Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let's get this party started again, because I have yet to hear a response to the following:

I've am already in full agreement with you on inflacted demand resulting from insurance. I thought I made that clear many posts ago.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
don't pretend that there is not rampant predatory pricing.

Time to play antitrust timmy:

Companies are not engaging in predatory pricing when they charge high prices. Predatory pricing is charging prices below some measure of cost in the hopes of driving out a competitor so that prices may later be raised.

What drug companies engage in is monopoly pricing, when they have a patent monopoly. And they may also engage in price discrimination, as when they charge some consumers higher prices than others (e.g., US vs. Canada, insured vs. uninsured). And some might call such high pricing "price gouging," but that's not illegal except in some backwards states in an emergency, and generally is applied to necessities such as plywood and gasoline.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've am already in full agreement with you on inflacted demand resulting from insurance. I thought I made that clear many posts ago.

Yes. Sorry. Next step. How can you say that competition under this artificially inflated demand is unambiguously better than additional demand-side pricing pressure in the form of monopsonistic buying by the government?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes. Sorry. Next step. How can you say that competition under this artificially inflated demand is unambiguously better than additional demand-side pricing pressure in the form of monopsonistic buying by the government?

I think we are looking at this from two different vantage points. You seemed to be concerned on a drug by drug basis - if pharma has a monopoly on drug A, then the market for drug A is inefficient. I am viewing this an industry level - it does not matter all that much whether pharma has a monopoloy on drug A, as long as it does not also have a monopoloy on drugs B C and D, because it allows pharma to greater subsidize R&D research on drugs similar to B C and D, as well as future drugs.

Question on your point regarding price descrimination. Couldn't this also be viewed as simply the company setting prices to meet demand in market 2? We've already agreed that demand in the US is artificially higher due to insurance subsidization, so it makes perfect sense that prices in the US would also be higher.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
"Net social utility" is another word for government controls of markets, because, in essense, you believe that men are better than markets at determining the optimals involved. I do not share this belief and history is clearly and unequivacally on my side on this.

This is an argument tactic that I just can't stand --- the pretense that what you are arguing against would constitute "government control of markets" (i.e., "socialism"), while what you are arguing for constitutes pure free enterprise.

When the government prohibits companies from making competitive products because of patent rights, that is a government control of the market, no less or more so than when the government sets price ceilings or subsidies. When the government prohibits people from importing competing products, that too is government control over the market.

Government control may have net beneficial effects, or net detrimental effects, but stop pretending that the current system is "free enterprise".

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Time to play antitrust timmy:

Companies are not engaging in predatory pricing when they charge high prices. Predatory pricing is charging prices below some measure of cost in the hopes of driving out a competitor so that prices may later be raised.

Damn.

Sorry, club.

Let me amend my prior post to say that "Drug companies will indeed, set monopoly prices and price gouge at every opportunity as if they were predators and the consumers were prey."

So, let's not pretend that "Drug companies will NOT set monopoly prices and price gouge at every opportunity as if they were predators and the consumers were prey."


I think I'll just have to be quiet for the rest of the day.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think we are looking at this from two different vantage points. You seemed to be concerned on a drug by drug basis - if pharma has a monopoly on drug A, then the market for drug A is inefficient. I am viewing this an industry level - it does not matter all that much whether pharma has a monopoloy on drug A, as long as it does not also have a monopoloy on drugs B C and D, because it allows pharma to greater subsidize R&D research on drugs similar to B C and D, as well as future drugs.

Question on your point regarding price descrimination. Couldn't this also be viewed as simply the company setting prices to meet demand in market 2? We've already agreed that demand in the US is artificially higher due to insurance subsidization, so it makes perfect sense that prices in the US would also be higher.

On para 1, I don't think it matters. There are distortions in each individual submarket, meaning the entire market is distorted. My basic point is that in a market or markets with non-market distortions can be made more efficient through the use of additional (otherwise) distorting mechanisms in some instances. For example, a monopolist can charge supracompetitive prices to a bunch of consumers. But if there's only one consumer, say a beef processing co. or a gov't entity, negotiating on behalf of a bunch of people, they can force those prices back down to competitive levels. Now, in a competitive market, allowing a single payor would suppress competition, but we're not in a competitive market, so it may not be a bad thing.

On para. 2, price discrimination is not viewed as necessarily bad, at least under current antitrust law. There are plenty of pro-competitive justifications for it, one of which is that it allows a company to sell to consumers who otherwise couldn't afford it if there were a uniform price. In fact, with perfect price discrimination, there is no deadweight loss to society because everybody pays exactly what the product is worth to them. Nonetheless, the ability to discriminate on price suggests there is some market power, and the existence of market power suggests teh possibility of inefficiency.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Let me amend my prior post to say that "Drug companies will indeed, set monopoly prices and price gouge at every opportunity as if they were predators and the consumers were prey."

Yes, but will drug companies invent a pill that will revive a dead horse? 'Cause I think that would fill a need here.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but will drug companies invent a pill that will revive a dead horse? 'Cause I think that would fill a need here.

Dude, took one this morning. But it's worn off, so I'm done. I commend to anyone interested The Antitrust Paradox by Robert Bork.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This is an argument tactic that I just can't stand --- the pretense that what you are arguing against would constitute "government control of markets" (i.e., "socialism"), while what you are arguing for constitutes pure free enterprise.

When the government prohibits companies from making competitive products because of patent rights, that is a government control of the market, no less or more so than when the government sets price ceilings or subsidies. When the government prohibits people from importing competing products, that too is government control over the market.

Government control may have net beneficial effects, or net detrimental effects, but stop pretending that the current system is "free enterprise".

Sidd, you've been gone for a while but the old rules still hold. Scroll then post.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sidd, you've been gone for a while but the old rules still hold. Scroll then post.

I've gotten to the end and still not seen you acknowledge the reality -- that you do like some government controls on the free market, even if like to pretend that you don't.

Care to point me to the post I missed?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I've gotten to the end and still not seen you acknowledge the reality -- that you do like some government controls on the free market, even if like to pretend that you don't.

Which is why the bronco is still bucking.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

This quote --

"It's something that I've wanted ever since Day One, and it's happening," McCorvey said from her Dallas home.

-- is interesting on two levels. First, as late as 1990, Norma was speaking at pro-choice rallies and screaming about how much she hated the anti-abortion movement. (She was a pretty fiery speaker.) So she has a pretty odd definition of "Day One." Unless by "Day One" she means the day she became Born Again.

On the other hand, the quote would seem to constitute an admission that she sat on her "rights" for 10, if not 30, years.

But I guess that's okay in the Fifth Circuit, as long as you're not trying to do something silly like avoid execution.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oh, for fuck's sake.

This quote --



-- is interesting on two levels. First, as late as 1990, Norma was speaking at pro-choice rallies and screaming about how much she hated the anti-abortion movement. (She was a pretty fiery speaker.) So she has a pretty odd definition of "Day One." Unless by "Day One" she means the day she became Born Again.

On the other hand, the quote would seem to constitute an admission that she sat on her "rights" for 10, if not 30, years.

But I guess that's okay in the Fifth Circuit, as long as you're not trying to do something silly like avoid execution.

It's pretty remarkable. Even the DA (or whatever it is who's being sued) didn't file a brief in the circuit.

But let me ask this, since news sources are rarely reliable on the point, as I interpret it, the 5th circuit simply said we're not going to dismiss the appeal out of hand and we'll hear oral argument on it. Isn't it quite a step to get past that point? I mean, as a judge I might like to get McCorvey's lawyer up there just to toy with 'em.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I've gotten to the end and still not seen you acknowledge the reality -- that you do like some government controls on the free market, even if like to pretend that you don't.

Care to point me to the post I missed?

I agreed with Ty that his net social utility statement was absolutely correct, assuming we were in a monopoly situation. and if it makes you feel any better, I freely acknowledge that certain government controls have a net positive effect on markets, though I'm not convinced that a private party could not provide the same check.