Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, March 16th, 2021 - 34 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/pfizer-execs-highlight-significant-opportunity-hike-covid-vaccine-price-2021-3?r=US&IR=T
Sickening. Capitalists will capitalism, I guess.
Yeah – but there's an important argument behind all this that 'the left' needs to counter: if there wasn't the promise of vast profits, would Pfizer have put in the effort to produce what looks like a pretty effective vaccine with a novel mechanism of action (mRNA), in record quick time? It is one of the few good arguments for allowing markets to function in a reasonably unrestrained fashion.
Vaccines aren’t generally profitable business. Public funds contribute significantly to the research. And when the researchers seek to provide those patent-free, caring billionaire philanthropists can convince them to back-track for the profits. But at what cost?
https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/
As far as public funding for other vaccines:
https://www.axios.com/moderna-coronavirus-phase-3-barda-funding-stock-37298c66-975d-415b-a918-c5f450f5a895.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/pfizer-vaccine-s-funding-came-from-berlin-not-washington
Finally, Kropotkin wrote about invention in The Conquest of Bread, which I think makes a good argument. Some excerpts:
https://www.thepolisblog.org/2013/01/peter-kropotkin-on-invention.html
The problem is not with the idea. Ideas are without limit and virtually free – anyone can have them.
The challenge is turning the idea into something useful, and when it comes to vaccines as an example, it costs billions to develop, trial, approve, manufacture and build the distribution networks. It's all highly complex, tightly regulated and expensive operations undertaken by highly skilled researchers, technicians and operators.
None of it happens for free.
A large part is publicly funded (see 1.1.1 & 1.1.2 above). The point you’re missing is those researchers, technicians and operators were educated in public schools, used publicly funded transportation and communication networks, regulated by public institutions and governed by publicly elected politicians, etc etc. We are bouyed along on the cresting wave of history, by the momentum of every preceding human who laboured to shape the world. We have always achieved the most by co-operating, and for tens of thousands of years it did happen ‘for free’.
The point you’re missing is those researchers, technicians and operators were educated in public schools, used publicly funded transportation and communication networks, regulated by public institutions and governed by publicly elected politicians, etc etc.
I'm very well aware of this – it's essentially called social infrastructure. It's one of the most important ways the public sector contributes towards the economy.
But to argue this means the private sector should somehow do everything for free simply does not follow. These two aspects of our economic life, the public and the private co-exist in symbiosis with each other, each complementing the others strengths. It's not an either/or binary choice.
Strawman’s argument; nobody said that.
AstraZeneca has promised not to profit from its Covid-19 vaccine but that promise is starting to come under a cloud …
The temptation might be too strong.
Well given the cloud that their vaccine has now come under there is a very real risk they might lose everything they invested in it.
Edit: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/germany-suspends-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-amid-blood-clot-worries-n1261097
These are high stakes gambles being played out here.
Sorry, not the cloud I was meaning. The non-profit promise was only valid for the duration of the pandemic. Guess when that might finish …
If not "for free", then how about 'at cost'. Is "for profit" a necessary characteristic of private sector enterprises and, if so, might the profit motive be responsible for some 'unfortunate' outcomes?
Look I'm as cynical as the anyone here around the motives and practices of Big Pharma – but I'm not an ideological fool about it.
The reason why profit exists is not reward for effort – as most working people imagine. It's reward for risk.
RL, I never suggested that you were.
That’s an intriguing PoV; unfortunately the pernicious influence of the profit motive sometimes smears the ‘risk‘ beyond those seeking rewards, wouldn’t you agree.
Anyway, I used the wrong example; Pfizers's 'unfortunate' outcomes were nothing compared to Merck's.
Spoken as a true shareholder, not as a wage-worker.
The other point is that there is a range of affordability between "free" and "with the resumption of “normal market conditions” over time, there would then be a chance for the company to take advantage of opportunities from “a demand…and pricing perspective.” ".
The former might be unrealistic in today's world, but we know that the latter means people will die preventable deaths because they couldn't afford life-saving interventions in "normal market conditions". We know this, because it already happens every day.
I'm clearly not defending grossly predatory pricing. Any big pharma would have to think very hard around reputational damage before playing that game.
But the point everyone misses is that while it looks greedy when they do make big money of a product – what we don't see is the risk they took with all the products they spent big money on and didn't get to market.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55894470
Indeed, drug/vaccine development is expensive but not as expensive as you seem to think. The necessary infrastructure, including manufacturing plants and distribution networks, are already in place. Advertising & Marketing has been tainted as a higher costing than the actual R & D.
In a retaliatory political move this week Scumo intimated that it was New Zealand holding up a trans-Tasman bubble. Looks like he was telling lies again. Well, he is Australian so it comes naturally.
One thing caught my attention:
If only this was in place before the Australian white supremacist came here to murder 51 NZ muslims. I think we need these visa conditions permanently.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/438508/australia-backed-out-of-trans-tasman-bubble-plans-in-february-nz-government
This is interesting. It's info ripped from another forum. It's about Scumo again:
Here is the quote;
So in Scumo's Australia women are lucky they are not shot at when protesting. This seems to be a major dragging down of the country by its own PM to be compared with other, unnamed and mysterious countries with lesser human rights.
What a bizzarre political strategy. Something John Key might have done.
I will try to find official links to this…
Here's one where Scumo shits the bed and blames the opposition.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9366347/Scott-Morrison-blasts-twisted-accusations-suggested-Australian-women-lucky-not-shot.html
Free bit of advice for Scumo. Don't dramatise your speeches using the language of violence (met with bullets) for political gain, especially on the anniversary of the day when one of your own murdered 51 of your best mates.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300254505/megan-woods-reminds-foreign-investors-their-money-is-still-welcome-in-parts-of-housing-market
Another example of how anecdata are rolled out and wielded to suit a narrative.
Do we want investment monies coming from regimes which persecute muslim minorities?
Even if to ‘solve a housing crisis’. Throwing bad money after bad if you ask me.
I didn’t know those regimes that you’re speaking of invest in build-to-rent developments in NZ. In that case, Minister Woods might be calling for answers about possible Government links to human rights abuse just as Minister Robertson is doing as we speak.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300253911/grant-robertson-wants-answers-over-possible-government-links-to-human-rights-abuses-in-china
I can only hope the Ministers don’t have to wait long for answers from their own teams because New Zealanders are definitely being put on hold, without the elevator music.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/124553308/official-information-act-review-deferred-because-of-justice-ministry-policy-work-overload
The human rights issue Grant Robertson want answers to is about a NZ links to a company in China which spies on Uyghur Muslims.
I'd say that any money and goods out of China is tainted in the same way because it is all the product of a dictatorship and oppressive regime.
Why do we insist on assuming clean trade when it suits us and call dirty trade when it suits us?
Is “tainted” the threshold signal to start an economic boycott or sanctions?
I wonder if it is only money and goods out of China that are tainted? That’s a rhetorical question so please don’t answer it.
Of course, we justify things to ourselves and to others as necessary and more strongly when there’s more at stake. That said, nothing in international politics and trade is black (AKA dirty) and white (AKA clean). Minister Robertson seems to be well aware of and understand this.
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-in-force/nz-china-free-trade-agreement/key-facts-on-new-zealand-china-trade/
I'll not take the bait, thanks. You are projecting something upon me which simply isn't there. Not happy about your multiple inferences (“please don’t answer”, “Black=dirty”, White=clean”) but you are in a position of power and I am not yet so I will suck it up.
It’s a bit like how the Chinese government works, eh?
Thanks for not answering my rhetorical question. If I’d wanted to bait you and set a trap, which is what you seem to be insinuating, I don’t think I’d made it as abundantly clear as I did.
It is quite clear what you think of Chinese money and goods (and services, presumably). That’s enough for me. How you distinguish that from Chinese people is moot to me.
You know what B & W means. You called it “dirty” [trade] and “clean” [trade]. Same thing. No inference.
Oh dear, now you’re saying that I’ll abuse my position of power to oppress you and act like a dictatorship. That’s quite a bold statement but because you’re talking out of your arse I will suck it up. Just agree to disagree when you run out of arguments instead of manufacturing such utter nonsense; as long as you stay with this site’s rules you should be fine and DR is like OM, i.e. the most free & open post on TS.
Cool beans. Warning taken, sir.
Edit. Although you are still insinuating I equate Chinese citizens to their government, money, and production of goods.
Many Chinese immigrants might very well disagree with their former government’s politics. Not sure how many, though.
Cheers
Edit: I had not seen your edit 🙁
Further to that I find, in the current circumstance, any money and goods coming out of China to be similar to that coming out of Apartheid South Africa, or occupational Israel.
And citizens the same. While they might disagree with China's policy they have still benefitted financially from it.
Speaking of housing
10 Million in the last year was spent in Rotorua just to house people. We must be at the point of exponential growth in Accommodation related spending.
I knew Fenton Street as Rotovegas. The Americanisation of New Zealand means Rotorua and Las Vegas will always move closer and closer together.
This is a capitalist, profit driven problem.
not sure why anyone would call Fenton Street as Vegas, there is no gambling, no strip clubs etc, there are a few motels/hotels/cafe/fishnchips/clothing store. Its pretty boring, unless fighting breaks out, and that is what is happening more and more often.
And frankly in regards to run away houseprices and supply the Government – blue and red – can be happy it had the motel industry to house their throw away citizens into and forget. Without these motels these homeless people, and children would be living in a ditch in full sight.
So the hiding the problem away in a motel is a governmental as any labour or national government can be.