@shavixmir saidFixed prices are just tyrannical means of artificially displacing consumer transactions of the consent of the producer and buyer for the imagination of the one setting the prices. They do not take in any part of the cost of production or supply chain realities and in all of human history, such attempts destroy the very thing they claim they want to protect.
Fixed prices protect consumers and/or producers.
For example: the fixed price of milk in the Netherlands (basically a minimum price) is there to guarantee farmers a living wage.
@KellyJay saidDidn't you guys just spend the last 4 years blaming Biden for not fixing inflation?
Fixed prices are just tyrannical means of artificially displacing consumer transactions of the consent of the producer and buyer for the imagination of the one setting the prices. They do not take in any part of the cost of production or supply chain realities and in all of human history, such attempts destroy the very thing they claim they want to protect.
@KellyJay saidTyrannical?
Fixed prices are just tyrannical means of artificially displacing consumer transactions of the consent of the producer and buyer for the imagination of the one setting the prices. They do not take in any part of the cost of production or supply chain realities and in all of human history, such attempts destroy the very thing they claim they want to protect.
Hahahah
@AverageJoe1 saidThere is no question there.
This is the question"To whom do we owe this guarantee, I ask.' My 4 year old would know that as a question.
Oh, can you answer it? 3 clicks back. You cannot answer it, and that is why you go smoke-screen with this nothing post.
Do't be late for debate class this morning, Professor Sonhouse is guest lecturer. Guess who the subject is!!!
Jesus. Ask a fvcking question!
@Cliff-Mashburn saidPatents are far more severe government intervention in the "free market" than enforcing antitrust provisions of existing laws as regards pricing - which is essentially what Harris proposed.
I liked it when Kamala said if someone was trying to make too much money from their patent, she would take it upon herself to "snatch them up" and make them government property.
I bet she wishes she hadn't said that now.
@AverageJoe1
Of course if 2025 DOES succeed you will be dancing in the street, right up to the time you finally realize the threat is real and we really are now in a REAL dictatorship and Trump announces himself King Trump, of course way too late at that point.
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
1 edit
@no1marauder saidPatent rights are the government protecting a person's ownership of their intellectual property.
Patents are far more severe government intervention in the "free market" than enforcing antitrust provisions of existing laws as regards pricing - which is essentially what Harris proposed.
Harris was proposing just stealing them for government use.
Straight up tyranny.
@Cliff-Mashburn said"Intellectual property" is an artificial construct.
Patent rights are the government protecting a person's ownership of their intellectual property.
Harris was proposing just stealing them for government use.
Straight up tyranny.
A patent is someone asking the government to grant them a monopoly enforced by the government against others. As such, the government should be free to set whatever conditions on them it wishes to serve the public good.
You have a strange idea of what is "stealing". Remove patent protection wouldn't be for the government to use but for other private enterprises. That would lead to increased competition and lower prices.
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@no1marauder saidThen why invent anything if you don't have the rights to it?
"Intellectual property" is an artificial construct.
A patent is someone asking the government to grant them a monopoly enforced by the government against others. As such, the government should be free to set whatever conditions on them it wishes to serve the public good.
You have a strange idea of what is "stealing". Remove patent protection wouldn't be for the gove ...[text shortened]... to use but for other private enterprises. That would lead to increased competition and lower prices.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidIf it's the same clip I saw then she's talking about pharmaceutical price gouging. The government has its tentacles so deep in there and most of the patent law benefits big pharma to an absurd degree.
I liked it when Kamala said if someone was trying to make too much money from their patent, she would take it upon herself to "snatch them up" and make them government property.
I bet she wishes she hadn't said that now.
There's a lot of complex issues with the patent system as it applies to drug development. Life and death treatments, regular incentives break down regarding pricing since people will literally pay anything. Many companies doing just a little bit of R&D, just enough to secure patents. Most of the hard work comes from research coming from nih-funded grants.
1 edit
@Cliff-Mashburn saidPatents have existed for a few hundred years, I think folks were inventing things before then.
Then why invent anything if you don't have the rights to it?
BTW, if you actually watch or read the transcript of Harris' remarks you mentioned, you'll see she was referring to patented drugs created due to federally funded research and development.
So even if you think that patents are a good idea in general, it's a bit different when you're talking about items that exist largely because of federal funding.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidI posted this in another thread but it's relevant here as well:
I liked it when Kamala said if someone was trying to make too much money from their patent, she would take it upon herself to "snatch them up" and make them government property.
I bet she wishes she hadn't said that now.
no1: The July 2023 KFF Tracking Poll finds three in four adults saying there is “not as much regulation as there should be” when it comes to limiting the price of prescription drugs. Majorities across partisans, including eight in ten Democrats
( 82% ), and about two-thirds of Republicans ( 68% ) and independents ( 67% ) say there is “not as much regulation as there should be” when it comes to limiting the price of prescription drugs.
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/
Let Trump and down ballot Republicans run against THAT.
That seems to be the plan now; calling her a "communist" for proposing measures that at least 2/3 of Americans of every political persuasion support (in principle anyway).
Good luck with that. What will Republicans say is their program to control drug prices?
1 edit
@KellyJay saidYes, the joy of escaping such awful "tyranny" by dying because you can't afford a lifesaving drug that is priced multiples higher in the US then in the rest of the advanced world:
Fixed prices are just tyrannical means of artificially displacing consumer transactions of the consent of the producer and buyer for the imagination of the one setting the prices. They do not take in any part of the cost of production or supply chain realities and in all of human history, such attempts destroy the very thing they claim they want to protect.
"According to a 2021 study by the RAND Corporation, a non-profit global policy think tank, prices of prescription drugs in the U.S. are 2.4 times higher than the average prices of nine other nations (Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). That higher cost is largely related to brand-name drugs, which are 4.9 times more expensive in the U.S. than in those countries. In fact, brand-name drugs are responsible for 84 percent of total drug costs in the United States despite accounting for only 8 percent of drugs dispensed."
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/11/[WORD TOO LONG].
EDIT: Goddamnit; another "Word too Long". It's from the article entitled "How Much Does the United States Spend on Prescription Drugs Compared to Other Countries?" at the website of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@no1marauder
Absolutely agree with putting a stop to prescription drug price gouging and price fixing between big pharma.
People with a copper deficiency had a med that they took daily, without it they'd die. Hardly anyone needed it, so the company that made decided to just boost it from a buck a day to 20 grand a month, thinking the insurance companies would cover it. They didn't,, and people died.
That should have instantly been stopped, but nobody did.
1 edit
@no1marauder
I guess he calls that free market capitalism eh, Couldn't POSSIBLY be price gouging could it🙂