J
- Status
B
BobCatholic
Guest
We don’t have capitalism, we have crony capitalism.
The government is stopping new entrants into the market, because of cronyism.
The government is stopping new entrants into the market, because of cronyism.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Even if you believe that “crony capitalism” isn’t capitalism (which I think comes from a faulty understanding of what capitalism is) you have to accept that even the “freest” form of capitalism will eventually lead to “cronyism.” If you allow capital to fall into fewer and fewer hands, something that will always ultimately occur under capitalism, then those who control capital will seek protection from the state.
The fact is that capitalism encourages businesses to do everything they can to get rid of competitors. Capitalism itself discourages the “free market” that so many right-libertarians fetishize. Mylan’s monopoly is an unavoidable product of allowing individuals to accumulate indefinite amounts of capital. If you can profit from influencing the state to get rid of competitors, why wouldn’t you do that? And even if you don’t do that, one of your competitors might.
The only solution to “crony capitalism” is to abolish capitalism entirely.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
No. The solution to crony capitalism is to abolish corrupt politicians. Start with an immediate death penalty for corruption and enforce it regardless of the power of the politician and their party.
Then shrink the government. Big government exists only to enrich cronies. Big government gives politicians lots of power. So reduce the power of politicians by shrinking the size of government. If they have no power to sell, corporations have nothing to buy from them.
Government is not a “non for profit” institution. Politicians and their cronies profit off of it for centuries.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
“The economist looks for competitors in cases like this. A firm cannot just willy-nilly raise their prices without a competing firm leaping in to give consumers what they want at a lower price. As it turns out, Mylan has a great friend who keeps would-be competitors out of the market, or at least makes it so difficult for them that they eventually go out of business. That friend is the FDA.”
Source
In any case, it turns out that Mylan now intends to compete with itself by offering a generic version of the Epipen at half the price of the branded version. But there is still room for more competitors to get in–if they can get past the FDA.
Source
In any case, it turns out that Mylan now intends to compete with itself by offering a generic version of the Epipen at half the price of the branded version. But there is still room for more competitors to get in–if they can get past the FDA.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
Of course, the best solution to this kind of problem, is to ban any human sinners from having anything to do with either business or government. We could even enforce that on pain of death. Very soon enough we won’t have any more crony capitalism, since we won’t have any people left on the Earth.
B
Book_Worm
Guest
The idea that Mylan is justified in raising its prices because it “can” glosses over the fact that companies have an ethical obligation not only to its stakeholders but to society in general. Passing the blame to Obama because he incentivized schools to stock EpiPens (and thereby save lives) is at best disingenuous.
Am I the only person around here who remembers how grateful this country was because the FDA’s Dr. Frances Kelsey refused to approve Thalidomide for use in the U.S. even though it was used in many other countries? How many babies would have been born deformed if we didn’t have this type of government “interference?”
The EpiPen itself owes its existence to government funding for its research and development.
As the grandmother of a small DGS who is probably alive today because of two emergency uses of the EpiPen, I am eternally grateful that we have Big Government who can and does pay for life-saving research that develops products like this, while Big Pharma accepts government grants and then turns around and prices the product out of the reach of many poor people. (And then points to these price increases as the result of Obamacare!).
BTW, my daughter got two new EpiPens yesterday; the price was $835, not $600+. For a product that costs less than $20 to manufacture.
Am I the only person around here who remembers how grateful this country was because the FDA’s Dr. Frances Kelsey refused to approve Thalidomide for use in the U.S. even though it was used in many other countries? How many babies would have been born deformed if we didn’t have this type of government “interference?”
The EpiPen itself owes its existence to government funding for its research and development.
As the grandmother of a small DGS who is probably alive today because of two emergency uses of the EpiPen, I am eternally grateful that we have Big Government who can and does pay for life-saving research that develops products like this, while Big Pharma accepts government grants and then turns around and prices the product out of the reach of many poor people. (And then points to these price increases as the result of Obamacare!).
BTW, my daughter got two new EpiPens yesterday; the price was $835, not $600+. For a product that costs less than $20 to manufacture.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Says who?
The purpose of a business is this: To make money for its owner(s). That’s it. It has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to be a charity. If it chooses to be charitable, that is its own decision, but it is not required in any way to do so.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
This is not the only reason for large government–if a reason at all. Much government regulation is the direct result of the bad behavior of many of the countries citizens–a problem not unique to the U.S. (take a look at those collapsed buildings in Italy that were supposed to be built to earthquake code but were not do to corrupt builders, inspectors and politicians). If people did not knowingly cut corners and build substandard and dangerous buildings in order to make a couple extra bucks–you wouldn’t need regulations to protect people from the unscrupulous. Let’s face it most of us aren’t qualified to judge if the construction is safe. If hucksters weren’t selling poison as medicine–we wouldn’t need all the stringent drug safety rules we have. We have large government and myriad regulation because in the quest for the almighty dollar–many businesses engage in selling dangerous if not deadly products. If we didn’t pollute without a care in the world (see things like the Cuyahoga River) we wouldn’t need clean air and water regulations. And one could go on.
We have large government largely because we won’t act responsibly–and without a wholesale reconversion --don’t expect this to change anytime soon–I’d say just expect it to get worse.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
B
Book_Worm
Guest
Who is asking Mylan to be charitable? Charging $600-800+ for a product that costs less than $20 to manufacture is price gouging, which is illegal in many states. I wouldn’t be surprised if federal price-gouging laws don’t result from this and the Turing price increases.
If corporations are people, then they certainly do have an obligation to act ethically.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
But a lot of the examples of “cronyism” given in that article do not fall under any common definition of corruption. How are you defining corruption here? The state (and obviously big businesses) benefit from “cronyism” without being explicitly corrupt.
How do you expect to shrink the government against the interests of both the state and big capital? How do you prevent capital from taking advantage of the state apparatus? Your suggestion seems very idealistic. It seems that you’re arguing that we just need the right politicians to come along who will “shrink the state” and prevent crony capitalism, but you’re forgetting that the reason politicians and capitalists resort to “cronyism” is because it’s in their interest. It’s a systematic issue, not a matter of individuals.
Yes. The state serves the interests of capital.
This seems like an odd defence of this behaviour, more of an argument against capitalism. I’m not sure it’s a position you agree with. How much can businesses get away with if it’s in their interest? If it’s more profitable for a business to use slaves, and the business does not feel charitable enough to release their slaves, is that okay?
I agree with you that a business will do everything it can to generate the maximum amount of profit for its owners regardless of the consequences for everyone else, but that’s a reason I’m opposed to capitalism. It’s strange that you take this position while being in favour of it.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
The business does have some obligation to society–especially if it received government funding of its research and was granted a patent or copyright to exclusively sell its product for a number of years, is allowed to have trademarks and corporate name protection etc. Those are benefits granted to it and protected by the government/society–those come with a cost. Most businesses use public roads, and depend on public services, police and fire protection, they avail themselves of courts of law, etc. These are paid for with taxpayer dollars–businesses have an obligation not only to their owners/shareholders–or they should not avail themselves of the benefits of the society they operate in. These benefits are greatly underestimated by many today.
I’m no fan of regulation and have a food product that I’d like to sell but the health regulations seem onerous to me–but I realize we have them because people cut corners and sell food that make people sick–sometimes deathly ill–it is unfortunate.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
D
David_Fortin
Guest
I would love to see a gallows built in capital hill! Even if it’s never used, it’ll serve as a reminder to our corrupt legislators, who their boss really is.
P
philipl
Guest
You’re wrong, pure capitalism spur new innovation which creates wealth. Under what poor form of economic system,
you would have man slave under there would never be an epi-pen. You seem to believe that people will become altruistic when you’re wonderland is finally created.
G
GEddie
Guest
Better yet, the guillotine.
Nothing so fearsome as the thought of losing your head!
Vive la Révolution!!!
R
Rau
Guest
That’s insufficient. Some markets will become concentrated with few suppliers. This can only be prevented with legal frameworks that “interfere” to prevent it.
Buyers are seriously disadvantaged when the suppliers are few, or there is a large “complexity” or knowledge imbalance between seller and buyer.
B
Book_Worm
Guest
Can you really say that pure capitalism created the EpiPen when government funded it’s research?
Oh, I forgot: government subsidies for poor individuals is bad; government subsidies for companies is good.
U
Upgrade25
Guest
G
GEddie
Guest
Subsiding research gets over “the hump” to the creation of new wealth, because some goods require high “upfront” costs that will not be amortized for years.
Conversely, subsidizing poverty leads only to more poverty.
ICXC NIKA
- Status