Tell me, gentlemen, how would your puny free markets handle stuff like this?
which are unnecessary as according to new research regarding the cost of new drug treatments. its not a billion per pill or what ever crazy shit they have. patents are not the key to innovation either. many resources such as books like "against intellectual monopoly" here on this website to back up that claim.
Tax, not ban.
What is that going to achieve?
There is another side to this...
There is a 'superbug' - an E. coli strain that is mysteriously mutatated to resist all major commercial applications of antibiotics.
Where did it most likely come from?
A: A head of lettuce in Belgium
B: Al-Qaeda
C: The devil
D: One of the many government bioweapons research labs, where they intentionally expose bugs to antibiotics in a controlled environment, specifically to create things like this...
Maybe we wouldn't have this problem in the first place if the government didn't have so much money to spend on our own good.
F. Externality created by antibiotics use.
If there are people building these things on purpose, then that's a more likely scenario than it happening by accident, even if that's not entirely impossible. It's more likely that Shakespeare wrote his plays than a thousand monkey's at a thousand typewriters.
Why tax antibiotics instead of ban them? You think the rich should be saved? You think it will discourage objectively 'less important' uses of antibiotics, like treating canine acne say, while allowing objectively 'more important' ones, like treating kids with pneumonia? It won't. That's not how economics works. It will kill people. The tax you're proposing would be a form of murder.
It's more likely that a group of people wrote Shakespeare's plays than one guy =/
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
James,
Of course the tax will kill people. The whole point is to raise the cost of using antibiotics so that even more people don't die.
Lol, so I've heard. Shakespeare Inc.
I think this is where the term "fatal conceit" comes from.
Yeah. Taxing negative externalities. Totally what Hayek was talking about.
Every murderer kills so that he and his friends may outnumber his enemies in future.
Thank you for the highly relevant and productive contribution, James.
The way you phrased the question, it can't - and that is the point. The catagory of "free market handeling something" is a metaphor and can not be applied to scientific thought. To think of capitalism in more scientific terms; it is best to think of it as a word limiter like: atheism, naturalism, materialism, egoism, determinism, etc. It is sort of a univeraly applicable "non thing" that tries to untangle nonsense from sense.
All other "theories" are not universal languages and/or sciences when speaking of market phenomena - they are practiced art (much like law) manegment theories that can not be rationally discussed or thought of; this would not only include things like Keynesianism and Socialism, but "free market solutions" as well. Also behind all these managment theories - and the only reason why any of them could "solve" (to use a generous term) any "problem" is due to an effective free market mechanism that is already in place - without which they would be impotent against the externality.
That stated: it is very important to consider expectsations when bringing up such a problem. People are working and making calculations within a real environment, you wouldn't abolish the apparatus at hand in this type of situation - that is just insane. But the fact still remains, the more affluent the culture the better the odds of dealing with major problems like this (this is probably even inherent in the definition itself)- the only way to achieve affluence is via the market mechanism.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Coase:No. You explain why you care why I called the market "puny", or else drop it.
Let's try this again. Please explain exactly why you decided to use the word "puny" as an adjective before the word "market". I couldn't care less whether you were "totally joking".
Obviously, I'm not following your orders, and I'm also not dropping it. What now?
Coase:I said nothing of what you attributed to me regarding the argument you think I'm making (I have not made an argument yet).
No, you haven't explicitly said anything. But as far as I can tell, you have said plenty of things implicitly.
Coase:Frankly, you seem defensive.
And? Is that a crime? Perhaps I'm defensive because you're coming off as incredibly snide and sarcastic. This whole thread seems to be intended by you to make a mockery of free-market advocacy.
Coase:I appreciate your honest [sic] at the end though. What would you say to a proposal to tax the use of antibiotics?
Are you asking me whether I'd support such a thing? Of course I wouldn't. Do you really even have to ask?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
the effect of use of antibiotics has massive externalities, as its impossible to enforce property rights over bacteria. hence in a NAP world it is impossible to prevent antibiotics' deterioration.
aervew:the effect of use of antibiotics has massive externalities, as its impossible to enforce property rights over bacteria. hence in a NAP world it is impossible to prevent antibiotics' deterioration.
It may well be impossible to prevent antibiotics' deterioration in a non-NAP world, too. Either way, there's no certainty here.
Right. Ok. Apparently my tone at the beginning really through everyone off, so I'm redoing this more seriously. Autolykos, please wait until I say or even imply something to infer it. Also, cut with your queer obsession over the word "puny."