This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 107108109 110111 ... 502
3241
« on: September 22, 2015, 04:33:24 PM »
I'm currently backing Jeb Bush. If his polls don't pick up soon, however, and he remains in the doldrums--or pulls out--I'll transfer to Rubio.
3242
« on: September 22, 2015, 04:27:48 PM »
No I won't, because he is offline.
3243
« on: September 22, 2015, 04:26:53 PM »
you should make it so we can change our votes, bro
i'm not sure how much longer i can support sanders
i realized i forgot to check that after i made it FUCK
can someone lock this and i'll just make another
Just edit the OP to nonsense and I'll PM psych.
3244
« on: September 22, 2015, 04:26:29 PM »
i'm not sure how much longer i can support sanders
one of us
3245
« on: September 22, 2015, 04:18:01 PM »
first it was just a couple users, now it's a bunch of people
Did you disable Imgur script permission due to the security breach?
3246
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:49:44 PM »
Because we're cunts.
Well, yeah. But I'm interested in making it work, not wishing things were different in some abstract way.
3247
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:46:24 PM »
That should be satisfactory enough.
Unfortunately we don't live in a world where cost is a fiction, and we can all link arms around a tree singing Kumbaya.
3248
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:41:43 PM »
I suppose the hundreds of thousands of people dying to cross the Mediterranean to escape Syria isn't enough?
You stupid fucking hick.
3249
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:14:49 PM »
not fucking profits The two are not diametrically opposed.
they sure as shit ought to be
Sorry, the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry isn't constrained by your irrational hatred of profits. If it works, who cares? When it doesn't, fix it. Profit is a morally neutral phenomenon.
3250
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:14:00 PM »
So why is his company the only one that can make this pill?
They have the manufacturing license.
Alright, break this shit down barney style, 'cause it's not something I know shit about.
The drug is incredibly niche, so nobody other than the manufacturers creates it. There is no generic version of Daraprim, so when Turing Pharmaceuticals AG managed to obtain the manufacturing license they had a monopoly on it.
3251
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:09:44 PM »
not fucking profits
The two are not diametrically opposed.
3252
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:09:18 PM »
So why is his company the only one that can make this pill?
They have the manufacturing license.
3253
« on: September 22, 2015, 03:01:39 PM »
Patenting medicine really shouldn't be a thing.
It's supposed to be an incentive to innovate medicine. Whether it works or not? I have no idea.
It doesn't.
You're doing that just to annoy me.
3254
« on: September 22, 2015, 02:57:34 PM »
Patenting medicine really shouldn't be a thing.
It's supposed to be an incentive to innovate medicine. Whether it works or not? I have no idea.
It does.
3255
« on: September 22, 2015, 02:57:18 PM »
Patenting medicine really shouldn't be a thing.
1. This has absolutely nothing to do with patents. 2. Yes it should, the whole idea of patents is to incentivise production in industries with high development costs.
3256
« on: September 22, 2015, 02:29:03 PM »
Just got a fucking ad on Youtube which was thirty seconds long and I couldn't skip it.
Fuck that shit.
3257
« on: September 22, 2015, 01:32:23 PM »
This was also in Nuka's thread, which a lot of people seem to be missing: “It requires a lot of attention and focus. The drug company needs to partner with the patients and make sure that it’s a very cared for community. And that costs a lot of money too,” pointing out that the company also “gives away” the drug for $1 for those who can’t afford it.
3258
« on: September 22, 2015, 01:31:17 PM »
Remove money. Problem solved.
I'm fairly confident you don't, in fact, believe it is really that simple.
3259
« on: September 22, 2015, 11:31:04 AM »
because the bottom line is that he shouldn't have raised the price to begin with Sure, but that's the problem with monopolies. You don't need to be anti-capitalist to hate monopolies and want to rectify them; such a situation can occur in either market or non-market frameworks. If you control distribution totally, you can twist people's arms no matter the economy in which you operate. You can argue the regulatory burden is the more salient one, and I won't have much to say to that. I don't really know which is the more important; like I say, the regulatory burden exacerbates an already existing imbalance that makes it difficult or otherwise undesirable to produce generic drugs in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to the US government buying the manufacturing rights and then either distributing the drug themselves, or returning the rights to a non-profit manufacturer.
3260
« on: September 22, 2015, 11:21:35 AM »
so I don't know the intricacies between the same drug being used for two characteristically different conditions
The point is that drugs with an acceptable bioequivalence to Daraprim are already being used around the world, but not in the US precisely because the development and regulatory costs are so high relative to the tiny market it serves. I wouldn't be opposed to the US government forcefully buying the manufacturing rights and distributing it how they see fit; I doubt it wouldn't harm the pharmaceutical market too much, since stocks have already dived in anticipation of a government response.
3261
« on: September 22, 2015, 11:18:24 AM »
I'm saying there shouldn't have to be other companies in the first place to undercut him. What? There weren't; that's what makes him a monopolist. We are now obliged to put in the effort in creating a generic drug, all because of this fuckhead.
As I've noted, this has very little to do with the market as an inherently flawed system and more to do with the fact that this drug is incredibly niche by way of treating rare diseases, and the regulatory burden in the US when it comes to getting generic drugs through the FDA.
3262
« on: September 22, 2015, 11:14:33 AM »
You cannot say that this is not a kink in a free market system when the problem arises from no competitors choosing to compete. I'm completely uninterested in whether or not it can or can't be considered free-market. At no point have I said there should be zero government involvement in the development or regulation of drugs. And no, the burden of government regulation is not optional. Medicine needs to be assured to work. Nobody is disagreeing with you; but this doesn't make FDA policy optimal, or automatically mean "the heavier the better". It takes about thirty months for a generic drug to pass through the ANDA scheme. This is, however you look at it, rather ridiculous. Especially since generic drugs of Daraprim are used all around the world as an antimalarial.
3263
« on: September 22, 2015, 11:06:59 AM »
This assumes the existence of competitors in a market with very well known and very substantial barriers of entry.
I've said several times now that the entire problem here is that Shkreli is abusing his position as a monopolist, because nobody has bothered to make a generic pyrimethamine drug. And you can't say that the barriers to entry only exist because of government regulation That and development costs. It's not controversial to state that the FDA is hawkish when it comes to drug trials, especially with generic drugs which have bio-equivalence.
3264
« on: September 22, 2015, 11:01:24 AM »
The underlying problem is the fact that we have a system that let's anyone with enough money hold PEOPLE'S LIVES for ransom in the first place
Why don't you tell me how you would organise the pharmaceutical industry then? Tell me how you would organise such a cost-intensive part of the economy so as to function efficiently without some kind of cost being incurred. I'd love to hear how you've reviewed all the healthcare literature from the WHO and MedPac, and are thus in a position to make such sweeping, ideological statements; I'm sure you wouldn't make such statements, unless you had a solid empirical understanding of what you're talking about. So, tell me all about how you would organise the biomedicial infrastructure of the US, how you would implement a superior system for the production and distribution of drugs and how you would accomplish such shockingly brilliant efficiency without the standard incentives which should be operating on pharma companies in some kind of market framework upheld by the government. But something tells me you haven't even bothered to do the slightest research, and have no idea what the fuck you're actually talking about.
3265
« on: September 22, 2015, 10:49:28 AM »
It shouldn't be a fucking competition.
Actually it should be; the entire problem here is that this one company has the sole rights to manufacture Daraprim.
3266
« on: September 22, 2015, 10:25:49 AM »
I normally try to avoid jumping on news bandwagons, but I can't think of a single legitimate reason for such an absurd price hike. He'll have to produce some very compelling profit data to justify this, because it sounds like fucking bullshit.
I remember reading that his justification was that this way he'd be able to pour that money back into more research on the drug. In response to this, people were pointing out that this is bullshit as the drug is hardly being researched as it is and that there's no evidence to support that he'd actually use the money for such a purpose.
It is bullshit. Drug production costs are ~$0.01 for Daraprim; Shkreli is just exploiting his monopoly on the manufacturing of the drug.
3267
« on: September 22, 2015, 10:22:47 AM »
Hold up, does Paul actually believe in reverting to a gold standard?
I know Papa Paul does, but I don't know about Baby Paul. I don't know of any other system to replace a central bank other than a reversion to the gold standard or having competition between currencies. He has spoken rather positively about a specie-backed currency though: Despite the stability of prices, however, Paul has gone even farther than some of his Republican colleagues, speaking approvingly of the gold standard. On the gold standard, a dollar was worth a fixed weight in gold, which at least ensured that the prices of other things wouldn't change much over the long term.
"We need to think about our currency that once upon a time had a link to a commodity, and I think we should study it," he said in 2013. He did not, however, advocate for a return to the gold standard, but only for a commission to study the idea.
3268
« on: September 22, 2015, 10:09:09 AM »
Milton Friedman (PBUH) supported replacing the Fed with a mathematics/computer-based system.
Friedman disavowed his prior policy recommendations when it came to Fed targeting the money supply later in life, but the idea of rules rather than discretion being used isn't taboo among economists. Many of them do indeed think monetary policy should be conducted along the lines of certain rules; but as you say, this isn't the same as actually abolishing the Fed and returning to a gold standard, or implementing a free banking system.
3269
« on: September 22, 2015, 09:40:04 AM »
I think he's going for the rationale that a free market will tend to correct problems naturally without government influence.
My point being very few economists agree with him, and the evidence for this is practically non-existent.
3270
« on: September 22, 2015, 09:11:47 AM »
Basically, we had a housing bubble due to a number of bad incentives and a poor regulatory structure, which was then popped when the fed began tightening in 2007 which led to a consumption shock. The Fed didn't offset this consumption shock, tightened even more and then plunged the country into an even deeper recession. Falling nGDP probably made the issue with toxic mortgage debt in the financial system worse, and the banking system began to collapse.
This is not a very convincing defense of the Fed.
It's not supposed to be; almost all Recessions are due to mistakes in monetary policy. It's also the case that almost all Recessions are solved by monetary stimulus. Paul has no evidence for this "homeostatic" correction mechanism, and thinking that because the Fed fails quite substantially numerous times we'd be better off without it is a dangerous idea at best.
Pages: 1 ... 107108109 110111 ... 502
|
Show Posts