Medium, I'd say...not multinationals or anything, but definitely not corner shops.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 5:35 amWere the private companies big corporations or small businesses.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 1:20 amI've worked for private companies, and I've worked for the government. So I've seen both sides.
Is Big Pharma Ethical in Effectively Dictating Health-Affordability to a Nation's Populace (via its government)?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Is Big Pharma Ethical in Effectively Dictating Health-Affordability to a Nation's Populace (via its government)?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is Big Pharma Ethical in Effectively Dictating Health-Affordability to a Nation's Populace (via its government)?
So, if it's not a traditionally money-based economy, there are no costs for the equipment, the medicines, etc.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 3:23 pm The doctor has costs: his equipment, the medicines he issues, his time and energy.
There is time and energy, of course, but the motivation there is the access to scarcer resources. Again, I'd exploit the competitive drive for scarcer resources.
It would only be "controlled" in that cooperative efforts/more ingenuity towards providing the stuff that people want is what gets access to the scarcer resources. It's an improvement because it's a concerted, organized effort to provide the stuff that people want and need, where helping other people meet that becomes the currency (and the competition). You don't gain anything by crippling anyone, crippling any businesses, etc. You only gain by doing more to help as many people as possible acquire what they want and need.In your system (may I call it socialism?) someone else controls the menu of products or services the doc can access if he meets his quota.
Re: Is Big Pharma Ethical in Effectively Dictating Health-Affordability to a Nation's Populace (via its government)?
Socialism. That is the cure.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is Big Pharma Ethical in Effectively Dictating Health-Affordability to a Nation's Populace (via its government)?
So, if it's not a traditionally money-based economy, there are no costs for the equipment, the medicines, etc.
So somebody has to design the equipment, gather the materials used in the equipment, maintain it, etc.
And all them folks need food, shelter, etc,
And everyone in the chain -- from the first to recognize the need for a device, clear thru to the actual user and the beneficiary of the device -- along with basic needs -- also has wants and agendas and desires, some goin' well beyond access to resources or rare resources (though many will need those resources to accomplish whatever it they're tryin' for). You would, as you say exploit the competitive drive for scarcer resources. meaning you'd control the resources and hence control the people.
It would only be "controlled" in that cooperative efforts/more ingenuity towards providing the stuff that people want is what gets access to the scarcer resources. It's an improvement because it's a concerted, organized effort to provide the stuff that people want and need, where helping other people meet that becomes the currency (and the competition). You don't gain anything by crippling anyone, crippling any businesses, etc. You only gain by doing more to help as many people as possible acquire what they want and need.
And, once more, to be free you must give up freedom.
The glory of free enterprise is there are no masters.
The downfall of state capitalism is inclusion of the State as overseer.
The horror of your system is the State as master.
With free enterprise there are natural monopolies that rise and fall solely on how well, and economically, each provides a service or product.
In a state capitalism there are artificial monopolies, backed by the State, makin' livin' difficult.
In your system the State is the unassailable monopoly, all things extendin' from it, all tribute flowin' to it.
You want Hell.
To severely paraphrase Bastiat: if it is not permissible to allow men to transact freely, becuz of the inherent unequal access to resource an unregulated market creates, then how much finer these overseers, these regulators, of the market must be! These new masters, untroubled by want, desire, and agenda, surely these men and women who would so benignly rule must be a finer clay!
So somebody has to design the equipment, gather the materials used in the equipment, maintain it, etc.
And all them folks need food, shelter, etc,
And everyone in the chain -- from the first to recognize the need for a device, clear thru to the actual user and the beneficiary of the device -- along with basic needs -- also has wants and agendas and desires, some goin' well beyond access to resources or rare resources (though many will need those resources to accomplish whatever it they're tryin' for). You would, as you say exploit the competitive drive for scarcer resources. meaning you'd control the resources and hence control the people.
It would only be "controlled" in that cooperative efforts/more ingenuity towards providing the stuff that people want is what gets access to the scarcer resources. It's an improvement because it's a concerted, organized effort to provide the stuff that people want and need, where helping other people meet that becomes the currency (and the competition). You don't gain anything by crippling anyone, crippling any businesses, etc. You only gain by doing more to help as many people as possible acquire what they want and need.
And, once more, to be free you must give up freedom.
The glory of free enterprise is there are no masters.
The downfall of state capitalism is inclusion of the State as overseer.
The horror of your system is the State as master.
With free enterprise there are natural monopolies that rise and fall solely on how well, and economically, each provides a service or product.
In a state capitalism there are artificial monopolies, backed by the State, makin' livin' difficult.
In your system the State is the unassailable monopoly, all things extendin' from it, all tribute flowin' to it.
You want Hell.
To severely paraphrase Bastiat: if it is not permissible to allow men to transact freely, becuz of the inherent unequal access to resource an unregulated market creates, then how much finer these overseers, these regulators, of the market must be! These new masters, untroubled by want, desire, and agenda, surely these men and women who would so benignly rule must be a finer clay!
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon May 17, 2021 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.