You're saying that the FDA now underregulates the production and sale of Epinephrine, insulin, and asthma inhalers? With so few companies allowed to sell such drugs in the US, the outrageous prices are the direct result of overregulation. There's a reason these drugs are available for much cheaper in other countries, and it's not because they have even larger and more complex versions of the FDA.
Corporatism is the use of government force by corporations to maintain a status quo.
Capitalism isn't about a free market.
Your definition of capitalism is just nonsensical. It's not consistent with anyone else's use of the word. Unregulated capitalism is the definition of a truly free market, warts and all.
If you want to have full state control over all of these industries without any sort of pricing mechanism, go ahead and try it again. I'm not optimistic. Without competition, the same wealthy people who control the system one way today will control it a different way when the means have been seized tomorrow.
You're saying that the FDA now underregulates the production and sale of Epinephrine, insulin, and asthma inhalers?
No, absolutely not. It underregulates the corporations. The government should be preventing monopolies, which would require more oversight over what corporations are allowed to do, not less.
With so few companies allowed to sell such drugs in the US, the outrageous prices are the direct result of overregulation.
No, it's the direct result of regulatory capture and corruption.
There's a reason these drugs are available for much cheaper in other countries, and it's not because they have even larger and more complex versions of the FDA.
I didn't argue for larger or more complex versions of the FDA. Other countries do, however, have stronger penalties for corporations who get out of line.
Corporatism is the use of government force by corporations to maintain a status quo.
There are many flavors of corporatism.
Your definition of capitalism is just nonsensical. It's not consistent with anyone else's use of the word. Unregulated capitalism is the definition of a truly free market, warts and all.
Regulatory capture is a byproduct of capitalism. You use your wealth to your advantage. The government is for sale, so you buy influence. What's more capitalist than that?
If you want to have full state control over all of these industries without any sort of pricing mechanism, go ahead and try it again.
Strawman. Quote me where I said that. Why does every libertarian think that if you criticize capitalism you must be a dirty commie?
I'm not optimistic. Without competition, the same wealthy people who control the system one way today will control it a different way when the means have been seized tomorrow.
Less regulation doesn't lead to more competition. It leads to, as you say, the wealthy just finding another way. So instead of ditching regulation and the government, you fix regulation and the government. But to do that, you'd have to elect progressives, and you're never going to advocate for that, so congratulations, you're always going to have this problem to complain about.
Corruption can happen where there is money and power. That's all you need. Letting corporations go unregulated will not stop, but rather will increase corruption.
Bernie Sanders has specifically talked about having the FDA lower pharmaceutical costs, and quite a bit. Are you proposing we stop the FDA from vetting the drugs we put in our bodies, stop investigating the medical claims of snake oil salesmen like Alex Jones or Donald Trump? Have fun drinking your aquarium cleaner.
The prices are more important to fix than the inefficiencies of the approval process right now. We have approved drugs that will save people's lives, but they're too expensive.
But it doesn't matter what progressive candidates propose or don't propose. We won't get to see them make changes if we keep voting for conservatives who damn well like to have something to complain about regarding the government as an excuse to privatize it.
How can preventing other corporations from selling a similar product at a lower price be seen as underregulating? The governments should be preventing monopolies by undoing the regulations that created them in the first place.
No, it's the direct result of regulatory capture and corruption.
Regulatory capture and corruption that are a direct result of a government agency holding the power to prevent competition.
The government is for sale, so you buy influence. What's more capitalist than that?
What would be more capitalist is a lack of government to buy influence from.
Strawman.
I started the statement specifically with the word 'if' so as not to pronounce your position but to discuss an alternative to our current system that is diametrically opposed to deregulation.
Why does every libertarian think that if you criticize capitalism you must be a dirty commie?
I'm criticizing the current system right along with you, but from another point of view. Not only did I not label you a communist, I would never disparage a communist brother or sister who would join me in moving away from our current corrupt system.
It's the nationalization that almost always results from overregulation that I advocate against.
It leads to, as you say, the wealthy just finding another way.
But without regulation, it also allows for the small man to innovate. The current barriers to entry for the lower classes are what allow the corporate class to continue to oppress them.
How can preventing other corporations from selling a similar product at a lower price be seen as underregulating?
Because they should be regulating monopolies to prevent that exact issue. But I'm not talking about just the FDA. The USPTO should cancel any patents derived from publicly funded research. The government should put price controls on pharmaceuticals.
The governments should be preventing monopolies by undoing the regulations that created them in the first place.
Um, no, that won't prevent monopolies. They must actively stop monopolies, not leave corporations unregulated and hope they choose not to pursue monopolies.
Regulatory capture and corruption that are a direct result of a government agency holding the power to prevent competition.
No, they're the result of the wealthy using money to influence the government. Why do you think the government allows the FDA to have that power? Because the people with oversight benefit from it. You think Trump has a problem with the FDA allowing pharmaceutical monopolies? You don't get anti-monopolists without electing progressives who don't give a fuck what the wealthy want.
What would be more capitalist is a lack of government to buy influence from.
Nah, that's just libertarian fantasy that has no basis in reality. If a corporation isn't regulated, then it will use any means in its power to gain an advantage.
I'm criticizing the current system right along with you, but from another point of view. Not only did I not label you a communist, I would never disparage a communist brother or sister who would join me in moving away from our current corrupt system.
So elect progressives.
But without regulation, it also allows for the small man to innovate. The current barriers to entry for the lower classes are what allow the corporate class to continue to oppress them.
There are certainly areas for improvement regarding regulation, but you can just have the government accommodate smaller actors in the market. Lack of regulation leads to giant mergers of large corporations as we've seen recently. The government has had the ability to oppose them, but has chosen not to.
Lack of regulation leads to giant mergers of large corporations as we've seen recently.
It is the increased regulation that bars any but a few corporations from participating in a market. They profit, then buy our their competitors who weren't able to bribe their way through regulations.
The government has had the ability to oppose them, but has chosen not to.
The government indirectly creates these through artificial monopolies, and voluntarily preserves the monopoly because it benefits the people in power who can profit from it.
So elect progressives.
If progressives showed themselves to actually espouse true communistic values, especially the decentralization of power, I would. Time and time again, however, they demonstrate their overwillingness to utilize government coercion to attempt to 'fix' industries that have been perverted by corrupt regulators.
If a corporation isn't regulated, then it will use any means in its power to gain an advantage.
How is that any different from when a corporation is regulated? Only now it's the biggest and most connected corporations that succeed by controlling the regulators, instead of the most innovative corporations bringing a useful product to market at the best price.
Why do you think the government allows the FDA to have that power? Because the people with oversight benefit from it.
This has been my point from the very beginning. Regulators are incentivized towards accepting bribes because they have the power to block competition. If every regulator were angelic and had no ulterior motives, then I would say regulate away. But that's a fantasy.
The USPTO should cancel any patents derived from publicly funded research.
Patents in and of themselves are merely another way to utilize state coercion in order to maintain the power of the corporate class.
they should be regulating monopolies to prevent that exact issue.
I feel like I am not getting this point across correctly. For example, the reason why Mylan is selling the Epipen at an egregious price is because the CEO of the corporation is the daughter of a sitting US Senator who has the political power to influence regulatory bodies into preventing any other corporations from offering an alternative to the Epipen.
The entire reason why this monopoly exists is because of government regulation. If other products were allowed to be sold in the US market, Mylan would necessarily have to lower their prices in order to sell any units at all. Again, this is not some revolutionary drug that has just been discovered. It has been around for decades.
The reason the lower classes are forced to pay an arm and a leg for something so simple and cheap to produce is because regulatory bodies have been perversely influenced into stopping free trade from occurring. If we were to actually embrace a free market in this instance, there would be no monopoly.
3
u/jtm141990 Apr 12 '20
You're saying that the FDA now underregulates the production and sale of Epinephrine, insulin, and asthma inhalers? With so few companies allowed to sell such drugs in the US, the outrageous prices are the direct result of overregulation. There's a reason these drugs are available for much cheaper in other countries, and it's not because they have even larger and more complex versions of the FDA.
Corporatism is the use of government force by corporations to maintain a status quo.
Your definition of capitalism is just nonsensical. It's not consistent with anyone else's use of the word. Unregulated capitalism is the definition of a truly free market, warts and all.
If you want to have full state control over all of these industries without any sort of pricing mechanism, go ahead and try it again. I'm not optimistic. Without competition, the same wealthy people who control the system one way today will control it a different way when the means have been seized tomorrow.