This thread explains that in capitalism, companies focus on making money for shareholders, not saving lives. If a drug is too costly or not profitable enough, they stop producing it, even if it could save lives. People in need may die because of this, showing that capitalism prioritizes profit over human life and morality.
So let's imagine a scenario of how capitalism actually works, kids. You ready?
I'm a pharma guy and my company creates a drug that can save the lives of people who are going to die if they don't get it. It costs $5/dose to make.
My guys say we should sell it for $15K/dose.
I can sell it for whatever price I want to, because anything else is communist devilry. So I put it out on the market.
But here's a strange problem. The disease it cures mainly seems to afflict poor and uninsured people.
So what do I do?
Do I lower the price and sell it for, say, $10/dose? No, because that would produce an insufficient profit to satisfy my shareholders and my board. My fiduciary duty to them is my sole responsibility in this situation, aside from not breaking the law.
(Even that isn't true. I can break the law so long as the fines we pay for doing so are less than the profits we make for breaking the law in the first place.)
So what do I do here? You might think there's a dilemma, but there's no dilemma at all.
I stop making the drug.
I stop making the drug that can save people's lives, not because it isn't profitable to do so, but it's not profitable *enough* for my shareholders, whose wishes are of paramount importance legally and financially.
If I say "To hell with you, I'm going to make it anyway and save lives and still make a profit," not only can I be fired, in theory I can be sued for mismanaging their investment for them, and probably both will happen, right?
Now: imagine that I'm one of the people with the disease this drug treats. Without it, I'm dead. I couldn't afford it at full price and now they've discontinued marketing it, so I can't get it at any price.
I'm going to die because someone's ROI was too low.
What is my value proposition for not walking into that C-suite with an AR-15 and a pound of Semtex and demanding they give or make me a lifetime supply of the drug, since I'm dead anyway if they don't? What, it'll disappoint Jesus? He'll forgive me.
The answer is: none.
If you have what I need and I'll die if I don't get it and you refuse to sell it to me at a price I can afford, you're condemning me to death. The most moral and ethical choice here is to take it from you for free, by any means necessary.
Now you're capitalism's bitch, not me.
Now, maybe the drug company will try to find a way to satisfy both their fiduciary duty to their shareholders and their moral duty to their customers. But they don't have to. No one, under current capitalism-controlled laws, can make them. It's up to the shareholders.
Which is why "compassionate capitalism" is as horseshit a phrase as "benevolent dictatorship". I'm not staking my life on some capitalist's ethics. Far safer, if I'm betting with the highest stakes, to compel him to give me what I need, not ask for it.
If a company "owns" the water supply and cuts you off or charges you what you can't afford, why would it be wrong to cut into their pipeline and take what you need to survive? Because stealing is wrong? Sheeit, I'll pop that motherfucker like a keg of Bud with a song on my lips.
This is where this lie of capitalism existing to "give people what they need" shines through the bullshit. Capitalism exists to increase capital for shareholders. Everything, EVERYTHING else is ancillary. Including human life and happiness and "prosperity".
And if shareholder value and profit margin and increased market share butt up against human life, human life will always, always take lowest precedence.
Never doubt that for a second.
So let's imagine a scenario of how capitalism actually works, kids. You ready?
I'm a pharma guy and my company creates a drug that can save the lives of people who are going to die if they don't get it. It costs $5/dose to make.
My guys say we should sell it for $15K/dose.I can sell it for whatever price I want to, because anything else is communist devilry. So I put it out on the market.
But here's a strange problem. The disease it cures mainly seems to afflict poor and uninsured people.
So what do I do?Do I lower the price and sell it for, say, $10/dose? No, because that would produce an insufficient profit to satisfy my shareholders and my board. My fiduciary duty to them is my sole responsibility in this situation, aside from not breaking the law.(Even that isn't true. I can break the law so long as the fines we pay for doing so are less than the profits we make for breaking the law in the first place.)
So what do I do here? You might think there's a dilemma, but there's no dilemma at all.
I stop making the drug.I stop making the drug that can save people's lives, not because it isn't profitable to do so, but it's not profitable *enough* for my shareholders, whose wishes are of paramount importance legally and financially.If I say "To hell with you, I'm going to make it anyway and save lives and still make a profit," not only can I be fired, in theory I can be sued for mismanaging their investment for them, and probably both will happen, right?Now: imagine that I'm one of the people with the disease this drug treats. Without it, I'm dead. I couldn't afford it at full price and now they've discontinued marketing it, so I can't get it at any price.
I'm going to die because someone's ROI was too low.What is my value proposition for not walking into that C-suite with an AR-15 and a pound of Semtex and demanding they give or make me a lifetime supply of the drug, since I'm dead anyway if they don't? What, it'll disappoint Jesus? He'll forgive me.
The answer is: none.If you have what I need and I'll die if I don't get it and you refuse to sell it to me at a price I can afford, you're condemning me to death. The most moral and ethical choice here is to take it from you for free, by any means necessary.
Now you're capitalism's bitch, not me.Now, maybe the drug company will try to find a way to satisfy both their fiduciary duty to their shareholders and their moral duty to their customers. But they don't have to. No one, under current capitalism-controlled laws, can make them. It's up to the shareholders.Which is why "compassionate capitalism" is as horseshit a phrase as "benevolent dictatorship". I'm not staking my life on some capitalist's ethics. Far safer, if I'm betting with the highest stakes, to compel him to give me what I need, not ask for it.If a company "owns" the water supply and cuts you off or charges you what you can't afford, why would it be wrong to cut into their pipeline and take what you need to survive? Because stealing is wrong? Sheeit, I'll pop that motherfucker like a keg of Bud with a song on my lips.This is where this lie of capitalism existing to "give people what they need" shines through the bullshit. Capitalism exists to increase capital for shareholders. Everything, EVERYTHING else is ancillary. Including human life and happiness and "prosperity".And if shareholder value and profit margin and increased market share butt up against human life, human life will always, always take lowest precedence.
Never doubt that for a second.
So let's imagine a scenario of how capitalism actually works, kids. You ready?
I'm a pharma guy and my company creates a drug that can save the lives of people who are going to die if they don't get it. It costs $5/dose to make.
My guys say we should sell it for $15K/dose. ... I can sell it for whatever price I want to, because anything else is communist devilry. So I put it out on the market.
But here's a strange problem. The disease it cures mainly seems to afflict poor and uninsured people.
So what do I do? ... Do I lower the price and sell it for, say, $10/dose? No, because that would produce an insufficient profit to satisfy my shareholders and my board. My fiduciary duty to them is my sole responsibility in this situation, aside from not breaking the law. ... (Even that isn't true. I can break the law so long as the fines we pay for doing so are less than the profits we make for breaking the law in the first place.)
So what do I do here? You might think there's a dilemma, but there's no dilemma at all.
I stop making the drug. ... I stop making the drug that can save people's lives, not because it isn't profitable to do so, but it's not profitable *enough* for my shareholders, whose wishes are of paramount importance legally and financially. ... If I say "To hell with you, I'm going to make it anyway and save lives and still make a profit," not only can I be fired, in theory I can be sued for mismanaging their investment for them, and probably both will happen, right? ... Now: imagine that I'm one of the people with the disease this drug treats. Without it, I'm dead. I couldn't afford it at full price and now they've discontinued marketing it, so I can't get it at any price.
I'm going to die because someone's ROI was too low. ... What is my value proposition for not walking into that C-suite with an AR-15 and a pound of Semtex and demanding they give or make me a lifetime supply of the drug, since I'm dead anyway if they don't? What, it'll disappoint Jesus? He'll forgive me.
The answer is: none. ... If you have what I need and I'll die if I don't get it and you refuse to sell it to me at a price I can afford, you're condemning me to death. The most moral and ethical choice here is to take it from you for free, by any means necessary.
Now you're capitalism's bitch, not me. ... Now, maybe the drug company will try to find a way to satisfy both their fiduciary duty to their shareholders and their moral duty to their customers. But they don't have to. No one, under current capitalism-controlled laws, can make them. It's up to the shareholders. ... Which is why "compassionate capitalism" is as horseshit a phrase as "benevolent dictatorship". I'm not staking my life on some capitalist's ethics. Far safer, if I'm betting with the highest stakes, to compel him to give me what I need, not ask for it. ... If a company "owns" the water supply and cuts you off or charges you what you can't afford, why would it be wrong to cut into their pipeline and take what you need to survive? Because stealing is wrong? Sheeit, I'll pop that motherfucker like a keg of Bud with a song on my lips. ... This is where this lie of capitalism existing to "give people what they need" shines through the bullshit. Capitalism exists to increase capital for shareholders. Everything, EVERYTHING else is ancillary. Including human life and happiness and "prosperity". ... And if shareholder value and profit margin and increased market share butt up against human life, human life will always, always take lowest precedence.
Never doubt that for a second.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
