• HardNut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do they have to pay off the government? You’re still assuming some government control, but in a truly free market capitalist system, the government would not have any influence in the market anyway, so paying them off would yield 0 results. You directly say the less government control the better, that’s a deeply capitalistic sentiment.

    I feel as though you’re also assuming I’m 100% advocating for what I’m describing. This is incorrect, because I believe some statehood is necessary to ward off the inherent chaos of a completely free society. The one and only point my post makes, is that the systemic flaw pointed out by the post is absolutely not a capitalist one, regardless of political alignment the post is incorrect.

    Whether you’re more capitalistic or socialistic, the first step to solving a problem is proper diagnosis.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re saying it’s not capitalist because of government involvement, but the government has to be involved in order to enforce capitalism. A private entity can claim ownership over something, but what enforces that claim? I said “the less government control the better” as in better for the monopolistic companies who wouldn’t have regulators threatening to break up their monopoly or having to pay them off.

      I didn’t say anything regarding what you advocate, I’m just pointing out that capitalism requires statement enforcement, so pretending that government involvement is not capitalist is wrong. I’m also pointing out that the situation would be worse without certain regulations such as anti-trust laws because capitalism naturally converges on monopolies.

      • HardNut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree government needs to be involved to an extent. My comment was still correct, the issues of medicine do not stem from capitalism. This does not mean capitalism is without flaw

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The example you gave doesn’t make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. “the public” at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson’s stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.

          As for drug patents (and patents in general), the idea is to secure timed exclusivity to sell in the market in exchange for public disclosure of method of invention. If we didn’t have patents, companies would instead treat drug formulations as trade secrets and so they’d hold onto that exclusivity as long as they can keep the formulation a secret or until another entity reinvents the same thing. There are issues with the patent process and especially with private companies benefiting from publicly-funded research while locking up exclusivity and jacking up prices, but those are still problems with capitalism, and they’re still better than just letting the free market completely monopolize the process.

          • HardNut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The example you gave doesn’t make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. “the public” at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson’s stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.

            If a corporation is publicly traded, then its ownership is held by the public collective that chooses to invest. The ownership in question is not your specific ownership of a share individually, the ownership in question is the ownership of the means of production, which a public collective invested in. It is not true that you buying one share privately implies the whole thing is private. That’s like saying the fact that you voted in private means the government is privately controlled. Yes, private individuals can vote and buy stock, that does not make either private. It makes them public.

            The definitions also agree with me btw

            Private Ownership:

            Public Ownership:

            • A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company’s assets and profits. (Same source)
            • ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled “define public ownership”)

            So, if it’s owned by the government, or has shares available for purchase by any public body, then it is public. If it’s not owned by the state or public body, it’s private.

            Johnson & Johnson, just like all public corporations, has its shares available for purchase for the public. Therefor, it is public, not private. Honestly, the more you go into it, the harder it is to get away from the simple fact that private means private, and public means public.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you not understand what the point of a public offering is? It’s to offer up shares of your company to others in order to raise funds so you can expand more rapidly. You throwing in the word “collective” is a poor game of word association. Are you trying to argue that publicly-traded companies are communist? You should really hit the books and straighten out your terminology because you’re using it all wrong and you’re only misleading others who don’t know any better.

              • HardNut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You throwing in the word “collective” is a poor game of word association. Are you trying to argue that publicly-traded companies are communist?

                You’re really reading way too much into things. Just take out the word collective from my comment if it upsets you so much, it makes sense without it.

                The conclusion I got to was that public corporations are not private companies. Looks like you’re longer disputing that I guess, so you agree with that now?

                • hark@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I never said public corporations are private companies. You’re confused and don’t seem to have a point to make. Do you think publicly-traded companies are not capitalist?

                  • HardNut@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Okay so public corporations are not private companies. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Public corporations are not private, so they’re not capitalist either. I dunno why you had to ask, that was my original point to begin with, it’s silly to see a non-capitalist entity like Johnson & Johnson do something bad and blame capitalism for it.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Public companies” are owned by private individuals, you absolute dingus. Being for sale means private. They belong to specific persons and organizations.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you understand how something being owned by a democratic government is different than something being owned by individuals, whether it is publicly traded or not?

              Like, from a power perspective, do you understand the difference for the average prole between the means of production being owned by individuals based on heredity vs being collectively owned by a democratic body?

    • TheKingBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel as though you’re also assuming I’m 100% advocating for what I’m describing

      i think you’re missing it. Government for as glacial and corrupt and corruptible as it is, is the only buffer from the excess of a free market.

      businesses without a guardrail HAVE proven they will sacrifice everything, literally everything in the name of profit.

      Oil companies have know for about a century that they are destroying the planet and they are *still * doing it. They fight every regulation that stops them tooth and nail. They buy and shelve technologies that would cut into their profit. Imagine a world where there was no one trying to stop them at all?

      That is the proper diagnosis of our system. We have allowed unaccountable immoral groups to control the means of production and they are literally using it to with kill us all.

      • HardNut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not missing it, that’s just a different point. I don’t disagree with everything you say here, it just doesn’t really address or refute anything I said. I stuck with the topical example of helpful medicine, which is demonstrably controlled by corporations and the state. Thus, it is not at all capitalist.

        businesses without a guardrail HAVE proven they will sacrifice everything, literally everything in the name of profit. Hence why market competition should be encouraged, right? Which businesses are you referring to, public ones or private ones? (they both do it btw, don’t pin it on private)

        Reminder: profit does not mean capitalist, market does not mean capitalist. Public bodies can act in and/or control markets, and they can make profit. That’s not a private thing

        • TheKingBee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay, let’s do it explain how in a “pure” capitalist society a public body, without the ability to at least nominally use a legal system to guard against collusion and monopoly using the threat of breaking up or shutting down corporations, provide any protection?

          Giving them the power to do that makes them just a government by another name.

          • HardNut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You literally directly quoted me saying that it seemed like you thought I was advocating for pure capitalism, and now you are directly asking me to defend pure capitalism. You are trying incredibly hard to straw man me into something I’m not, and I would like you to stop that.

            This conversion will go no where unless you actually want to respond to things I’m saying, so please let me ask you directly about what I was actually saying: is it appropriate to blame capitalism when a public corporation in collusion with the government is at fault for an issue? If not, why?

            • TheKingBee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess i’m getting that from when you first said,

              but in a truly free market capitalist system

              I just assumed you were defending a “truly free market” capitalism.

              to address what you just posted,

              is it appropriate to blame capitalism when a public corporation in collusion with the government is at fault for an issue? If not, why?

              yes, capitalism creates the conditions for that collusion. It allows entities with the only goal of profit at any cost.

              removing the government doesn’t reduce that corruption it just allows it to go unchecked without even an illusion of protection to the public.

              • HardNut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                yes, capitalism creates the conditions for that collusion.

                Focus on what capitalism means when you say this, and focus on the context you’re saying this in. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and we are discussing medicine. So, what you’re saying, is that the private control of medicine created the conditions for government collusion with a public corporation, This does not make sense, because public corporations are not private. This is corporatism, not capitalism.

                removing the government doesn’t reduce that corruption

                Then it’s the governments job to allow private entities some avenue to produce medicine. They can do so by not enforcing patents on helpful medicine that empowers corporations.