This is the same Peter Thiel that was recently complaining about women being able to vote.
http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...
Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's only okay in certain circumstances. Many governments participate directly in their healthcare markets, which affects the prices at which pharmaceuticals can be sold in such a country. If goods with manipulated prices are allowed to be traded freely, the prices in other countries will be affected as well. Companies that produce the goods in question will either have to accept lower profit margins or refus…
If they dislike the price controls and monopsonies that exist in other countries, they can avoid those markets entirely. Once they agree to participate and begin exporting their drugs, we should have every right to import them back at a discount. As large corporations have shown in the past, they have no issue with planned economies, as long as the planning is done in their favor (China, Dubai). It is horribly unjust…
> If they dislike the price controls and monopsonies that exist in other countries, they can avoid those markets entirely. Once they agree to participate and begin exporting their drugs, we should have every right to import them back at a discount.
As I mentioned, both of those options would make drugs less profitable, which would lead to fewer advances in technology. Prohibiting the reimportation of drugs can be a sensible policy.
> It is horribly unjust for Americans, many of whom have no or poor health insurance, to be forced to pay more money than anyone else on earth for prescription drugs.
Unfair, perhaps, but unjust? Fixing this problem would either require selling to everyone at American prices (which could also be described as unjust), or selling to everyone at the lowest prices available. Both options would be less profitable that the current system, which would slow the rate of advancement in drug development.
> [Maybe] the government should step in and take the lead role in drug development.
That can also be a sensible policy, and the American government already does fund a considerable amount of drug development.
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#23Interesting that this was published in January 2008, and likely written before that. Rightly or wrongly, economic globalization's image didn't end that year untarnished. The world's a really complex system, even limited to just the human-systems part of it, and the In particular, Thiel wrestles with the fairly old internal contradictions of capitalism that many other thinkers have, some much more in depth. To use one…
You are anthropomorphizing "Capitalism," as a sort of aggregate of all capitalist behavior, but with a single goal. That's not accurate. Individuals certainly try to accumulate wealth, but the best way to make a lot of money is to find a better or cheaper way to do something--a side effect of which is the impoverishment of somebody else. Just look at, e.g., the way Sun nearly killed IBM in the late 80's and early 90'…
> Sun never made as much as IBM did, but the people who founded Sun made more than they otherwise would have.
And of course the startups that became possible because Sun equipment was much cheaper than IBM's thought this was a pretty good thing too.
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#24This is the same Peter Thiel that was recently complaining about women being able to vote. http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...
The offending statement is:
"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."
In essence, this appears to be the claim that women are by and large not libertarian voters, and less so than men. This is a mere statement about the world. Believing this statement does not commit you to believing Women Must Not Be Allowed To Vote.
If you object to the statement then you are committed to Women Are Just As Likely To Vote Libertarian As Men; I'm guessing Thiel has some actual empirical data to suggest this isn't so.
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only problem with globalization is the lack of truly free trade. If countries didn't have to subsidize nonproductive sectors of the economy then the costs of living would equalize much quicker - see farm subsidies, tariffs, and the ban on imports of certain goods.
I don't think it's the only problem with globalization, but having recently paid out-of-pocket for an expensive, patented prescription drug, I think it's one of the biggest, and much of the hollow pro-globalization, pro-free trade rhetoric I hear from government and big business never addresses it. I am curious about why others downvoted my original post; do people here really think this sort of protectionist price d…
I voted it down because I didn't think the tone was constructive. It seemed to be accusing Thiel of not considering the big picture, when in fact Thiel is considering something much, much larger. You're asking about differential pricing of prescription drugs, while he's wondering about the impact of a spot market on human organs. What did you think of that part?
Thiel isn't arguing that globalization is a done deal. If anything, he agrees that what we have is astonishingly incomplete: "we stand at a level of globalization that compares with the previous peak year of 1913". Rather, he's asking whether the economic world as we know it could withstand true globalization.
But to answer your question: yes, I think it's only to be expected that corporations will seek to maximize their profits through price discrimination. And also to be expected that true globalization will make this more difficult to do. But while it's clear that those paying the higher price would benefit in the short-term from paying a lower price, it's not clear to me who would benefit in the long-term from forcing companies to choose a single set price somewhere in the middle. It probably depends on how this would be enforced.
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's only okay in certain circumstances. Many governments participate directly in their healthcare markets, which affects the prices at which pharmaceuticals can be sold in such a country. If goods with manipulated prices are allowed to be traded freely, the prices in other countries will be affected as well. Companies that produce the goods in question will either have to accept lower profit margins or refus…
If they dislike the price controls and monopsonies that exist in other countries, they can avoid those markets entirely. Once they agree to participate and begin exporting their drugs, we should have every right to import them back at a discount. As large corporations have shown in the past, they have no issue with planned economies, as long as the planning is done in their favor (China, Dubai). It is horribly unjust…
> It is horribly unjust for Americans, many of whom have no or poor health insurance
They do, however, have free health care. You do understand the difference, right?
No, it isn't as good as most paid care. So what?
> Pharma, which spends disproportionate amounts of money on direct marketing to consumers,
What's "disproportionate"? You do know that marketing includes free drugs for poor people, MD education, and the ads that tell people that there are treatments for their illnesses/conditions, right? Which of those do you find objectionable?
> can't produce the medications we need cheaply and efficiently, that represents a market failure,
Does it? I'd like a pony, but the fact there isn't one in my front yard isn't actually a market failure.
If you think that you can develop anti-biotics for less, go for it. You'll get rich, you'll save people's lives, and you'll drive those evil drug companies out of biz.
You were planning to go through the FDA right? (Of course, if you can fix the FDA, then all new drugs become cheaper.)
> and the government should step in and take the lead role in drug development.
What rational govt that has pension/retirement obligations would spend money on a drug that significantly increased lifespan?
> the NIH doesn't need to make a profit
The NIH has no skin in the game. If it screws up, no big deal. In the rare cases where someone finds out, NIH defenders will swing into action. If Merck screws up, folks lose their jobs, stock value goes down, etc.
The NIH is driven by interest groups. Pharma is driven by what folks will actually spend money on. I know which one I think accurately represents what people value....
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#27An awful piece. I repent that I read it. His introduction is good though. Grand claims, appealing to ancient lands, myths.
However, the man seems to have no patience. Jumping from one idea to another like an adolescent trying to figure out what to do with himself. Grand claims, without explanation or elaboration, merely statements. We have lost the way of the ancients. By ancients we are probably led to believe the innocence of Aristotle.
A complete mess. Examples selected. A very narrow argument. Not a person engaging, not really a person communicating, but, possibly, a person with an agenda, someone who is trying to "school" the great ignorant public, to fill the place of the ancient medieval priests.
That is my impressions. Of which I might be entirely wrong. I must however say, his world is dark, made dark by limitations of his imaginations, by loss of hope in the human spirit, by lack of understanding of the human resilience.
Europe has free trade, it has too a fairly similiar ideologies of democracy and capitalism, yet each country in europe is as different as China and America. Globalisation in practice is much different from the globalisation of rhetoric. No need to use the bible. Nor repeat the term apocalyps on and on in the introduction, to present an impression of something really serious, deep and secret being told.
Tell what the world is, we have the brains to understand what it should be.
Though this I should not say - I am frankly disappointed in the consciousness of Hacker News who allowed this article to get sufficient point to make me force myself to read a most ghastly article.
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they dislike the price controls and monopsonies that exist in other countries, they can avoid those markets entirely. Once they agree to participate and begin exporting their drugs, we should have every right to import them back at a discount. As large corporations have shown in the past, they have no issue with planned economies, as long as the planning is done in their favor (China, Dubai). It is horribly unjust…
> It is horribly unjust for Americans, many of whom have no or poor health insurance They do, however, have free health care. You do understand the difference, right? No, it isn't as good as most paid care. So what? > Pharma, which spends disproportionate amounts of money on direct marketing to consumers, What's "disproportionate"? You do know that marketing includes free drugs for poor people, MD education, and the…
Since money is predominantly allocated by insurance companies, not individuals, I would say that Pharma knows what insurance companies will spend money on.
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they dislike the price controls and monopsonies that exist in other countries, they can avoid those markets entirely. Once they agree to participate and begin exporting their drugs, we should have every right to import them back at a discount. As large corporations have shown in the past, they have no issue with planned economies, as long as the planning is done in their favor (China, Dubai). It is horribly unjust…
> If they dislike the price controls and monopsonies that exist in other countries, they can avoid those markets entirely. Once they agree to participate and begin exporting their drugs, we should have every right to import them back at a discount. As I mentioned, both of those options would make drugs less profitable, which would lead to fewer advances in technology. Prohibiting the reimportation of drugs can be a s…
Prohibiting the importation of drugs cannot and is not something anyone should be for. It is highly immoral and it says that your own government wants to deprive you of things that others have. Now if the governments that get the discounts are forced to ban the export of drugs, well then that is completely different story.
Re: Peter Thiel: There Are No Good Bets Against Globalization
#30Wonderful! So this means I and other Americans will soon legally be able to purchase prescription drugs from other countries where drug companies sell them for much less money? Oh, I forgot; "globalization," as meant by multinational corporations and policy makers, doesn't work that way. Globalization is not a two-way street, and while it would certainly be foolish to bet against it when it means American jobs being…
The only problem with globalization is the lack of truly free trade. If countries didn't have to subsidize nonproductive sectors of the economy then the costs of living would equalize much quicker - see farm subsidies, tariffs, and the ban on imports of certain goods.
I would say it is being in a state of constant expansion. Kinda hard when you live on earth. Its just so... finite.