Because now pharmaceutical companies can make a hell of a profit.
And a whole bunch of other emoticons that express how bass-ackwards this is.
The joys of a free market economy
I'm gonna start hoarding it from all those compound pharmacy things so that I can help pregnant ladies!
They also have a large and growing parasite in them.
They also have a large and growing parasite in them.
Yeah, but the little bugger is well protected. And you know, I am turned on by the lady, not the parasite.
Good for you. I am disturbed by the parasite. Also, I don't like fat chicks.
I'm totally with HS on this one
He didn't take any position accept say it is weird without explaning why it is.
are you a goldo?
I'm totally with HS on this one
He didn't take any position accept say it is weird without explaning why it is.
What didn't you get? Fat chicks with parasites in them are weird and disturbing... not sexy.
I'm totally with HS on this one
He didn't take any position accept say it is weird without explaning why it is.
are you a goldo?
Yes he is. And he has a picture of himself up. I'm curious as to what goldo's real name is.
I'm totally with HS on this one
He didn't take any position accept say it is weird without explaning why it is.
What didn't you get? Fat chicks with parasites in them are weird and disturbing... not sexy.
You are weird. Not all become fat ****. Alot just have big bellies, with rounder breasts and ****.Yummy.
Yeah, that big belly is what houses the parasite. It is disturbing to say the least.
And why would he give his name? Would you?
No one has asked for my name. I would give my first name, not my last name.
Jesse was asking the G dude, not you.
And that belly is just asking to be spraid with junk fluid!!!
Seeing as there is a parasite inhabiting the belly, I would say it is safe to assume you wouldn't be the first one to do so.
Damn you people are insane.
It's actually considered strange to find pregnant women sexy? And you would dare call such a woman "fat"?
Damn you people are insane.
Yes, Yes, and maybe. I blame the OTT for any "insanity."
I'm curious as to what goldo's real name is.
Based on the name "Goldomark" I'm thinking Mark Goldstein is a strong contender.
And yes, finding pregnant women sexy is a fetish. Fetishism is not innately bad.
And yes, finding pregnant women sexy is a fetish. Fetishism is not innately bad.
My god. This is ridiculus. Finding pregnant women sexy isn't necessarely a fetish. Why can't pregnant women just be sexy or that some people find them sexy without it beign a fetish? Some like blondes, other don't. I f you find blondes sexy it is automatically a fetish or just a preference?
Liking something doesn't automatically make it a fetish.
...
...
...
I agree with him.
One may not like the preference, but it is not automatically a sexual fetish.
I mean, it annoys me that it had to become a discussion about sex, and not about the actual topic, but what should I expect?
It's funny, too. Because of my religious studies, I always have to do a double take when reading about fetishes, because I got so used to the word's religious meaning.
Interesting, down here most men find pregnant women very sexy. And nobody would call them fat.
Well... that's because you guys are a bunch of weirdos.
Yeah I suppose. Well. I can only hope that finding pregnancy ugly helps you lot in breeding less, then
I think the fact that the women are already pregnant prevents them form getting pregnant during the pregancy thus preventing breeding for the time being.
www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,...
At least it is extremely rare.
My god. This is ridiculus. Finding pregnant women sexy isn't necessarely a fetish.
Yes it is.
Why can't pregnant women just be sexy
Who said they can't?
or that some people find them sexy without it beign a fetish?
Cos it is a fetish.
Some like blondes, other don't. If you find blondes sexy it is automatically a fetish or just a preference?
Just a preference. When you start asking a woman to dye her hair or don a blonde wig for your sexual arousal then it is a fetish.
Liking something doesn't automatically make it a fetish.
I never said it did.
But simply finding pregnant women sexy is not a fetish. Just like finding shoes sexy is not a fetish, but one can have a shoe fetish.
I don't really understand why you're so adamant about it. *shrug*
OK, let me be clearer: Thinking pregnant women are sexy is not a fetish. Is there a pregnancy fetish? Yes, absolutely. Just like their are other fetishes, as you mentioned. Now, if you needed pregnant woman to become aroused, then it's a fetish - just like needing someone to wear a blonde wig or dye their hair blonde. It's like saying "blondes are sexy" - it's not, innately, a fetish.
Saying pregnant women as "yummy" it distinctly sexualized, not merely a recognition of sexiness.
But simply finding pregnant women sexy is not a fetish. Just like finding shoes sexy is not a fetish, but one can have a shoe fetish.
"That shoe is sexy" is not a fetish, but being sexually turned on by shoes is. Recgonizing that a pregnant woman can be sexy is not a fetish, being turned on because a woman is pregnant is.
I don't really understand why you're so adamant about it. *shrug*
I don't understand why you're being so dismissive of other opinions.
I apologize for seeming dismissive, I honestly couldn't understand why you just kept repeating that it was a fetish over and over (the shrug wasn't a dismissal, but more a puzzlement).
I mean, I still disagree with you, but thanks for explaining more and please accept my apology for seeming dismissive.
And moving on, back to the article ...
Why is the FDA supporting this? I mean, I understand approval and all that, but really? They'll back up company making the drug against the cheaper guys? I don't see why they should have a dog in this fight - it should be a place for the copyright courts or something, right?
Meh, this is part of the problem. Nobody knows enough about anything to know when to be outraged!
I think it is ridiculous that a company can crush competition like this. I mean, that's what a free market is supposed to be, right? You may have made a superior product, but if someone else can make it cheaper, then go for it! The government shouldn't be protecting the interests of the companies at all. The FDA's job is to make sure things are safe to go to market, not to make sure that a drug company gets crazy profits or that people have to pay higher insurance premiums.
Bleh.
All I can say is that I'm glad that I won't have to worry about this.
Are you guys against companies making money off of drug patents?
Are you guys against the FDA shuting down unapproved drug distribution?
Are you guys against the FDA (regulation), and are for the free market deciding?
Are you guys against money for drugs in general?
Are you guys against patents?
I just can't tell.
Sometimes I don't understand liberals. Some company develops a Progesterone shot, gets it approved by the FDA, and then sends out threatening letters to pharmacies warning them that the FDA is on a crusade to make sure unapproved drugs aren't sold in the USA.
Are you guys against companies making money off of drug patents?
Are you guys against the FDA shuting down unapproved drug distribution?
Are you guys against the FDA (regulation), and are for the free market deciding?
Are you guys against money for drugs in general?
Are you guys against patents?
I just can't tell.
Let's see: there was a medication that saved many lives and it cost $10-$20 to make/get. Now some company is patenting the stuff and demands $1500 for the same thing. And we're talking about saving lives of infants, not a video game or something.
Yeah, I think that's nasty and shouldn't happen.
Nope. If the e-cigarette is successful, it will have a huge impact on tobacco companies, which is an enormous source of income for the government.
I estimate they seem outraged by what appears to be price gouging. Not that I have a proverbial dog in this fight; most machines that are prematurely activated can be repaired to operate as they should. Of course there may be some collateral damage depending on the machine's functionality.
This, pretty much. There was an accepted solution "on the market", and a company released a more expensive solution and is using the government to make sure that the free market doesn't decide.
They are actually interfering with the free market, and (ab)using the government to do it.
I don't know much about the FDA, Jharii, but I have an innate distrust of pretty much any government agency. It wouldn't surprise me if many companies' profits are tied into FDA policy.
Just one more reason why this country needs to burn down to the ground.
Thank you for taking the time to more fully explain where you're coming from. Honestly, I felt you were being dismissive yourself, which is partly why I got involved - you didn't explain until that last post. I can see where you're coming from, but I still believe you are wrong in your use of the word.
I apologize for seeming dismissive, I honestly couldn't understand why you just kept repeating that it was a fetish over and over (the shrug wasn't a dismissal, but more a puzzlement).
I think the problem is that for the most part people automatically assume fetish=negative and that I am suggesting anyone who holds a fetish is sexually depraved. Neither of these is true. Some fetishes are depraved or disgusting but many - perhaps even most - are harmless and, in many cases, not only acceptable but encouraged by the mainstream. Every guy who's ever asked a woman to put on her "sexy nightie" or thigh-high "
me boots" cos it turns him on has a fetish, and there's nothing wrong or harmful about it.I mean, I still disagree with you, but thanks for explaining more and please accept my apology for seeming dismissive.
No worries.
Thank you for taking the time to more fully explain where you're coming from. Honestly, I felt you were being dismissive yourself, which is partly why I got involved - you didn't explain until that last post. I can see where you're coming from, but I still believe you are wrong in your use of the word.
I apologize for seeming dismissive, I honestly couldn't understand why you just kept repeating that it was a fetish over and over (the shrug wasn't a dismissal, but more a puzzlement).
I think the problem is that for the most part people automatically assume fetish=negative and that I am suggesting anyone who holds a fetish is sexually depraved. Neither of these is true. Some fetishes are depraved or disgusting but many - perhaps even most - are harmless and, in many cases, not only acceptable but encouraged by the mainstream. Every guy who's ever asked a woman to put on her "sexy nightie" or thigh-high "I mean, I still disagree with you, but thanks for explaining more and please accept my apology for seeming dismissive.
No worries.
We are obviously just working with different definitions of fetish, then. I didn't think you were using it in a negative way, or that it's innately negative, I just disagree with your definition of it.
It's all good.
Sometimes I don't understand liberals. Some company develops a Progesterone shot, gets it approved by the FDA, and then sends out threatening letters to pharmacies warning them that the FDA is on a crusade to make sure unapproved drugs aren't sold in the USA.
Are you guys against companies making money off of drug patents?
Are you guys against the FDA shuting down unapproved drug distribution?
Are you guys against the FDA (regulation), and are for the free market deciding?
Are you guys against money for drugs in general?
Are you guys against patents?
I just can't tell.
Cos you're not trying, made clear by the fact the actual answer - Against companies endangering lives in favour of profits - isn't even on your list.
In truth the right will never truly understand the left, and vice-versa, because they each have fundamentally opposing philosophies. The right is a solipsistic philosophy based around the question "how does this effect me" while the left's is a pluralistic philosophy based around the question "how does this effect us", a difference highlighted in the hypothetical question dichotomy proposed in Kennedy's "Ask not…" speech.
For example, the right often asks "do you lefties actually support higher taxes?" and you know what, the answer is actually "yes" cos that money goes towards helping people who need it and society as a whole. Most on the right simply can't wrap their heads around the notion, while those on the left can't understand why anyone would care so much about themselves that they let others suffer for it.
Perhaps if people on both sides would make an effort to recognize the existence of this fundamental difference in philosophy they may be able to find a middle-ground in which to work instead of just arguing back and forth about their own fundamentally incompatible points of view.
For example, the right often asks "do you lefties actually support higher taxes?" and you know what, the answer is actually "yes" cos that money goes towards helping people who need it and society as a whole. Most on the right simply can't wrap their heads around the notion, while those on the left can't understand why anyone would care so much about themselves that they let others suffer for it.
If the bolded part were actually true, I wouldn't mind taxes nearly as much, but it simply doesn't pan out that way in actuality. The government wastes money on a bunch of worthless crap, hands it out to countries of questionable morality, spends it on aburdly high incomes and pensions, and only a small percentage of it actually goes to anything worthwhile. I'm not willing to spend a penny more on taxes until the government can actually show that they are being responsible with the money.
Cos you're not trying, made clear by the fact the actual answer - Against companies endangering lives in favour of profits - isn't even on your list.
I actually was trying, but like I said it is difficult to discover exactly what was "wrong" with the situation, and what exactly "wasn't a good thing". As others have pointed out, it does appear that price gouging seems to be the issue (not that that is necessarily bad). I kind of get the feeling that some people don't look at the big picture, and only examine each situation on a case-by-case basis. The problem with doing that is you will sometimes get conflicting results. What if the linked story was...
"K-V Pharm a company whos CEO is a pregnant women, all empolyees are pregnant women, and all stockholders are pregnant women has recieved FDA approval for a drug that can completely cure liberalism/conservitardism/foo (lets assume for the moment that fetuses are born that way) in fetuses, and are charging $1500. This money is desperately needed for the company because without it, all the pregnant women working/investing in the company couldn't afford the healthcare costs for babies that are all stricken with cancer/brain tumors/insert sad disease here. They have started sending cease and desist letters to pharmacies that are selling a non-FDA approved drug."
In truth the right will never truly understand the left, and vice-versa, because they each have fundamentally opposing philosophies. The right is a solipsistic philosophy based around the question "how does this effect me" while the left's is a pluralistic philosophy based around the question "how does this effect us", a difference highlighted in the hypothetical question dichotomy proposed in Kennedy's "Ask not…" speech.
I think that lefties and righties both want to help people, but they want to do it in different ways. Righties don't believe that you can give handouts to people to help them, you only make them slaves to their masters. When people can't fail, and a safety net is there to make sure they can still eat, have a cell phone, pay their gas bill, ..., you get what you have in zoos (animals unable to return to the wild, dependant upon the caretakers).
For example, the right often asks "do you lefties actually support higher taxes?" and you know what, the answer is actually "yes" cos that money goes towards helping people who need it and society as a whole. Most on the right simply can't wrap their heads around the notion, while those on the left can't understand why anyone would care so much about themselves that they let others suffer for it.
Someone already pointed out that higher taxes won't mean more money for the poor, but I would argue that many on the right have the same feelings as Old Ben.
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
I actually was trying, but like I said it is difficult to discover exactly what was "wrong" with the situation, and what exactly "wasn't a good thing". As others have pointed out, it does appear that price gouging seems to be the issue (not that that isnecessarily bad). I kind of get the feeling that some people don't look at the big picture, and only examine each situation on a case-by-case basis. The problem with doing that is you will sometimes get conflicting results. What if the linked story was...
Price gouging may be helpful in certain situations. It can motivate people/companies to get a much needed product out to those in need of said product. But it can also motivate companies to continue to increase a much needed product to the point that it becomes inaccessible to those in need. The example given in the video is gas. Higher prices and people willing to pay those prices can motivate oil companies to get more oil to the market. What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? Right now gas around these parts is around $3.60/gallon. What is to stop the price of gas from hitting $20.00/gallon? What would stop the gas prices from hitting $50 or $100 per gallon? Sure, it may be an exaggeration, but it is a possibility. Gas is a needed resource. How about water? During natural disasters one of the things that happen is that sources of drinking water become contaminated. Where once you could get a gallon bottle of water at a supermarket, you may have to pay $6 or more for that same gallon of water at the same supermarket. There may be motivation to get more water to people who need it, but eventually, if the price continues to increase, you will end up in a situation where there is plenty of water, but people can’t afford it. Considering how vital water is to a person’s survival, even if a point of diminishing returns is reached and the price of water starts to fall, it may not fall fast enough or to a low enough price to prevent people from dying.
In the case of the medication, this is not price gouging. This is ridiculous. Going from paying $20 per shot to $15000 per shot is a 7500% increase. This is placing a price on the life of a yet to be born child. I’m amazed any conservative would allow for such a thing. Hell, at this price per shot, it would be more economical you get an abortion before even getting that first shot.
"K-V Pharm a company whos CEO is a pregnant women, all empolyees are pregnant women, and all stockholders are pregnant women has recieved FDA approval for a drug that can completely cure liberalism/conservitardism/foo (lets assume for the moment that fetuses are born that way) in fetuses, and are charging $1500. This money is desperately needed for the company because without it, all the pregnant women working/investing in the company couldn't afford the healthcare costs for babies that are all stricken with cancer/brain tumors/insert sad disease here. They have started sending cease and desist letters to pharmacies that are selling a non-FDA approved drug."
That depends on whose unborn child’s life you take to be more important. So… whose life is more important in your point of view?
Sometimes I don't understand liberals. Some company develops a Progesterone shot, gets it approved by the FDA, and then sends out threatening letters to pharmacies warning them that the FDA is on a crusade to make sure unapproved drugs aren't sold in the USA.
Are you guys against companies making money off of drug patents?
Are you guys against the FDA shuting down unapproved drug distribution?
Are you guys against the FDA (regulation), and are for the free market deciding?
Are you guys against money for drugs in general?
Are you guys against patents?
I just can't tell.
There are plenty of drugs that are not approved by the FDA to be sold in the U.S. that are used in Europe and Canada. I don’t think anyone is against a company making money on a drug that they spent millions of dollars researching and developing. That does not appear to be the case here. The drug(s) were already available and being used. The only thing the company did was get a patent for an already existing drug. That’s like getting a copy-right on a book that is in the public domain. Someone else wrote the book, but you want to claim the credit.
Also, the free market is not deciding the price of the drugs. The company with the patent is deciding that. they are using FDA regulations to stifle free market pricing( I’m getting the feeling you like to misinterpret things to try and make a point). If the free markets were truly allowed to determine the pricing of the drugs, the pharmacies that were previously giving out the shot would be allowed to continue to do so.
I’m guessing you’re a conservative by the stance you took. I could be wrong and you are just playing devil’s advocate (poorly I might add). What this company has done should not sit well with a conservative. They are using regulations (something I thought conservatives would like less of, if not none of) to stifle the free market’s ability to determine what an appropriate price should be. In fact, the company has used regulations to kill the free market in this instance. There is no competition. Zero. Zilch. They have basically terminated any and all competition. The price is set by the pharmaceutical company. They can increase or decrease the price of the drug(s) on a whim. Today is Tuesday… double price. Hey, thank God it’s Friday, you get 50% off. Why? Because we say so.
Also, you could argue that patents are inherently anti-free market. They limit others from producing a product and forming competition for others.
"The seeds of the Great Recession were planted when the government in the 1990s began pushing homeownership, even for uncreditworthy people, with a vengeance."
It is funny because while it may have started in the 90s, we had 8 years with Bush, and he did nothing to stop it. you can blame the left for starting it if you want, but you should blame the right for continuing it. If the republicans were so against this, why didn't they stop it whenthey had the ability to do so?
Right now gas around these parts is around $3.60/gallon. What is to stop the price of gas from hitting $20.00/gallon? I have my doubts that anyone except the very wealthy would be willing to pay $20 for a gallon of gas. I think I read somewhere that most people live about 20-25 miles from their place of work. That would likely mean a 5x increase in fuel expense. At about 350 gallons purchased per year that would ballon the cost for transportation via car from $1200 to $7000. I would have to get a fairly large pay increase to justify driving to work. This isn't to mention the cost of food and other goods that would have to increase dramatically. At a certain point, most people would end up biking to work, move closer to work, and probably by more locally grown food.
What would stop the gas prices from hitting $50 or $100 per gallon? See above. As for gas being a needed resource, I disagree. It currently is needed because it is so cheap. If it becomes too expensive, it won't be needed. We will find other ways to trasport ourselves, will find other power sources (coal, fission, fusion, etc.), or we will find more supply to drive the price down. Much of the current fluctuation is the result of gambling, and not supply and demand.
How about water? Water is quite abundant, so I will assume you meant potable water. You may have to pay more for water during a disaster, people who were more prepared than others won't have to worry about that as much. The US is pretty good at handling national disasters, but when they do a poor job, I don't see anything wrong with others trying to close the gap (and make a little money on the side). I can't think of a situation where there is plenty of water(or foo), and people can't afford it...at least not in the US. As for the case at hand, it is unclear to me if K-V has a drug patent. As prior art exists (the cheap $10-$20 dollar shot). They are probably just capitalizing on the fact that we don't live in a free market. The key line I get from this article is...
And because FDA laws prohibit compounding pharmacies from making FDA-approved products, doctors will be legally obligated to stop using the cheaper version of this drug
The March of Dimes expected a completely different outcome.
however, many eligible patients faced logistical and financial barriers to access. FDA approval means the drug now will be widely available only in specialty pharmacies and that there will be improved access of the drug through healthcare coverage
The real outrage here should be with the FDA. Why should there be laws preventing me from buying whatever I want, FDA-approved or not. Why should the FDA care if I buy steriods from Mexico, or faux drugs from Canada, or mendicinal herbs. Let the buyer beware. I would prefer to keep my freedom at the cost of more danger. All the FDA is there for is to allow USA patients to subsidize poorer nations drugs (because they aren't as able to pay).
I am not really a conservative (at least not on all things). I support the Chris Rock postion, on taxes I'm conservative, on prostitution I'm liberal. I price is set by how much people are willing to pay. If they didn't think they could charge $1500, they wouldn't. The best course of action would be for people to call their Congress people and demand that the FDA laws are changed. You probably could argue that patents are anti-free market (but I won't). I like patents, but I don't think they should last as long as they do. I think that if you patent something, send cease and desist orders, sue and then it is shown that you patent is not defensible and the lawsuit is frivolous you should pay for the opposing lawyers (and possibly other damages).
As for the Great Depression thing, I grabbed the first article I could find. I really didn't care one way or the other, because it is impossible to prove that Obama didn't create/save a million jobs, or prevent the next great depression, or ... . I just grabbed the first thing I could find to make a snarky point.
It's Captain_Esteban. He doesn't seem to put much effort in making sense. I wouldn't expect his choice of color for the lettering to make sense either. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he denied that there was anything wrong with using red to type up large responses.
Or maybe there was a gansta fight and blood was spilt.
I would agree with you UN. And what is up with the red letters? Quote and reply.
I hate quoting a quote (of a quote of a quote). I know I can just use the generic 'quote' blocks without the post reference, but I have been doing it the wrong way so long it is difficult to change habits. I also didn't want to quote everything, just the questions, so it seemed easier that way. Is the red text that distracting? would green be better?
I would agree with you UN. And what is up with the red letters? Quote and reply.
I hate quoting a quote (of a quote of a quote). I know I can just use the generic 'quote' blocks without the post reference, but I have been doing it the wrong way so long it is difficult to change habits. I also didn't want to quote everything, just the questions, so it seemed easier that way. Is the red text that distracting? would green be better?
Make it match the background.
Who knows...
It's Captain_Esteban. He doesn't seem to put much effort in making sense. I wouldn't expect his choice of color for the lettering to make sense either. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he denied that there was anything wrong with using red to type up large responses.
Or maybe there was a gansta fight and blood was spilt.
I get the feeling you are doing a bit, since almost all your responses are "don't bother. blah blah blah." And then you go on to prove Boraxe's point. What exactly are you looking for?
I get the feeling you are doing a bit, since almost all your responses are "don't bother. blah blah blah." And then you go on to prove Boraxe's point. What exactly are you looking for?
Black doesn't match the background.
Is it just me or are the new kids not alot of fun?
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore). And sometimes when I read some of the new guys' posts I'm not sure if I should have gotten that "Proficiency in English" certificate, because they could just as well speak Greek or Chinese and I'd understand equally as much.
*Idioms are the bane of me; I have no idea if this sounds right.
What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? A lack of buyers at a certain point.
While an interesting concept, it's of course total BS when it comes to things that you need to survive. The only way to get a lack of buyers of clean drinking water is when everybody's dead. Mostly the same thing goes with the price of gas, many people need gas to get from and to their job. If the prices are doubled, people will complain, but they still need to buy it.
Price gouging works for things that are a luxury (see: expensive brands) but it doens't work for things that are a requirement for basic survival, like basic food, water, basic housing, and life saving medicine.
I would agree with you UN. And what is up with the red letters? Quote and reply.
I hate quoting a quote (of a quote of a quote). I know I can just use the generic 'quote' blocks without the post reference, but I have been doing it the wrong way so long it is difficult to change habits. I also didn't want to quote everything, just the questions, so it seemed easier that way. Is the red text that distracting? would green be better?
I’m going to have to agree with the Squirrel. The red is annoying. Quote and reply. Stop being such a lazy
. What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? A lack of buyers at a certain point.
As Pluisjen pointed out:
What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? A lack of buyers at a certain point.
While an interesting concept, it's of course total BS when it comes to things that you need to survive. The only way to get a lack of buyers of clean drinking water is when everybody's dead. Mostly the same thing goes with the price of gas, many people need gas to get from and to their job. If the prices are doubled, people will complain, but they still need to buy it.
Price gouging works for things that are a luxury (see: expensive brands) but it doens't work for things that are a requirement for basic survival, like basic food, water, basic housing, and life saving medicine.
There is nothing to stop company X from charging such high prices that most people can’t afford it. The Fact that it is needed makes it so that they can charge whatever price they want (if price gouging was allowed to occur unchecked). The free markets rely on the laws of supply and demand to set prices. If price gouging is allowed to occur, the supply part of the equation is removed. There may be a large supply of water, but price gouging doesn’t take that into effect. All that you have to do is look at how badly people need drinkable water. You as a conservative should be offended that this is even suggested.
Right now gas around these parts is around $3.60/gallon. What is to stop the price of gas from hitting $20.00/gallon? I have my doubts that anyone except the very wealthy would be willing to pay $20 for a gallon of gas.
As long as there is a group of people willing and able to pay such high prices, price gouging encourages this. You can have your doubts, but the whole point of the video you linked was that price gouging encourages people/companies to acquire more of a needed product in order to distribute it. There is no indication that having more of that product would lower the cost of the product if price gouging practices were in effect.
I think I read somewhere that most people live about 20-25 miles from their place of work. That would likely mean a 5x increase in fuel expense. At about 350 gallons purchased per year that would ballon the cost for transportation via car from $1200 to $7000. I would have to get a fairly large pay increase to justify driving to work. This isn't to mention the cost of food and other goods that would have to increase dramatically. At a certain point, most people would end up biking to work, move closer to work, and probably by more locally grown food.
That is a nice dream you have there. Unfortunately time is working against you. Wha do you think can happen faster if price gouging is allowed: The price of gas going up to $20/gallon or jobs moving closer to people’s homes?
Sure, you could work closer to home, but you would be limited by the jobs available closer to your home. It will probably require a large pay cut if you are forced to work in a different job than the one that you were in before. You could argue that jobs could be moved closer to people’s homes, but how realistic is it to move all jobs closer to your home. Think about people working in the airline industry. How feasible is it to move those jobs closer to home? How far spread out can a company become before it no longer functions? Take a law firm for example. How close do you think all the people that work in a law firm live to each other? I don’t know many paralegals that make the type of money and live in the types of houses are the lawyers they work for make and live in. Eventually, a high enough price for gas would give added control over the workers to those who could afford gas at $20/gallons.
What would stop the gas prices from hitting $50 or $100 per gallon? See above. As for gas being a needed resource, I disagree. It currently is needed because it is so cheap. If it becomes too expensive, it won't be needed. We will find other ways to trasport ourselves, will find other power sources (coal, fission, fusion, etc.), or we will find more supply to drive the price down. Much of the current fluctuation is the result of gambling, and not supply and demand.
Exactly. Much of the current increase in the price of gas has to do with the speculations of traders. There is plenty of supply. The price is being increased because there is nothing to stop it or bring it back down. What you are seeing now is a small dose of price gouging. How much has the price of oil gone up in the last month? How much of that was due to the supply side of things? There is plenty of oil being pumped around the world. There is plenty of oil in the various strategic reserves. I’m sure the U.S. is not the only country with a stockpile of oil. Still, the price of oil has gone up. I saw on the news this morning that the price of gas has increased by 75 cents compared to the price of gas this same time last year. As long as companies are allowed to charge whatever price they want, and traders are allowed to gamble on the price of oil, there is nothing to stop the price of gas from reaching a ridiculously high price.
As for the argument that the reason we still use gas is because the price is so low and we could find alternative sources of energy… well… gas may be cheap to you, but there are plenty of people that find gas to be expensive… too expensive.
As for other sources of energy… what is it with conservatives wanting to wait until the price of gas has gone through the roof and the supply is almost gone before they go to alternative sources of energy? Wouldn’t other energy sources be more in line with the free markets? You get to choose your energy source and completion would determine the prices for the various energies.
How about water? Water is quite abundant, so I will assume you meant potable water.
Seeing as I mentioned buying bottled water, unless you go to supermarkets and buy sea water in bottles, I think it is an attempt at snark, or you being disingenuous.
You may have to pay more for water during a disaster, people who were more prepared than others won't have to worry about that as much. The US is pretty good at handling national disasters,
Katrina comes to mind.
but when they do a poor job, I don't see anything wrong with others trying to close the gap (and make a little money on the side).
There is a difference in people making a profit and taking advantage of a situation to exploit people. The link you posted up about child sec trafficking for food demonstrates this.
I can't think of a situation where there is plenty of water(or foo), and people can't afford it...at least not in the US.
Really? Considering the method of safe keeping money (Banks) and a person’s ability to access money from a bank, when the power is out, the banks are closed, and the employees of said banks are unable to attend customers, you can’t think of think of a situation where people couldn’t afford water? If you can’t, you either have a poor imagination, or are just denying any plausible possibilities to make your point. If it happens to be denial, well that’s just bad form. You aren’t discussing anything in good faith, just trying to win an argument by any means.
As for the case at hand, it is unclear to me if K-V has a drug patent. As prior art exists (the cheap $10-$20 dollar shot). They are probably just capitalizing on the fact that we don't live in a free market. The key line I get from this article is...
And because FDA laws prohibit compounding pharmacies from making FDA-approved products, doctors will be legally obligated to stop using the cheaper version of this drug
“…the Food and Drug Administration recently granted KV Pharmaceuticals sole rights to produce the drug…”
From that quote in the article, I would think the company too out some kind of patent or copy right to insure that they were the only ones able to make and distribute the drug.
This article also shows how high the price of a product can go if price gouging is allowed. In this case, there is no problem with te supply side of the equation. There were plenty of pharmacies making the drug and distributing it. K V Pharmaceuticals came in and stopped them from doing so. K V decides that there is a group of people willing and capable of paying $1500 per shot because it is available through insurance companies. People will pay it because it will save the life of their unborn child, not because it is cheap enough that they can afford it.
In any case, you never answered my question:
"K-V Pharm a company whos CEO is a pregnant women, all empolyees are pregnant women, and all stockholders are pregnant women has recieved FDA approval for a drug that can completely cure liberalism/conservitardism/foo (lets assume for the moment that fetuses are born that way) in fetuses, and are charging $1500. This money is desperately needed for the company because without it, all the pregnant women working/investing in the company couldn't afford the healthcare costs for babies that are all stricken with cancer/brain tumors/insert sad disease here. They have started sending cease and desist letters to pharmacies that are selling a non-FDA approved drug."
That depends on whose unborn child’s life you take to be more important. So… whose life is more important in your point of view?
I’ve taken the time to address your points; I would expect the same courtesy.
The March of Dimes expected a completely different outcome.
however, many eligible patients faced logistical and financial barriers to access. FDA approval means the drug now will be widely available only in specialty pharmacies and that there will be improved access of the drug through healthcare coverage
As I said before, this peoves that as long as there is a group of people willing to pay and able to pay for a product, the ceiling price of that product can be set at any ridiculous level. Seriously, you don’t see a problem with the price going up by 7500%? Really? 7500%
That is just ridiculous. The same thing can happen with gas or water. K V sells a life saving drug for $1500 per shot. What makes you think that another company won’t do the same with drinkable water? You need it. More people need water than they need the drug K V has high jacked.
The real outrage here should be with the FDA. Why should there be laws preventing me from buying whatever I want, FDA-approved or not. Why should the FDA care if I buy steriods from Mexico, or faux drugs from Canada, or mendicinal herbs. Let the buyer beware. I would prefer to keep my freedom at the cost of more danger. All the FDA is there for is to allow USA patients to subsidize poorer nations drugs (because they aren't as able to pay).
Did you ever read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclaire? You may want to take a look at that. It would answer your questions.
I am not really a conservative (at least not on all things). I support the Chris Rock postion, on taxes I'm conservative, on prostitution I'm liberal. I price is set by how much people are willing to pay. If they didn't think they could charge $1500, they wouldn't.
So do you believe that an unborn child is still a human life or not? This company has put a price on the life of a yet to be born child. Without the drug the child dies. With the drug the child lives.
The best course of action would be for people to call their Congress people and demand that the FDA laws are changed. You probably could argue that patents are anti-free market (but I won't). I like patents, but I don't think they should last as long as they do. I think that if you patent something, send cease and desist orders, sue and then it is shown that you patent is not defensible and the lawsuit is frivolous you should pay for the opposing lawyers (and possibly other damages).
You may not want to argue patent laws are anti-free-markets, but you know they are. They stifle competition. The limit the ability of free markets to set prices. I must admit, you are quite a contrary person. You support free markets, unless it cuts into profits. How does that work?
As for the Great Depression thing, I grabbed the first article I could find. I really didn't care one way or the other, because it is impossible to prove that Obama didn't create/save a million jobs, or prevent the next great depression, or ... . I just grabbed the first thing I could find to make a snarky point.
If you didn’t care why make the argument? What’s the point of making a snarky remark, besides making you look like another extremist right-wing conservative nutcase that is only pulling the party line without offering any actual solutions?
While an interesting concept, it's of course total BS when it comes to things that you need to survive. The only way to get a lack of buyers of clean drinking water is when everybody's dead. Mostly the same thing goes with the price of gas, many people need gas to get from and to their job. If the prices are doubled, people will complain, but they still need to buy it.Price gouging works for things that are a luxury (see: expensive brands) but it doens't work for things that are a requirement for basic survival, like basic food, water, basic housing, and life saving medicine.
Death is one answer. Taking our resources back that God has unfortunately misplaced under other countries is another (I'm looking at you America's Hat, and America's Beard). But seriously, gas is hardly required for "basic survival." The other things you might have a point on, but the line gets really blurred. At what point does it go from luxury to basic necessity?
If price gouging is allowed to occur, the supply part of the equation is removed. There may be a large supply of water, but price gouging doesn’t take that into effect. All that you have to do is look at how badly people need drinkable water.
I don't think supply/demand works that way (or price gouging). If it did, why isn't the price of water $100 a gallon everywhere in the world? Price gouging isn't outlawed everywhere and yet we don't have $100 a gallon water, what gives?
What do you think can happen faster if price gouging is allowed: The price of gas going up to $20/gallon or jobs moving closer to people’s homes?
The price going up to $20. But, then there would be a sever lack of buyers, and it would quickly fall (or if it didn't, they would have a large supply of a useless commodity). Airlines require kerosene for fuel (a biproduct of oil), so ticket prices might increase dramatically (if crude oil increased). If just gasoline prices increased, there might be a lot of people deciding to fly more often. High gas prices give added control to controllers of gas (or oil), it hardly gives control to law firms vs. paralegals.
What you are seeing now is a small dose of price gouging. How much has the price of oil gone up in the last month? How much of that was due to the supply side of things? There is plenty of oil being pumped around the world.
This really isn't price gouging, it is gambling on how much supply is expected to be available in the future. Not suppy and demand stuff, and probably a good reason to remove oil futures from the stockmarket. It might be the case the oil drops in the future, and as long as we don't bail those investors out, they will lose money.
but there are plenty of people that find gas to be expensive… too expensive.
What price should it be?
As for other sources of energy… what is it with conservatives wanting to wait until the price of gas has gone through the roof and the supply is almost gone before they go to alternative sources of energy?
I don't know. Drill baby, drill. Nuke me up. Build more dams. I am all for more energy in the world. That is probably the biggest crisis world wide, is the lack of cheap energy. Water, Food, etc. can all be obtained much easier with cheap energy.
can't think of a situation where there is plenty of water(or foo), and people can't afford it...at least not in the US.
Really? Considering the method of safe keeping money (Banks) and a person’s ability to access money from a bank, when the power is out, the banks are closed, and the employees of said banks are unable to attend customers, you can’t think of think of a situation where people couldn’t afford water?
Bartering is always available. But, if you don't have access to money and can't afford water, it is hardly price gouging (since you can't pay anyway). I don't think it is possible to win an argument, I just like proposing interesting questions that make people think.
In any case, you never answered my question:
No doubt. I must have missed it, what was the jist of it (or repost it, and I will try not to miss it this time). Ah, now I see, the "whose life is more important question". I think you missunderstood the use of the hypothetical drug in this question (my fault, I wasn't clear). It was a cure for some behaviorial issue in unborn fetuses, like liberalism (et. al.). If such a gene could be discovered, I am sure there might be some outrage over allowing women to opportunity to cure their babies of this condition. As for whos life is more important, neither is. I am not sure if you are coming from a Utilitarian position here, was that the point of the question, or was the point to answer a question with a question (not that there is anything wrong with that, especially if it is for clarification).
You don’t see a problem with the price going up by 7500%? Really? 7500%
Not really. Alternatives exist, but Neonatal units are quite expensive. I am against the FDA regulating drugs (which would have avoided this particular issue). The problem with having a problem with prices going up 7500% is that you would have to believe that their is some correct/optimum/etc. price that a good or service should be. I don't know how such a price could be determined.
What makes you think that another company won’t do the same with drinkable water? You need it. More people need water than they need the drug K V has high jacked.
It would be quite difficult to price gouge on water, since creating(finding) potable water isn't that difficult. Pepsi already charges $1 for a liter of what is essentially free (minus the cost of distribution, plastic, etc.), and people are willing to pay it for convience. Is that price gouging? What is an acceptable/correct price for water?
Did you ever read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclaire? You may want to take a look at that. It would answer your questions.
I just might read The Jungle (I do enjoy books like this. Flatland is an excellent book), but is the solution a socialist utopia where all goods prices are determined by the labor involved in producing them? (What answers will become apparant to me? Should I some how realize that goods have an intrinsic value, and their price shouldn't be determined by how much someone is wiling to pay?). Skimming it, he talks about the writers of books not getting paid, those professions will exist because some people like to preach and others like to listen. Do you really think we would have as much progress (entertainment, life saving drugs, other inventions) as we have had in the last century if we adopted this model?
So do you believe that an unborn child is still a human life or not? This company has put a price on the life of a yet to be born child. Without the drug the child dies. With the drug the child lives.
I'm not sure it matters if the fetus is a human life or not. The company put a price on their drug, and we have laws that prevent others from selling the drugs. I would prefer some consistancy within the law regarding unborn fetuses.
You may not want to argue patent laws are anti-free-markets, but you know they are. They stifle competition. The limit the ability of free markets to set prices. I must admit, you are quite a contrary person. You support free markets, unless it cuts into profits. How does that work?
I wasn't supporting free markets unless they cut into profits, I was trying to figure out what I was supposed to be outraged about in the OP's link. Patent laws are probably a necessary evil, and they are anti-free-market (for a limited time, that is possibly too long). If we didn't have them, the free market would decide that testing and development of life saving drugs wasn't worth it. In this particular instantance it wouldn't have made a difference, because prior art existed, and the draconian FDA laws are the problem. I wonder if you can admit something now...
Are labor unions anti free market? I would figure that they are since they monopolise the means of production, and price gouge manufacturers (or other employers).
I don't think it is possible to win an argument, I just like proposing interesting questions that make people think.
Oh but you are funny.
I don't think supply/demand works that way (or price gouging). If it did, why isn't the price of water $100 a gallon everywhere in the world? Price gouging isn't outlawed everywhere and yet we don't have $100 a gallon water, what gives?
Because no government, nor any populace, would accept that. That's why. Even if price gouging isn't outlawed, trying to up the prices of clean drinking water would end up with governments coming down on you fast. That's simply not something any government will tolerate. Because it would cause huge troubles.
As a side note; there probably are countries where drinking water is unaffordable for the general populace. These are generally warzones in Africa and the like, where there is no government... the only way you can possibly get away with it.
African warzones, where the supply of drinking water isn't abundant. Where water is abundant, it would be quite difficult to charge $100 a gallon.
Not if you control the supply. Although it might differ from country to country. The USA is probably big enough that people can take water from natural lakes. The Netherlands on the other hand doesn't have enough lakes.
Not to mention that water isn't exactly abundant in million+ people cities. The only water there is controlled by the corporations, who are asking $100 per gallon for it. What are you going to do? Drink rainwater?
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore).
Please tell me you're not serious. He's around. I'll give you a hint as to who he is:
Every one of his sigs has had a quote about military solutions in it, from long before he was HATER and long after as well. Admittedly his behaviour has improved from the days he was just randomly trolling the 4E forums.
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore).
Please tell me you're not serious. He's around. I'll give you a hint as to who he is:
Every one of his sigs has had a quote about military solutions in it, from long before he was HATER and long after as well. Admittedly his behaviour has improved from the days he was just randomly trolling the 4E forums.
(I think it was a joke.)
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore).
Please tell me you're not serious. He's around. I'll give you a hint as to who he is:
Every one of his sigs has had a quote about military solutions in it, from long before he was HATER and long after as well. Admittedly his behaviour has improved from the days he was just randomly trolling the 4E forums.
(I think it was a joke.)
It wasn't much of a joke as an observation... from a certain point of view.
I actually was trying, but like I said it is difficult to discover exactly what was "wrong" with the situation, and what exactly "wasn't a good thing". As others have pointed out, it does appear that price gouging seems to be the issue (not that that isnecessarily bad). I kind of get the feeling that some people don't look at the big picture, and only examine each situation on a case-by-case basis. The problem with doing that is you will sometimes get conflicting results. What if the linked story was...
Price gouging may be helpful in certain situations. It can motivate people/companies to get a much needed product out to those in need of said product. But it can also motivate companies to continue to increase a much needed product to the point that it becomes inaccessible to those in need. The example given in the video is gas. Higher prices and people willing to pay those prices can motivate oil companies to get more oil to the market. What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? Right now gas around these parts is around $3.60/gallon. What is to stop the price of gas from hitting $20.00/gallon? What would stop the gas prices from hitting $50 or $100 per gallon? Sure, it may be an exaggeration, but it is a possibility. Gas is a needed resource. How about water? During natural disasters one of the things that happen is that sources of drinking water become contaminated. Where once you could get a gallon bottle of water at a supermarket, you may have to pay $6 or more for that same gallon of water at the same supermarket. There may be motivation to get more water to people who need it, but eventually, if the price continues to increase, you will end up in a situation where there is plenty of water, but people can’t afford it. Considering how vital water is to a person’s survival, even if a point of diminishing returns is reached and the price of water starts to fall, it may not fall fast enough or to a low enough price to prevent people from dying.
In the case of the medication, this is not price gouging. This is ridiculous. Going from paying $20 per shot to $15000 per shot is a 7500% increase. This is placing a price on the life of a yet to be born child. I’m amazed any conservative would allow for such a thing. Hell, at this price per shot, it would be more economical you get an abortion before even getting that first shot.
"K-V Pharm a company whos CEO is a pregnant women, all empolyees are pregnant women, and all stockholders are pregnant women has recieved FDA approval for a drug that can completely cure liberalism/conservitardism/foo (lets assume for the moment that fetuses are born that way) in fetuses, and are charging $1500. This money is desperately needed for the company because without it, all the pregnant women working/investing in the company couldn't afford the healthcare costs for babies that are all stricken with cancer/brain tumors/insert sad disease here. They have started sending cease and desist letters to pharmacies that are selling a non-FDA approved drug."
That depends on whose unborn child’s life you take to be more important. So… whose life is more important in your point of view?
Sometimes I don't understand liberals. Some company develops a Progesterone shot, gets it approved by the FDA, and then sends out threatening letters to pharmacies warning them that the FDA is on a crusade to make sure unapproved drugs aren't sold in the USA.
Are you guys against companies making money off of drug patents?
Are you guys against the FDA shuting down unapproved drug distribution?
Are you guys against the FDA (regulation), and are for the free market deciding?
Are you guys against money for drugs in general?
Are you guys against patents?
I just can't tell.
There are plenty of drugs that are not approved by the FDA to be sold in the U.S. that are used in Europe and Canada. I don’t think anyone is against a company making money on a drug that they spent millions of dollars researching and developing. That does not appear to be the case here. The drug(s) were already available and being used. The only thing the company did was get a patent for an already existing drug. That’s like getting a copy-right on a book that is in the public domain. Someone else wrote the book, but you want to claim the credit.
Also, the free market is not deciding the price of the drugs. The company with the patent is deciding that. they are using FDA regulations to stifle free market pricing( I’m getting the feeling you like to misinterpret things to try and make a point). If the free markets were truly allowed to determine the pricing of the drugs, the pharmacies that were previously giving out the shot would be allowed to continue to do so.
I’m guessing you’re a conservative by the stance you took. I could be wrong and you are just playing devil’s advocate (poorly I might add). What this company has done should not sit well with a conservative. They are using regulations (something I thought conservatives would like less of, if not none of) to stifle the free market’s ability to determine what an appropriate price should be. In fact, the company has used regulations to kill the free market in this instance. There is no competition. Zero. Zilch. They have basically terminated any and all competition. The price is set by the pharmaceutical company. They can increase or decrease the price of the drug(s) on a whim. Today is Tuesday… double price. Hey, thank God it’s Friday, you get 50% off. Why? Because we say so.
Also, you could argue that patents are inherently anti-free market. They limit others from producing a product and forming competition for others.
"The seeds of the Great Recession were planted when the government in the 1990s began pushing homeownership, even for uncreditworthy people, with a vengeance."
It is funny because while it may have started in the 90s, we had 8 years with Bush, and he did nothing to stop it. you can blame the left for starting it if you want, but you should blame the right for continuing it. If the republicans were so against this, why didn't they stop it whenthey had the ability to do so?
Right now gas around these parts is around $3.60/gallon. What is to stop the price of gas from hitting $20.00/gallon? I have my doubts that anyone except the very wealthy would be willing to pay $20 for a gallon of gas. I think I read somewhere that most people live about 20-25 miles from their place of work. That would likely mean a 5x increase in fuel expense. At about 350 gallons purchased per year that would ballon the cost for transportation via car from $1200 to $7000. I would have to get a fairly large pay increase to justify driving to work. This isn't to mention the cost of food and other goods that would have to increase dramatically. At a certain point, most people would end up biking to work, move closer to work, and probably by more locally grown food.
What would stop the gas prices from hitting $50 or $100 per gallon? See above. As for gas being a needed resource, I disagree. It currently is needed because it is so cheap. If it becomes too expensive, it won't be needed. We will find other ways to trasport ourselves, will find other power sources (coal, fission, fusion, etc.), or we will find more supply to drive the price down. Much of the current fluctuation is the result of gambling, and not supply and demand.
How about water? Water is quite abundant, so I will assume you meant potable water. You may have to pay more for water during a disaster, people who were more prepared than others won't have to worry about that as much. The US is pretty good at handling national disasters, but when they do a poor job, I don't see anything wrong with others trying to close the gap (and make a little money on the side). I can't think of a situation where there is plenty of water(or foo), and people can't afford it...at least not in the US. As for the case at hand, it is unclear to me if K-V has a drug patent. As prior art exists (the cheap $10-$20 dollar shot). They are probably just capitalizing on the fact that we don't live in a free market. The key line I get from this article is...
And because FDA laws prohibit compounding pharmacies from making FDA-approved products, doctors will be legally obligated to stop using the cheaper version of this drug
The March of Dimes expected a completely different outcome.
however, many eligible patients faced logistical and financial barriers to access. FDA approval means the drug now will be widely available only in specialty pharmacies and that there will be improved access of the drug through healthcare coverage
The real outrage here should be with the FDA. Why should there be laws preventing me from buying whatever I want, FDA-approved or not. Why should the FDA care if I buy steriods from Mexico, or faux drugs from Canada, or mendicinal herbs. Let the buyer beware. I would prefer to keep my freedom at the cost of more danger. All the FDA is there for is to allow USA patients to subsidize poorer nations drugs (because they aren't as able to pay).
I am not really a conservative (at least not on all things). I support the Chris Rock postion, on taxes I'm conservative, on prostitution I'm liberal. I price is set by how much people are willing to pay. If they didn't think they could charge $1500, they wouldn't. The best course of action would be for people to call their Congress people and demand that the FDA laws are changed. You probably could argue that patents are anti-free market (but I won't). I like patents, but I don't think they should last as long as they do. I think that if you patent something, send cease and desist orders, sue and then it is shown that you patent is not defensible and the lawsuit is frivolous you should pay for the opposing lawyers (and possibly other damages).
As for the Great Depression thing, I grabbed the first article I could find. I really didn't care one way or the other, because it is impossible to prove that Obama didn't create/save a million jobs, or prevent the next great depression, or ... . I just grabbed the first thing I could find to make a snarky point.
It's Captain_Esteban. He doesn't seem to put much effort in making sense. I wouldn't expect his choice of color for the lettering to make sense either. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he denied that there was anything wrong with using red to type up large responses.
Or maybe there was a gansta fight and blood was spilt.
I would agree with you UN. And what is up with the red letters? Quote and reply.
I hate quoting a quote (of a quote of a quote). I know I can just use the generic 'quote' blocks without the post reference, but I have been doing it the wrong way so long it is difficult to change habits. I also didn't want to quote everything, just the questions, so it seemed easier that way. Is the red text that distracting? would green be better?
I would agree with you UN. And what is up with the red letters? Quote and reply.
I hate quoting a quote (of a quote of a quote). I know I can just use the generic 'quote' blocks without the post reference, but I have been doing it the wrong way so long it is difficult to change habits. I also didn't want to quote everything, just the questions, so it seemed easier that way. Is the red text that distracting? would green be better?
Make it match the background.
Who knows...
It's Captain_Esteban. He doesn't seem to put much effort in making sense. I wouldn't expect his choice of color for the lettering to make sense either. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he denied that there was anything wrong with using red to type up large responses.
Or maybe there was a gansta fight and blood was spilt.
I get the feeling you are doing a bit, since almost all your responses are "don't bother. blah blah blah." And then you go on to prove Boraxe's point. What exactly are you looking for?
I get the feeling you are doing a bit, since almost all your responses are "don't bother. blah blah blah." And then you go on to prove Boraxe's point. What exactly are you looking for?
Black doesn't match the background.
Is it just me or are the new kids not alot of fun?
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore). And sometimes when I read some of the new guys' posts I'm not sure if I should have gotten that "Proficiency in English" certificate, because they could just as well speak Greek or Chinese and I'd understand equally as much.
*Idioms are the bane of me; I have no idea if this sounds right.
What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? A lack of buyers at a certain point.
While an interesting concept, it's of course total BS when it comes to things that you need to survive. The only way to get a lack of buyers of clean drinking water is when everybody's dead. Mostly the same thing goes with the price of gas, many people need gas to get from and to their job. If the prices are doubled, people will complain, but they still need to buy it.
Price gouging works for things that are a luxury (see: expensive brands) but it doens't work for things that are a requirement for basic survival, like basic food, water, basic housing, and life saving medicine.
I would agree with you UN. And what is up with the red letters? Quote and reply.
I hate quoting a quote (of a quote of a quote). I know I can just use the generic 'quote' blocks without the post reference, but I have been doing it the wrong way so long it is difficult to change habits. I also didn't want to quote everything, just the questions, so it seemed easier that way. Is the red text that distracting? would green be better?
I’m going to have to agree with the Squirrel. The red is annoying. Quote and reply. Stop being such a lazy
. What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? A lack of buyers at a certain point.
As Pluisjen pointed out:
What is to stop them from continuing to increase the price? A lack of buyers at a certain point.
While an interesting concept, it's of course total BS when it comes to things that you need to survive. The only way to get a lack of buyers of clean drinking water is when everybody's dead. Mostly the same thing goes with the price of gas, many people need gas to get from and to their job. If the prices are doubled, people will complain, but they still need to buy it.
Price gouging works for things that are a luxury (see: expensive brands) but it doens't work for things that are a requirement for basic survival, like basic food, water, basic housing, and life saving medicine.
There is nothing to stop company X from charging such high prices that most people can’t afford it. The Fact that it is needed makes it so that they can charge whatever price they want (if price gouging was allowed to occur unchecked). The free markets rely on the laws of supply and demand to set prices. If price gouging is allowed to occur, the supply part of the equation is removed. There may be a large supply of water, but price gouging doesn’t take that into effect. All that you have to do is look at how badly people need drinkable water. You as a conservative should be offended that this is even suggested.
Right now gas around these parts is around $3.60/gallon. What is to stop the price of gas from hitting $20.00/gallon? I have my doubts that anyone except the very wealthy would be willing to pay $20 for a gallon of gas.
As long as there is a group of people willing and able to pay such high prices, price gouging encourages this. You can have your doubts, but the whole point of the video you linked was that price gouging encourages people/companies to acquire more of a needed product in order to distribute it. There is no indication that having more of that product would lower the cost of the product if price gouging practices were in effect.
I think I read somewhere that most people live about 20-25 miles from their place of work. That would likely mean a 5x increase in fuel expense. At about 350 gallons purchased per year that would ballon the cost for transportation via car from $1200 to $7000. I would have to get a fairly large pay increase to justify driving to work. This isn't to mention the cost of food and other goods that would have to increase dramatically. At a certain point, most people would end up biking to work, move closer to work, and probably by more locally grown food.
That is a nice dream you have there. Unfortunately time is working against you. Wha do you think can happen faster if price gouging is allowed: The price of gas going up to $20/gallon or jobs moving closer to people’s homes?
Sure, you could work closer to home, but you would be limited by the jobs available closer to your home. It will probably require a large pay cut if you are forced to work in a different job than the one that you were in before. You could argue that jobs could be moved closer to people’s homes, but how realistic is it to move all jobs closer to your home. Think about people working in the airline industry. How feasible is it to move those jobs closer to home? How far spread out can a company become before it no longer functions? Take a law firm for example. How close do you think all the people that work in a law firm live to each other? I don’t know many paralegals that make the type of money and live in the types of houses are the lawyers they work for make and live in. Eventually, a high enough price for gas would give added control over the workers to those who could afford gas at $20/gallons.
What would stop the gas prices from hitting $50 or $100 per gallon? See above. As for gas being a needed resource, I disagree. It currently is needed because it is so cheap. If it becomes too expensive, it won't be needed. We will find other ways to trasport ourselves, will find other power sources (coal, fission, fusion, etc.), or we will find more supply to drive the price down. Much of the current fluctuation is the result of gambling, and not supply and demand.
Exactly. Much of the current increase in the price of gas has to do with the speculations of traders. There is plenty of supply. The price is being increased because there is nothing to stop it or bring it back down. What you are seeing now is a small dose of price gouging. How much has the price of oil gone up in the last month? How much of that was due to the supply side of things? There is plenty of oil being pumped around the world. There is plenty of oil in the various strategic reserves. I’m sure the U.S. is not the only country with a stockpile of oil. Still, the price of oil has gone up. I saw on the news this morning that the price of gas has increased by 75 cents compared to the price of gas this same time last year. As long as companies are allowed to charge whatever price they want, and traders are allowed to gamble on the price of oil, there is nothing to stop the price of gas from reaching a ridiculously high price.
As for the argument that the reason we still use gas is because the price is so low and we could find alternative sources of energy… well… gas may be cheap to you, but there are plenty of people that find gas to be expensive… too expensive.
As for other sources of energy… what is it with conservatives wanting to wait until the price of gas has gone through the roof and the supply is almost gone before they go to alternative sources of energy? Wouldn’t other energy sources be more in line with the free markets? You get to choose your energy source and completion would determine the prices for the various energies.
How about water? Water is quite abundant, so I will assume you meant potable water.
Seeing as I mentioned buying bottled water, unless you go to supermarkets and buy sea water in bottles, I think it is an attempt at snark, or you being disingenuous.
You may have to pay more for water during a disaster, people who were more prepared than others won't have to worry about that as much. The US is pretty good at handling national disasters,
Katrina comes to mind.
but when they do a poor job, I don't see anything wrong with others trying to close the gap (and make a little money on the side).
There is a difference in people making a profit and taking advantage of a situation to exploit people. The link you posted up about child sec trafficking for food demonstrates this.
I can't think of a situation where there is plenty of water(or foo), and people can't afford it...at least not in the US.
Really? Considering the method of safe keeping money (Banks) and a person’s ability to access money from a bank, when the power is out, the banks are closed, and the employees of said banks are unable to attend customers, you can’t think of think of a situation where people couldn’t afford water? If you can’t, you either have a poor imagination, or are just denying any plausible possibilities to make your point. If it happens to be denial, well that’s just bad form. You aren’t discussing anything in good faith, just trying to win an argument by any means.
As for the case at hand, it is unclear to me if K-V has a drug patent. As prior art exists (the cheap $10-$20 dollar shot). They are probably just capitalizing on the fact that we don't live in a free market. The key line I get from this article is...
And because FDA laws prohibit compounding pharmacies from making FDA-approved products, doctors will be legally obligated to stop using the cheaper version of this drug
“…the Food and Drug Administration recently granted KV Pharmaceuticals sole rights to produce the drug…”
From that quote in the article, I would think the company too out some kind of patent or copy right to insure that they were the only ones able to make and distribute the drug.
This article also shows how high the price of a product can go if price gouging is allowed. In this case, there is no problem with te supply side of the equation. There were plenty of pharmacies making the drug and distributing it. K V Pharmaceuticals came in and stopped them from doing so. K V decides that there is a group of people willing and capable of paying $1500 per shot because it is available through insurance companies. People will pay it because it will save the life of their unborn child, not because it is cheap enough that they can afford it.
In any case, you never answered my question:
"K-V Pharm a company whos CEO is a pregnant women, all empolyees are pregnant women, and all stockholders are pregnant women has recieved FDA approval for a drug that can completely cure liberalism/conservitardism/foo (lets assume for the moment that fetuses are born that way) in fetuses, and are charging $1500. This money is desperately needed for the company because without it, all the pregnant women working/investing in the company couldn't afford the healthcare costs for babies that are all stricken with cancer/brain tumors/insert sad disease here. They have started sending cease and desist letters to pharmacies that are selling a non-FDA approved drug."
That depends on whose unborn child’s life you take to be more important. So… whose life is more important in your point of view?
I’ve taken the time to address your points; I would expect the same courtesy.
The March of Dimes expected a completely different outcome.
however, many eligible patients faced logistical and financial barriers to access. FDA approval means the drug now will be widely available only in specialty pharmacies and that there will be improved access of the drug through healthcare coverage
As I said before, this peoves that as long as there is a group of people willing to pay and able to pay for a product, the ceiling price of that product can be set at any ridiculous level. Seriously, you don’t see a problem with the price going up by 7500%? Really? 7500%
That is just ridiculous. The same thing can happen with gas or water. K V sells a life saving drug for $1500 per shot. What makes you think that another company won’t do the same with drinkable water? You need it. More people need water than they need the drug K V has high jacked.
The real outrage here should be with the FDA. Why should there be laws preventing me from buying whatever I want, FDA-approved or not. Why should the FDA care if I buy steriods from Mexico, or faux drugs from Canada, or mendicinal herbs. Let the buyer beware. I would prefer to keep my freedom at the cost of more danger. All the FDA is there for is to allow USA patients to subsidize poorer nations drugs (because they aren't as able to pay).
Did you ever read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclaire? You may want to take a look at that. It would answer your questions.
I am not really a conservative (at least not on all things). I support the Chris Rock postion, on taxes I'm conservative, on prostitution I'm liberal. I price is set by how much people are willing to pay. If they didn't think they could charge $1500, they wouldn't.
So do you believe that an unborn child is still a human life or not? This company has put a price on the life of a yet to be born child. Without the drug the child dies. With the drug the child lives.
The best course of action would be for people to call their Congress people and demand that the FDA laws are changed. You probably could argue that patents are anti-free market (but I won't). I like patents, but I don't think they should last as long as they do. I think that if you patent something, send cease and desist orders, sue and then it is shown that you patent is not defensible and the lawsuit is frivolous you should pay for the opposing lawyers (and possibly other damages).
You may not want to argue patent laws are anti-free-markets, but you know they are. They stifle competition. The limit the ability of free markets to set prices. I must admit, you are quite a contrary person. You support free markets, unless it cuts into profits. How does that work?
As for the Great Depression thing, I grabbed the first article I could find. I really didn't care one way or the other, because it is impossible to prove that Obama didn't create/save a million jobs, or prevent the next great depression, or ... . I just grabbed the first thing I could find to make a snarky point.
If you didn’t care why make the argument? What’s the point of making a snarky remark, besides making you look like another extremist right-wing conservative nutcase that is only pulling the party line without offering any actual solutions?
While an interesting concept, it's of course total BS when it comes to things that you need to survive. The only way to get a lack of buyers of clean drinking water is when everybody's dead. Mostly the same thing goes with the price of gas, many people need gas to get from and to their job. If the prices are doubled, people will complain, but they still need to buy it.Price gouging works for things that are a luxury (see: expensive brands) but it doens't work for things that are a requirement for basic survival, like basic food, water, basic housing, and life saving medicine.
Death is one answer. Taking our resources back that God has unfortunately misplaced under other countries is another (I'm looking at you America's Hat, and America's Beard). But seriously, gas is hardly required for "basic survival." The other things you might have a point on, but the line gets really blurred. At what point does it go from luxury to basic necessity?
If price gouging is allowed to occur, the supply part of the equation is removed. There may be a large supply of water, but price gouging doesn’t take that into effect. All that you have to do is look at how badly people need drinkable water.
I don't think supply/demand works that way (or price gouging). If it did, why isn't the price of water $100 a gallon everywhere in the world? Price gouging isn't outlawed everywhere and yet we don't have $100 a gallon water, what gives?
What do you think can happen faster if price gouging is allowed: The price of gas going up to $20/gallon or jobs moving closer to people’s homes?
The price going up to $20. But, then there would be a sever lack of buyers, and it would quickly fall (or if it didn't, they would have a large supply of a useless commodity). Airlines require kerosene for fuel (a biproduct of oil), so ticket prices might increase dramatically (if crude oil increased). If just gasoline prices increased, there might be a lot of people deciding to fly more often. High gas prices give added control to controllers of gas (or oil), it hardly gives control to law firms vs. paralegals.
What you are seeing now is a small dose of price gouging. How much has the price of oil gone up in the last month? How much of that was due to the supply side of things? There is plenty of oil being pumped around the world.
This really isn't price gouging, it is gambling on how much supply is expected to be available in the future. Not suppy and demand stuff, and probably a good reason to remove oil futures from the stockmarket. It might be the case the oil drops in the future, and as long as we don't bail those investors out, they will lose money.
but there are plenty of people that find gas to be expensive… too expensive.
What price should it be?
As for other sources of energy… what is it with conservatives wanting to wait until the price of gas has gone through the roof and the supply is almost gone before they go to alternative sources of energy?
I don't know. Drill baby, drill. Nuke me up. Build more dams. I am all for more energy in the world. That is probably the biggest crisis world wide, is the lack of cheap energy. Water, Food, etc. can all be obtained much easier with cheap energy.
can't think of a situation where there is plenty of water(or foo), and people can't afford it...at least not in the US.
Really? Considering the method of safe keeping money (Banks) and a person’s ability to access money from a bank, when the power is out, the banks are closed, and the employees of said banks are unable to attend customers, you can’t think of think of a situation where people couldn’t afford water?
Bartering is always available. But, if you don't have access to money and can't afford water, it is hardly price gouging (since you can't pay anyway). I don't think it is possible to win an argument, I just like proposing interesting questions that make people think.
In any case, you never answered my question:
No doubt. I must have missed it, what was the jist of it (or repost it, and I will try not to miss it this time). Ah, now I see, the "whose life is more important question". I think you missunderstood the use of the hypothetical drug in this question (my fault, I wasn't clear). It was a cure for some behaviorial issue in unborn fetuses, like liberalism (et. al.). If such a gene could be discovered, I am sure there might be some outrage over allowing women to opportunity to cure their babies of this condition. As for whos life is more important, neither is. I am not sure if you are coming from a Utilitarian position here, was that the point of the question, or was the point to answer a question with a question (not that there is anything wrong with that, especially if it is for clarification).
You don’t see a problem with the price going up by 7500%? Really? 7500%
Not really. Alternatives exist, but Neonatal units are quite expensive. I am against the FDA regulating drugs (which would have avoided this particular issue). The problem with having a problem with prices going up 7500% is that you would have to believe that their is some correct/optimum/etc. price that a good or service should be. I don't know how such a price could be determined.
What makes you think that another company won’t do the same with drinkable water? You need it. More people need water than they need the drug K V has high jacked.
It would be quite difficult to price gouge on water, since creating(finding) potable water isn't that difficult. Pepsi already charges $1 for a liter of what is essentially free (minus the cost of distribution, plastic, etc.), and people are willing to pay it for convience. Is that price gouging? What is an acceptable/correct price for water?
Did you ever read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclaire? You may want to take a look at that. It would answer your questions.
I just might read The Jungle (I do enjoy books like this. Flatland is an excellent book), but is the solution a socialist utopia where all goods prices are determined by the labor involved in producing them? (What answers will become apparant to me? Should I some how realize that goods have an intrinsic value, and their price shouldn't be determined by how much someone is wiling to pay?). Skimming it, he talks about the writers of books not getting paid, those professions will exist because some people like to preach and others like to listen. Do you really think we would have as much progress (entertainment, life saving drugs, other inventions) as we have had in the last century if we adopted this model?
So do you believe that an unborn child is still a human life or not? This company has put a price on the life of a yet to be born child. Without the drug the child dies. With the drug the child lives.
I'm not sure it matters if the fetus is a human life or not. The company put a price on their drug, and we have laws that prevent others from selling the drugs. I would prefer some consistancy within the law regarding unborn fetuses.
You may not want to argue patent laws are anti-free-markets, but you know they are. They stifle competition. The limit the ability of free markets to set prices. I must admit, you are quite a contrary person. You support free markets, unless it cuts into profits. How does that work?
I wasn't supporting free markets unless they cut into profits, I was trying to figure out what I was supposed to be outraged about in the OP's link. Patent laws are probably a necessary evil, and they are anti-free-market (for a limited time, that is possibly too long). If we didn't have them, the free market would decide that testing and development of life saving drugs wasn't worth it. In this particular instantance it wouldn't have made a difference, because prior art existed, and the draconian FDA laws are the problem. I wonder if you can admit something now...
Are labor unions anti free market? I would figure that they are since they monopolise the means of production, and price gouge manufacturers (or other employers).
I don't think it is possible to win an argument, I just like proposing interesting questions that make people think.
Oh but you are funny.
I don't think supply/demand works that way (or price gouging). If it did, why isn't the price of water $100 a gallon everywhere in the world? Price gouging isn't outlawed everywhere and yet we don't have $100 a gallon water, what gives?
Because no government, nor any populace, would accept that. That's why. Even if price gouging isn't outlawed, trying to up the prices of clean drinking water would end up with governments coming down on you fast. That's simply not something any government will tolerate. Because it would cause huge troubles.
As a side note; there probably are countries where drinking water is unaffordable for the general populace. These are generally warzones in Africa and the like, where there is no government... the only way you can possibly get away with it.
African warzones, where the supply of drinking water isn't abundant. Where water is abundant, it would be quite difficult to charge $100 a gallon.
Not if you control the supply. Although it might differ from country to country. The USA is probably big enough that people can take water from natural lakes. The Netherlands on the other hand doesn't have enough lakes.
Not to mention that water isn't exactly abundant in million+ people cities. The only water there is controlled by the corporations, who are asking $100 per gallon for it. What are you going to do? Drink rainwater?
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore).
Please tell me you're not serious. He's around. I'll give you a hint as to who he is:
Every one of his sigs has had a quote about military solutions in it, from long before he was HATER and long after as well. Admittedly his behaviour has improved from the days he was just randomly trolling the 4E forums.
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore).
Please tell me you're not serious. He's around. I'll give you a hint as to who he is:
Every one of his sigs has had a quote about military solutions in it, from long before he was HATER and long after as well. Admittedly his behaviour has improved from the days he was just randomly trolling the 4E forums.
(I think it was a joke.)
I have to agree, we've been going great lenghts* to depoliticize the boards and those people are sometimes worse than Goldo at his worst or that banned the_HATER guy (I'm glad he seems to not be around anymore).
Please tell me you're not serious. He's around. I'll give you a hint as to who he is:
Every one of his sigs has had a quote about military solutions in it, from long before he was HATER and long after as well. Admittedly his behaviour has improved from the days he was just randomly trolling the 4E forums.
(I think it was a joke.)
It wasn't much of a joke as an observation... from a certain point of view.