[Opinion] Split: Effectiveness of capitalism

[Nembra]

Capitalism has no space for problems being solved permanently, and therefore businesses ending graciously or being wound down. There is no provision for downsizing. There is only relentless growth. And in the medical field that translates to people being sicker, with more different sicknesses, for as long as possible… as long as they don’t die, of course.

Well, that's not exactly true. Free market alone simply kills and eats what businesses that can't grow. If a permanent solution is available then it's beneficial for someone to sell it and ultimately a branch of industry wilts until supply meets demand. It's this corpocratic circus we are unfortunate to inhabit that allows corporations to grow beyond whatever market value they can produce by using administration to manipulate capital and protect themselves from competition.

 

[SkullTraill]

Split off: https://wizardforums.com/threads/big-pharma-shills.25232/

 

[SkullTraill]

Well, that's not exactly true. Free market alone simply kills and eats what businesses that can't grow. If a permanent solution is available then it's beneficial for someone to sell it and ultimately a branch of industry wilts until supply meets demand. It's this corpocratic circus we are unfortunate to inhabit that allows corporations to grow beyond whatever market value they can produce by using administration to manipulate capital and protect themselves from competition.

OK, then answer me this hypothetical. Let's say there's a company, it needs 1 trillion dollars to develop a cure for cancer. The science is solid and they know it will 100% work. Also they have a patent on it so no one could ever replicate the technology. Now, the technology allows them to do EITHER one of the following: either, they can press one button, and eradicate cancer in all humans forever (let's say some 5G mega wireless gene editing technology that somehow propagates the entire earth). The other option they have is they can do it on a patient-by-patient basis, completely curing an individual patient of any cancer they currently have.

Now tell me, without attacking the premise of such a technology ever existing, which one of these options would capitalism prefer/select for? For both, the company would need to seek investment, 1 trillion dollars. They would have no problem finding that, seeing as they can provably demonstrate their technology works. But now they are beholden to investors that want to recoup their money.

For option one, they can't charge anyone anything. For option 2, they can charge individuals an exorbitant amount for all eternity.

Which option do you think a capitalistic economy would select for or force?

My claim is that option 1 is clearly the better solution for humanity, but could never, ever happen with capitalism.

Of course, this is a black and white, purely hypothetical example. But I have seen with my own eyes, this same scenario unfolding to a lesser degree, with the lines a little blurrier, the choice harder... but still, selecting for profit over good none the less.

A permanent solution does not mean its beneficial for someone to sell it. In fact, a permanent, truly good solution is almost never beneficial in capitalism. Philosophers and economists sit together and jerk off at the mental gymnastics of imagining an idealised model. But not a billion of them, nor a universe sized supercomputer could ever model the true, ugly, imperfect real world. They're always chatting some shit abut supply and demand when those are pretty much the least important things when it comes to modelling reality. What about greed, selfishness, envy, stupidity etc etc. Not just by the elites, but by everyone.

 

[Nembra]

OK, then answer me this hypothetical. Let's say there's a company, it needs 1 trillion dollars to develop a cure for cancer. The science is solid and they know it will 100% work. Also they have a patent on it so no one could ever replicate the technology. Now, the technology allows them to do EITHER one of the following: either, they can press one button, and eradicate cancer in all humans forever (let's say some 5G mega wireless gene editing technology that somehow propagates the entire earth). The other option they have is they can do it on a patient-by-patient basis, completely curing an individual patient of any cancer they currently have.

Now tell me, without attacking the premise of such a technology ever existing, which one of these options would capitalism prefer/select for? For both, the company would need to seek investment, 1 trillion dollars. They would have no problem finding that, seeing as they can provably demonstrate their technology works. But now they are beholden to investors that want to recoup their money.

For option one, they can't charge anyone anything. For option 2, they can charge individuals an exorbitant amount for all eternity.

Which option do you think a capitalistic economy would select for or force?

My claim is that option 1 is clearly the better solution for humanity, but could never, ever happen with capitalism.

Of course, this is a black and white, purely hypothetical example. But I have seen with my own eyes, this same scenario unfolding to a lesser degree, with the lines a little blurrier, the choice harder... but still, selecting for profit over good none the less.

A permanent solution does not mean its beneficial for someone to sell it. In fact, a permanent, truly good solution is almost never beneficial in capitalism. Philosophers and economists sit together and jerk off at the mental gymnastics of imagining an idealised model. But not a billion of them, nor a universe sized supercomputer could ever model the true, ugly, imperfect real world. They're always chatting some shit abut supply and demand when those are pretty much the least important things when it comes to modelling reality. What about greed, selfishness, envy, stupidity etc etc. Not just by the elites, but by everyone.

In this case the patent law is a form of protectionism which goes against the principles of free market. There is no capitalism to speak of in such a situation, by the very ramifications of your question.

Capitalism obviously, as any theory has its deficiencies - I mean actual ones, not those gnarly knots of rhetorics marxists entertain each other with. Every model does. The thing is, before it gets to them big chunk of the most pressing issues of modern world are already solved. I'd rather say that, on that particular issue, philosophers and economists are desperately flailing their hands at the most obvious facts most of the society managed to delude itself into ignoring.