Election 2020

[96583UP]

#PharmaBro2024

[Mickey]

I would say two things:

One, that I don't think selling a medical cure for money in a world where the majority of people are expected to sell their labor power in order to live is objectively immoral. It's definitely not objectively moral, it doesn't make you a good person. In the actually-existing world where doctors and researchers are by and large well-compensated, I'd say it's relatively immoral (to a pretty high degree) in that it barters your own comfort over other people's lives, but I also recognize that there are systemic pressures to incentivize trying to sell this unique result of labor for the highest price so as to prevent the possibility of future immiseration (this degree of relatively immorality goes down if the researcher is not highly compensated (i.e. a grad student), or from a poorer country where researchers are not already white-collar professionals, or personally has massive outstanding debts, and so on--we all make compromised choices). Which is why I definitely would not advocate for the execution of biomedical researchers who make money off of their work (CEOs, different story), though I would argue for a different relationship between the state and the relations of production that reduce or eliminate the wage-relation as the primary determinant for lifestyle.

At the same time, this is absolutely an extreme, exceptional example that doesn't at all represent the super-wealthy in America, the vast majority of whom do not make their money from inventing cancer cures or any other form in labor, but from exploiting global labor supplies (Bezos, Gates), engaging in predatory rent-seeking activities (Buffett), or unproductive finance capital which at best makes nothing happen and at worst is a further extraction of value from labor transferred to shareholders (to say nothing of the relative immorality of hoarding wealth, which would apply to famous musicians, athletes, etc.). So, as I said before, it's a pretty weak gotcha to point to a non-representative case as a reason to not personally loathe the wealthy, especially when that case is, per my first point, not exactly a shining star of moral virtue.

[Mickey]

Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming:

Punching left when you're the most left-wing candidate in the race? That's praxis baby!

[Rob]

I would say two things:

One, that I don't think selling a medical cure for money in a world where the majority of people are expected to sell their labor power in order to live is objectively immoral. It's definitely not objectively moral, it doesn't make you a good person. In the actually-existing world where doctors and researchers are by and large well-compensated, I'd say it's relatively immoral (to a pretty high degree) in that it barters your own comfort over other people's lives, but I also recognize that there are systemic pressures to incentivize trying to sell this unique result of labor for the highest price so as to prevent the possibility of future immiseration (this degree of relatively immorality goes down if the researcher is not highly compensated (i.e. a grad student), or from a poorer country where researchers are not already white-collar professionals, or personally has massive outstanding debts, and so on--we all make compromised choices). Which is why I definitely would not advocate for the execution of biomedical researchers who make money off of their work (CEOs, different story), though I would argue for a different relationship between the state and the relations of production that reduce or eliminate the wage-relation as the primary determinant for lifestyle.

At the same time, this is absolutely an extreme, exceptional example that doesn't at all represent the super-wealthy in America, the vast majority of whom do not make their money from inventing cancer cures or any other form in labor, but from exploiting global labor supplies (Bezos, Gates), engaging in predatory rent-seeking activities (Buffett), or unproductive finance capital which at best makes nothing happen and at worst is a further extraction of value from labor transferred to shareholders (to say nothing of the relative immorality of hoarding wealth, which would apply to famous musicians, athletes, etc.). So, as I said before, it's a pretty weak gotcha to point to a non-representative case as a reason to not personally loathe the wealthy, especially when that case is, per my first point, not exactly a shining star of moral virtue.

Good post. I wasn't saying you believed it was objectively immoral, I was saying I think it is. But it was more of a casual argument. Dr. Jonas Salk is an American hero, but obviously the world doesn't work that way. People need incentive and they should be compensated properly. But as I'm sure everyone here would agree, the current system is bonkers in this regard. A cure for cancer or any other widespread disease should be made available to everyone who needs it ASAP. The price of insulin is a red flag. One of my kids has an anaphylactic allergy, and the price of an Epipen spiked to the point where we had to find an alternative. Red flag. So I would say the system itself is amoral, but us keeping it is definitely immoral. It needs to change.

[McParadigm]

Can’t think of a more Republican image than this right here

[wease]

Can’t think of a more Republican image than this right here

Ain’t it good to be alive and be in Tennessee?

[Mickey]

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are locked in a tight race in six states that will shape who wins the White House in November, according to a new CNBC/Change Research survey.

The Republican incumbent and apparent Democratic nominee are virtually tied in the battlegrounds of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the States of Play poll of swing states released Wednesday. Trump edges Biden by a 48% to 47% margin across those states, the poll found.

Trump and Biden are deadlocked in six key 2020 election states

North Carolina probably skews the numbers a bit but nevertheless.

[Bi_3]

I would say two things:

One, that I don't think selling a medical cure for money in a world where the majority of people are expected to sell their labor power in order to live is objectively immoral. It's definitely not objectively moral, it doesn't make you a good person. In the actually-existing world where doctors and researchers are by and large well-compensated, I'd say it's relatively immoral (to a pretty high degree) in that it barters your own comfort over other people's lives, but I also recognize that there are systemic pressures to incentivize trying to sell this unique result of labor for the highest price so as to prevent the possibility of future immiseration (this degree of relatively immorality goes down if the researcher is not highly compensated (i.e. a grad student), or from a poorer country where researchers are not already white-collar professionals, or personally has massive outstanding debts, and so on--we all make compromised choices). Which is why I definitely would not advocate for the execution of biomedical researchers who make money off of their work (CEOs, different story), though I would argue for a different relationship between the state and the relations of production that reduce or eliminate the wage-relation as the primary determinant for lifestyle.

At the same time, this is absolutely an extreme, exceptional example that doesn't at all represent the super-wealthy in America, the vast majority of whom do not make their money from inventing cancer cures or any other form in labor, but from exploiting global labor supplies (Bezos, Gates), engaging in predatory rent-seeking activities (Buffett), or unproductive finance capital which at best makes nothing happen and at worst is a further extraction of value from labor transferred to shareholders (to say nothing of the relative immorality of hoarding wealth, which would apply to famous musicians, athletes, etc.). So, as I said before, it's a pretty weak gotcha to point to a non-representative case as a reason to not personally loathe the wealthy, especially when that case is, per my first point, not exactly a shining star of moral virtue.

Good post. I wasn't saying you believed it was objectively immoral, I was saying I think it is. But it was more of a casual argument. Dr. Jonas Salk is an American hero, but obviously the world doesn't work that way. People need incentive and they should be compensated properly. But as I'm sure everyone here would agree, the current system is bonkers in this regard. A cure for cancer or any other widespread disease should be made available to everyone who needs it ASAP. The price of insulin is a red flag. One of my kids has an anaphylactic allergy, and the price of an Epipen spiked to the point where we had to find an alternative. Red flag. So I would say the system itself is amoral, but us keeping it is definitely immoral. It needs to change.

If you offered a solution to a $1T/year dilemma facing the entire planet for $6.5M (~0.00065% of the yearly impact), which is just enough for an MD/PhD to retire in their 40s in not have a lifestyle change, I would not consider that immoral.

[Mickey]

Okay.

[Jorge]

I would say two things:

One, that I don't think selling a medical cure for money in a world where the majority of people are expected to sell their labor power in order to live is objectively immoral. It's definitely not objectively moral, it doesn't make you a good person. In the actually-existing world where doctors and researchers are by and large well-compensated, I'd say it's relatively immoral (to a pretty high degree) in that it barters your own comfort over other people's lives, but I also recognize that there are systemic pressures to incentivize trying to sell this unique result of labor for the highest price so as to prevent the possibility of future immiseration (this degree of relatively immorality goes down if the researcher is not highly compensated (i.e. a grad student), or from a poorer country where researchers are not already white-collar professionals, or personally has massive outstanding debts, and so on--we all make compromised choices). Which is why I definitely would not advocate for the execution of biomedical researchers who make money off of their work (CEOs, different story), though I would argue for a different relationship between the state and the relations of production that reduce or eliminate the wage-relation as the primary determinant for lifestyle.

At the same time, this is absolutely an extreme, exceptional example that doesn't at all represent the super-wealthy in America, the vast majority of whom do not make their money from inventing cancer cures or any other form in labor, but from exploiting global labor supplies (Bezos, Gates), engaging in predatory rent-seeking activities (Buffett), or unproductive finance capital which at best makes nothing happen and at worst is a further extraction of value from labor transferred to shareholders (to say nothing of the relative immorality of hoarding wealth, which would apply to famous musicians, athletes, etc.). So, as I said before, it's a pretty weak gotcha to point to a non-representative case as a reason to not personally loathe the wealthy, especially when that case is, per my first point, not exactly a shining star of moral virtue.

This was a very surprising post when I thought Argo had written it

[Rob]

I would say two things:

One, that I don't think selling a medical cure for money in a world where the majority of people are expected to sell their labor power in order to live is objectively immoral. It's definitely not objectively moral, it doesn't make you a good person. In the actually-existing world where doctors and researchers are by and large well-compensated, I'd say it's relatively immoral (to a pretty high degree) in that it barters your own comfort over other people's lives, but I also recognize that there are systemic pressures to incentivize trying to sell this unique result of labor for the highest price so as to prevent the possibility of future immiseration (this degree of relatively immorality goes down if the researcher is not highly compensated (i.e. a grad student), or from a poorer country where researchers are not already white-collar professionals, or personally has massive outstanding debts, and so on--we all make compromised choices). Which is why I definitely would not advocate for the execution of biomedical researchers who make money off of their work (CEOs, different story), though I would argue for a different relationship between the state and the relations of production that reduce or eliminate the wage-relation as the primary determinant for lifestyle.

At the same time, this is absolutely an extreme, exceptional example that doesn't at all represent the super-wealthy in America, the vast majority of whom do not make their money from inventing cancer cures or any other form in labor, but from exploiting global labor supplies (Bezos, Gates), engaging in predatory rent-seeking activities (Buffett), or unproductive finance capital which at best makes nothing happen and at worst is a further extraction of value from labor transferred to shareholders (to say nothing of the relative immorality of hoarding wealth, which would apply to famous musicians, athletes, etc.). So, as I said before, it's a pretty weak gotcha to point to a non-representative case as a reason to not personally loathe the wealthy, especially when that case is, per my first point, not exactly a shining star of moral virtue.

Good post. I wasn't saying you believed it was objectively immoral, I was saying I think it is. But it was more of a casual argument. Dr. Jonas Salk is an American hero, but obviously the world doesn't work that way. People need incentive and they should be compensated properly. But as I'm sure everyone here would agree, the current system is bonkers in this regard. A cure for cancer or any other widespread disease should be made available to everyone who needs it ASAP. The price of insulin is a red flag. One of my kids has an anaphylactic allergy, and the price of an Epipen spiked to the point where we had to find an alternative. Red flag. So I would say the system itself is amoral, but us keeping it is definitely immoral. It needs to change.

If you offered a solution to a $1T/year dilemma facing the entire planet for $6.5M (~0.00065% of the yearly impact), which is just enough for an MD/PhD to retire in their 40s in not have a lifestyle change, I would not consider that immoral.

Of course. But the system is still immoral if you deny the cure to someone because they don't have the money. Like with the case of the Epipens - compensating people for their work inventing & producing it is obviously good. A system where the price is allowed to spike 50-100x what it costs to make, pricing people out of a life saving device, is just wrong.

[Bi_3]

Of course. But the system is still immoral if you deny the cure to someone because they don't have the money. Like with the case of the Epipens - compensating people for their work inventing & producing it is obviously good. A system where the price is allowed to spike 50-100x what it costs to make, pricing people out of a life saving device, is just wrong.

Agreed. I haven't seen a plan I think fairly balances the need to have enough money in pharma to keep the world's best and brightest there with the moral aspect of maximizing human quality of life.

[digster]

I would say two things:

One, that I don't think selling a medical cure for money in a world where the majority of people are expected to sell their labor power in order to live is objectively immoral. It's definitely not objectively moral, it doesn't make you a good person. In the actually-existing world where doctors and researchers are by and large well-compensated, I'd say it's relatively immoral (to a pretty high degree) in that it barters your own comfort over other people's lives, but I also recognize that there are systemic pressures to incentivize trying to sell this unique result of labor for the highest price so as to prevent the possibility of future immiseration (this degree of relatively immorality goes down if the researcher is not highly compensated (i.e. a grad student), or from a poorer country where researchers are not already white-collar professionals, or personally has massive outstanding debts, and so on--we all make compromised choices). Which is why I definitely would not advocate for the execution of biomedical researchers who make money off of their work (CEOs, different story), though I would argue for a different relationship between the state and the relations of production that reduce or eliminate the wage-relation as the primary determinant for lifestyle.

At the same time, this is absolutely an extreme, exceptional example that doesn't at all represent the super-wealthy in America, the vast majority of whom do not make their money from inventing cancer cures or any other form in labor, but from exploiting global labor supplies (Bezos, Gates), engaging in predatory rent-seeking activities (Buffett), or unproductive finance capital which at best makes nothing happen and at worst is a further extraction of value from labor transferred to shareholders (to say nothing of the relative immorality of hoarding wealth, which would apply to famous musicians, athletes, etc.). So, as I said before, it's a pretty weak gotcha to point to a non-representative case as a reason to not personally loathe the wealthy, especially when that case is, per my first point, not exactly a shining star of moral virtue.

Good post. I wasn't saying you believed it was objectively immoral, I was saying I think it is. But it was more of a casual argument. Dr. Jonas Salk is an American hero, but obviously the world doesn't work that way. People need incentive and they should be compensated properly. But as I'm sure everyone here would agree, the current system is bonkers in this regard. A cure for cancer or any other widespread disease should be made available to everyone who needs it ASAP. The price of insulin is a red flag. One of my kids has an anaphylactic allergy, and the price of an Epipen spiked to the point where we had to find an alternative. Red flag. So I would say the system itself is amoral, but us keeping it is definitely immoral. It needs to change.

If you offered a solution to a $1T/year dilemma facing the entire planet for $6.5M (~0.00065% of the yearly impact), which is just enough for an MD/PhD to retire in their 40s in not have a lifestyle change, I would not consider that immoral.

I think this is kind of hypothetical is a non-starter; if there was an actual cure for cancer for sale for $6.5 million, the check would be cut before this imagined doctor finished making the offer. The more important question is what moral ground he stands on when he decides to hold out for a better offer.

[Mickey]

Thankfully we don't need hypotheticals to realize that wealth hoarding is immoral.

[96583UP]

there should be better incentives to encourage billionaires to put their money to work in productive endeavors that result in societal benefit

and not just cosmetic feel good stuff that generates tax breaks

tangibly helpful stuff that generates tax breaks

like building affordable housing, repairing infrastructure, and conquering weak nations to extract their resources

[Mickey]

What if we could use billionaires' money for social benefit regardless of whether they want to or not?

[96583UP]

the vanguard of the proletariat would squander it

[verb_to_trust]

What if we could use billionaires' money for social benefit regardless of whether they want to or not?

Px wants you to ask them nicely instead

[Let's all laugh at Rangers]

Hot take: I think Biden winning would be disastrous, and would mean we have to keep playing out this farce for many more years. There will always be more Trumps to serve as bogeyman, and always more Bidens to feed off of the terrified voters.

Four more years of Trump would do the democrats some good, much the same way that 8 years of Obama and the failures of McCain and Romney did for Republican voters, who successfully revolted against party leaders. Dem voters should admire and be inspired by this incredible feat, but partisanship blinds them.

I was hoping the dems were already there with Bernie, but this year has proved that the dems haven't reached their breaking point yet. They're all too afraid of the other guy to vote for what they really believe in.

In that case people need to vote for someone else. There's a strong message in "we lost because we lost votes to...".

[Bi_3]

Hot take: I think Biden winning would be disastrous, and would mean we have to keep playing out this farce for many more years. There will always be more Trumps to serve as bogeyman, and always more Bidens to feed off of the terrified voters.

Four more years of Trump would do the democrats some good, much the same way that 8 years of Obama and the failures of McCain and Romney did for Republican voters, who successfully revolted against party leaders. Dem voters should admire and be inspired by this incredible feat, but partisanship blinds them.

I was hoping the dems were already there with Bernie, but this year has proved that the dems haven't reached their breaking point yet. They're all too afraid of the other guy to vote for what they really believe in.

In that case people need to vote for someone else. There's a strong message in "we lost because we lost votes to...".

Please don't do this. Please vote for Biden. Please.