as time has gone on, I think he might have been totally right about how capitalism would inevitably kill itself. It's just not going to happen in any of the ways he thought it might.

He, Karl Marx, might have been right about the downfall of Capitalism? This is the guy who espoused a system so inept and corrupt in nature that it had the shelf life of not even a Twinkie? Please! Capitalism will be the only man standing, take a look around actually and do a study of how it works, or is supposed to work in it's purest form without political manipulation. The only other option is governmental guidance, i.e. socialism or communism...or worse...and communism is done, put a fork in it and socialism is breaking the global bank as it tries to get a universal Kumbayah going...sorry, it's not a zero sum game, it never has been, but Capitalism and the free markets...not anywhere near the myth you like to claim...is the only way forward.

I totally gummed up the responses, please see the text at the end of your relevant quotes.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
He, Karl Marx, might have been right about the downfall of Capitalism?

I think he might have been on to it. We'll have to wait and see if any of it pans out at all.

Marx theorized that capital would inevitably invest increasing amounts of their profits into technology, marginalizing the share of wealth generation that entered the hands of labor. This has happened. We can already observe that. It started in Marx's time and continues to this day. However, Marx thought that the inequity of the system would eventually cause a mass uprising of the working class, spurring them to seize control of the means of production and through some very ill defined process, produce a utopian society devoid of inequality. That obviously didn't happen. There was no global uprising of workers. I think Marx underestimated that the emergence of unions and socialism in politics and industry in the Western World would ultimately be so successful in redressing many of the most obvious and gross inequalities he observed in his own era. Its not hard to see why he thought Revolution was inevitable. His time was filled with political uprisings and upheaval throughout Europe.

I think though that his base premise, that increasing investment would inevitably be capitalism's end, may have more merit. It's already possible to see a future where automation takes over the bulk of industry, and capitalism as we know it doesn't function in an environment where capital becomes labor (in the form of automation). Marx thought the reverse would happen (that labor would become capital via revolution).

This is the guy who espoused a system so inept and corrupt in nature that it had the shelf life of not even a Twinkie?

There's nothing particularly corrupt about Marx's idea of communism (especially since at its nuts and bolts, its very vague past the "revolution" part). Marx denied that Communism was a state of affairs, or status quo. He rather used the term to collectively refer to a sort of economic end game that was an inevitable result of capitalist economies. It bares little resemblance to many of the command economies that rose in the 20th century and took the name "Communist" to describe themselves. As a basic example, Marx envisioned the communism as a democratic society subject to universal suffrage. The USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. None of them were/are democracies, and they largely denounce democracy as a tool of capitalism to keep the working class fooled. Marx laid the seed for that later thought in his own description of Alienation in society, but it's not a critique he directed at democracy, but rather at Labor itself. Marx further differentiated between the nationalization of production (command economy), and the socialization of production (worker owned economy). Pretty much every Communist state got started by nationalizing its economy under the "Stewardship" of a political elite. Marx actually considered nationalization a simple continuation of capitalism by other means. It was an obstacle he saw in the eventual formation of Communism, one he never seems to have formulated a concise solution for.

I think there's a great argument to be made that there is no solution, and thus Marx's idea of the Communist Revolution is functionally a dead end that can only result in what he called "State Capitalism." One of the most curious things about the communist states that rose in the 20th century is that they didn't emerge from strong capitalist economies. They emerged from very agrarian, underdeveloped quasi-Feudal and mercantile economies that latched onto the optimistic ideal of revolution as a means to resolve the inequality of their societies (Didn't exactly work out did it?). It's one of the reasons the rapid industrialization of Soviet Russia was so shocking to the world. No one expected the Russian Empire, technologically and economically behind its peers for many decades by the time it fell, to suddenly become so strong. It was so shocking everyone missed when that growth completely stuttered out in the 60s, and Soviet Russia went back to being decades behind its peers before its own fall in the early 90s.

And, you do realize he wrote a lot more than the Communist Manifesto? His work on Value Theory is still relevant today, after having previously overridden that of Smith and Ricardo. He's one of the fathers of Sociology, and his influence in Political Science is profound. Especially in history, his break from the "Great Men of History" model to describe past events as the produce of Class Struggle was incredibly significant. Marxist History isn't very popular in the field anymore, but many historians do occasionally bounce back to his models when examining class struggles and economics. His theories on Communism are a very small faction of his work.

it's purest form without political manipulation.

There's not such thing. It's an ideological myth.

it's not a zero sum game

If you recognize its not a zero sum game, why are you so keen to treat it as such?

 reds8n wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Definitely the latter. I want single payer, or at least something close to it - epipens are $100 in Canada and the price hasn't budged in years.

I'd also like to see, much like Canada, stricter controls - nearly a ban, really - on drug advertisements. It's out of control.

https://www.treated.com/allergies/epipen

https://onlinedoctor.lloydspharmacy.com/uk/allergy/epipen


about £50 -- $66 odd --- over here.

And I believe if you are diabetic you will get the pen and insulin for free as Diabetes is on the list of long term health problems which gets you free medication, even for other unrelated problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


And the "first world medical system" nomenclature is ridiculous.

Cost is an issue... yes. But, the level of care is not.

If your system is too expensive for people of all incomes to receive equal access to the levels of care then your system is not to a first world standard.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Will you please review my initial points. You've come around to arguing against yourself right now.

No, I haven't. I'm arguing against some of the positions that your objectivist ideology requires me to have because I can point out the holes in your reasoning. I can do this because I'm not an ideologue, and can therefore have nuanced beliefs.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

And while you're at it, review your initial comments. You advocated, in no unqualified manner, that government...because who else would you be referring to...should step in and level the playing field for the "losers". Socialism at it's finest. There's no grey area in your comments.

Yes, that is socialism. We've already established that socialist policies are required in a capitalist society. You even admitted as much when you said societies based on the free market include a social safety net, as a rule.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

He, Karl Marx, might have been right about the downfall of Capitalism? This is the guy who espoused a system so inept and corrupt in nature that it had the shelf life of not even a Twinkie?

So, slightly less than eternity? You cannot hurt a Twinkie, silly customer.

And he didn't espouse that, as the Hat has said his work was entirely distinct from the systems which claimed (or were claimed) to rise in his name.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Capitalism will be the only man standing, take a look around actually and do a study of how it works, or is supposed to work in it's purest form without political manipulation.

So, barbarism? A society that inevitably led to people forming groups, and therefore politics of differing sorts, and manipulating the system into one which eventually became capitalistic?

I mean really, the evolution of the "state of nature" concept pretty well covers this. It's only people that reach back to Hobbes and assume people don't like to socialize, or need to for population diversity, that latch onto the idea that political manipulation can not exist.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

The only other option is governmental guidance...

Government guidance is inevitable. Even a corporate oligarchy is a form of government.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Will you please review my initial points. You've come around to arguing against yourself right now.

No, I haven't. I'm arguing against some of the positions that your objectivist ideology requires me to have because I can point out the holes in your reasoning. I can do this because I'm not an ideologue, and can therefore have nuanced beliefs.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

And while you're at it, review your initial comments. You advocated, in no unqualified manner, that government...because who else would you be referring to...should step in and level the playing field for the "losers". Socialism at it's finest. There's no grey area in your comments.

Yes, that is socialism. We've already established that socialist policies are required in a capitalist society. You even admitted as much when you said societies based on the free market include a social safety net, as a rule.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

He, Karl Marx, might have been right about the downfall of Capitalism? This is the guy who espoused a system so inept and corrupt in nature that it had the shelf life of not even a Twinkie?

So, slightly less than eternity? You cannot hurt a Twinkie, silly customer.

And he didn't espouse that, as the Hat has said his work was entirely distinct from the systems which claimed (or were claimed) to rise in his name.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Capitalism will be the only man standing, take a look around actually and do a study of how it works, or is supposed to work in it's purest form without political manipulation.

So, barbarism? A society that inevitably led to people forming groups, and therefore politics of differing sorts, and manipulating the system into one which eventually became capitalistic?

I mean really, the evolution of the "state of nature" concept pretty well covers this. It's only people that reach back to Hobbes and assume people don't like to socialize, or need to for population diversity, that latch onto the idea that political manipulation can not exist.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

The only other option is governmental guidance...

Government guidance is inevitable. Even a corporate oligarchy is a form of government.

Pt. A Objectionist vs. subjectionist? Okay, so who's subjectivity will be the arbiter in this Utopian society you paint? Yours? A faceless committee's? A government cabinet Tsar? Don't leave decisions in the hands of the actual market, let a kindly, benevolent bureaucrat guide us to the promised land where we can all drink milk and honey. Oh, come on! Here's the gaping hole in your argument. You'd trade an imperfect...everything, btw...objectionist stance for a subjective one where all kinds of prejudice, bias, political nonsense can run rampant? No thanks. That's a nonstarter. That leads to lovely outcomes such as communism and tyranny. You've lost this one.

Pt. B Please don't deflect from the point I'm making. Your idea of socialism puts the government in the business of dictating winners and losers in the market. That is not, and never has been, government's job. The social safety net prescribed in many Capitalist works does not interfere or compete in the market dynamics. Learn the immense difference, please.

Pt. C(not Twinkie C, the other C) Barbarism is actually your response? Please plug the hole in that bleeding heart. Large swaths of the world have not advanced forward...out of barbarism...at the pace it has without the introduction of a free market system. This isn't even up for debate.

Pt. D Please see point one. You want POTUS Trump guiding you and the market? Have fun with that. It is not inevitable. It is a lie perpetrated by politicians pandering to their constituents with what they want to hear. Please review Milton Friedman's comments on the effectiveness...or absolute lack thereof...of many, if not all, government run social programs.