Comment

Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit

<- View Parent

HalfSalesman@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Only have access to this account during work so late reply.

We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies

It doesn’t matter, monopolization at any level has the effect I described.

Yeah, that’s not going to be abused

You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.

scare away companies

There are ways to force this into not being an issue. We don’t have to suck a corporation’s dick to keep their productivity.

It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.

It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for and its worked out for them. They pay obscene amounts to get obscene results.

Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations

Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.

You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.

A few ways:

the term “R&D” can be pretty broad, so it’s unlikely to have the effect you’re thinking about - pretty much everything in a tech company is “R&D” whereas almost nothing in a factory is; making this somewhat fair is going to be very hard and will likely end in abuse

companies are more likely to set up shop where such restrictions don’t exist

enforcement could be selective to target companies that don’t “bend the knee” - esp true if the required amount is high enough that it’s not practical

force

Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.

It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for

Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.

They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.

Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.

I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).

To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
source
- HalfSalesman@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
  
  So you’d rather give power to corporations. Who definitely abuse their power. Rather than a government, which at least is potentially elected.
  
  I think governmental structures are probably outside the scope of this conversation, but I’ll at least state that the reason Trump is bad is not only that he has power. Its the lack of power that his opposition has because they utterly fail to seize it when opportunity presents itself. Again, it is all about leverage.
  
  Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
  
  They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.
  
  I think that this is pure conjecture. Going “full competitive” would be at best a double edged sword. A lot of money and risk is involved in highly advanced military tech. Realistically you’d see businesses crumble and merge. Naturally converging into a monopoly.
  
  I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
  
  To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
  
  To actually reduce costs, you increase the leverage the buyer has. Transparency in pricing would do that to a tiny degree, what would do so far better is a monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized.
  
  Again, it always boils down to leverage.
  
  source
  - sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    So you’d rather give power to corporations.
    
    If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments. I firmly believe giving more power to governments results in more monopolies, generally speaking, because it creates an opportunity for the larger players to lobby for ways to create barriers to competition.
    
    That’s a pretty broad statement though, and there are certainly cases where I would prefer the government to step in.
    
    monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized
    
    I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
    
    That’s quite similar to the current military industrial complex, the military is the only purchaser of these goods, so the suppliers can largely set their prices. A monopsony means the value of making a deal is massive for a company because they get access to a massive market, which also means the value of lobbying to get that deal is also high.
    
    So I really don’t trust that a single payer system would actually work in the US to reduce total healthcare costs, it’ll just hide it. If we want to actually cut healthcare costs, we need to fix a number of things, such as:
    
    malpractice suits - providers need expensive insurance plans and hesitate to provide certain types of care (i.e. need more tests even though they’re very confident in their diagnosis)
    
    pharmaceutical and medical device patent system, and subsequent lobbying to set regulations to hedge against competition
    
    backroom deals between insurance companies and care providers where both sides get a “win” (provider inflates prices so insurance rep can report that they’re getting a deal by getting a discount)
    
    whatever is causing ambulances to be super expensive
    
    The problems are vast and I think single payer would likely just sweep them under the rug. We either need socialized healthcare or maximum transparency, single payer would just be a disappointment.
    
    source
    HalfSalesman@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
    
    Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate. And capital interests fight tooth and nail against large monopolies being split back up. Its more or less a miracle that it’s ever happened at all and it would be naive to think it’ll ever happen again.
    
    If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
    
    I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
    
    Do you think a more direct “medical patient union” would work? Skipping a government intermediary?
    
    socialized healthcare
    
    I mean, I’d prefer socialized healthcare over single payer. Single payer for me is merely an acceptable middle ground. As would having a proper public option next to private care (though admittedly that would slowly erode from lobbying).
    
    source
    -> View More Comments