Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Join over 90,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.
Free registration at the forum removes this block.What the f**k?How can we justify that their existence is necessary for the common good?
The french economy isnt great from what ive seen, so i understand his frustration.
I am i believer of tax relief per job made. That way rich people are encouraged to hire more.
If a billionaire isnt contributing i dont mind them being taxed to death. Its not like they need the wealth for anything if its just hoarding. But its important to let business people grow.
Exactly, if it's my money, leave me the hell alone with it. It's my decision to donate it to charity or use it to buy my fifth Porsche. Not a state's decision to make.Why should one man be able to decide what another man can keep, hoarding or not?
Why should one man be able to decide what another man can keep, hoarding or not?
He can't, it's purely academic. The French have had a bee in their bonnet since before the Revolution. If I were to go after anyone it would be to monopolies that use their dominant position to profiteer. Especially in the field of medicine.
For the most part billionaires made their money providing what the people wanted on a large scale (that includes hedge fund managers). Note I didn't say provided value because that is subjective in as what is considered value to one could be the opposite to another.
Also opinion changes over time. A company producing one use carrier bags would have been commended once upon a time, now they are pariahs due to the damage their product does to the environment. Of course it always did damage but the more successful their product the more damage it did and so the more obvious it became.
Truly profiteering is only possible with government intervention.
In a free market, if a company increases prices, it makes competition more attractive. If they increase prices by a crazy amount, then they invite competition into the field.
Say a healthcare company increases prices by 10x, and they are the only healthcare company at the point in time. What you will see, is competition entering the market like mad. Prices would quickly come back down again.
In fact, price gouging is only really possible with help from the government.
If someone increased prices by XYZ, competition entering the field can only be prevented with the help of the government, e.g. "licencing", or a market distortion creating an artificial barrier to entry, such as taxes (hitting the bottom line twice, once from the taxes and a second time with the admin required).
If a monopoly has been created by lowering prices or creating a more efficient process, or a unique product, then the monopoly position has been earned, until someone comes up with a better method.
Agreed in a free market economy. However I was thinking more along the lines of patents on medicines. Then using that protection to charge exorbitant prices for these products. Way above the costs of research, production and sensible returns.
It's one of the reasons our health service is on its knees having pharmaceutical companies siphon off vast sums of money to line their coffers. But then I have an issue with profiteering from health care (as opposed to incorporating in a fair margin).
Here's the problem though...I mostly agree with everyone on this thread, but I feel like the top 10 or 15 guys in the Bezos stratosphere (50B+) should have some sort of obligation to do more - not necessarily tax wise.
Don't sit here and talk about buying Porsche's or whatnot; these guys literally can't spend their money in 20 lifetimes even if they live every day like a degenerate college student who just won the lottery.
I wouldn't want the feds to take their money, cause that won't help with anything. but I do think that they should contribute directly more, somehow. I know they already are, but I just personally feel like at a certain point, it gets kind of ridiculous.
I don't see a problem with that.
If you spend 5 years of your life developing a new drug, then why should anyone be able to tell you what you can and can't do with it?
If you charge an exorbitant price, then no-one will buy it. If you charge a high price and people are prepared to pay it... I don't see a problem. If it really is that great a drug, private charities would probably subsidise it for special cases like they do for other healthcare expenses
Well, I have to be honest: I am not sure what's the best here. Propably something inbetween the two extremes.The problem is you price it out of the hands of those that need it and people suffer and die. All down to unnecessary greed.
Also the guy spending 5 years of his life developing it is most likely an employee who would be much happier if the drug was available to all at a sensible price but that’s not his call as it’s way beyond his pay grade as he is a tiny cog in a multi-billion dollar corporation.
So you don’t see a problem with only ‘special cases’ having access to life saving drugs? Well let’s hope no one you love is ever deemed less than special then shall we?
The problem is when a pharma company holds the only patent to the only drug for that disease/condition.I don't see a problem with that.
If you spend 5 years of your life developing a new drug, then why should anyone be able to tell you what you can and can't do with it?
If you charge an exorbitant price, then no-one will buy it. If you charge a high price and people are prepared to pay it... I don't see a problem. If it really is that great a drug, private charities would probably subsidise it for special cases like they do for other healthcare expenses
The problem is you price it out of the hands of those that need it and people suffer and die. All down to unnecessary greed.
Also the guy spending 5 years of his life developing it is most likely an employee who would be much happier if the drug was available to all at a sensible price but that’s not his call as it’s way beyond his pay grade as he is a tiny cog in a multi-billion dollar corporation.
So you don’t see a problem with only ‘special cases’ having access to life saving drugs? Well let’s hope no one you love is ever deemed less than special then shall we?
Sure you can argue about moral imperatives and the like (I too would love to see Jeff Bezos give more of his money to charity) but the only way we're going to get ourselves out of the problems we've created for ourselves is by innovating. And the best way to do that is by creating new businesses and designing new products to fix the problems we have - and thereby creating wealth for everyone in the process.
The problem is when a pharma company holds the only patent to the only drug for that disease/condition.
They charge out the a$$ because they know daddy government will back them up.
Meanwhile the patients are suffering because they can’t afford the ridiculous prices, and private insurance won’t cover it because there’s no profit.
This argument has no real basis and is succesfull by its ability to induce guilt.
I would say my argument has a solid basis and if your argument had any morality there would be no guilt associated with it. (And yes this whole discussion is based on moral standpoints; what is right, principled, proper etc. so you cannot remove morality from the equation).
Anyway, we can bat this back and forth 'till the cows come home, we are never going to agree, so lets move on.
See this as the end of my participation. No hard feelings.
Join Fastlane Insiders.