Thanks for this, Sean. It reminds me of Howl! in the attempt to draw us (me) on Pen-l out of our silos.
What can I say but "Yes." For those that missed this last month, here's a second chance. Gene On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Sean Andrews wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 18:09, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The employers of any standard of market success -- including Pareto >> efficiency -- must recognize that markets are a human-created >> institutional framework that exists due to the operations of the other >> artificial institutions (mostly the state and its monopolization of >> the means of coercion). Because people are involved, other criteria >> must be heeded in order to preserve the _legitimacy_ of the system: >> these include fairness (equity), democratic participation, and >> individual freedom. > > Thanks, Jim. I read David's e-mail before I had to wash the dishes > and put the baby to sleep and the whole time I was just thinking about > how to (again) respond to this kind of sociopathic Hobbesian > utopianism (which must position itself as the only option except the > furthest thing that anyone ever asks - golf courses and pools. How > dreadful!) It's both tiresome and an addictive sport I'm trying to > go cold turkey on. I have many other things to write and read > tonight, but couldn't stand leaving unchallenged this infuriating > absolutism. Yes these are all subjective, historical ways we assign > value to culture and social morals: but so is the free market. It's > one possible orientation among many arrangements, yet every one of its > adherents examine every alternative arrangement as if their own were > the natural predisposition of the human animal rather than a > hypothetical arrangement itself. > > Market failure is, as everyone here has said, is only applicable in so > far as it is understood that the market is (and must be recognized as) > one mechanism among many for arranging our productive social > relationships. You are right that judgements about values and morals > are indeed subjective, but en masse they function objectively - and in > most cases it is only when someone else's declaration of morality > appears to be subjective (or are made to appear so) that we bother to > notice or even acknowledge the social fact of the dominant culture. > It would be unlikely that everyone would believe that the 4000sq ft > house on a golf course should be the basic standard of living. But > you might convince a great number of them to believe that the > distribution of basic human knowledge to be a social good. > > In the case of pharmaceutical knowledge, particularly of the life > saving variety, there is broad support for the notion that the > discovery of that kind of knowledge is a patrimony to your species, > that it represents the equivalent of an evolutionary elevation in the > ability of our species to survive. Like the discoverer, humans have > benefitted from discoveries their ancestors made - discoveries that > helped humans defy nature in order to live longer. From stone age > tools and ancient medicine, to the simple knowledge that, though they > may be okay for other animals to eat, some foods can kill you. Were > this knowledge closely guarded, never collected or shared, we would be > still be sitting around that damn obelisk in the opening of the movie > 2001. > > But lest I seem to be sneaking human nature back into the frame, I > will say that all of the above may be a complete fabrication, but in > any case it is a fabrication that many people are convinced is true. > On the surface, whatever its legacy, our general understanding of our > history makes two things fairly clear: One that, no matter what > economic structures are in place (free market utopia notably being one > of the rarest actually existing economic structures till now) the > discoveries of this variety are truly unpredictable in the history of > human kind. A great array of factors have to come together in just > the right way to produce discoveries like Pasteur or Fleming or > Watson/Crick, etc. Which isn't to say that some conditions aren't > more conducive to it. And Two that thus the good fortune to discover > something is only partially the result of the human who did the > discovering: it was, in a sense, also the result of the human society > around her. There is a continuum here, of course, with absolutely > life saving knowledge being difficult to morally keep from others; > less essential, but useful, knowledge more privileged; and almost > useless knowledge either shrouded in obscurity or broadcast on TV. > > People in our culture (the one that has come up with concepts like > "market failure") do believe this. We have arranged our culture and > our legal structures on this assumption. Patents, in this case, are > an accommodation to present circumstances - as is the federal (public) > funding of basic science (which far outweighs the importance of R&D by > Phirms, a point it seems absurd to have to make - or even address - on > a listserve run by the author of Steal This Idea, but whatever). They > are a recent invention, largely in the era of wage labor when it was > realized that the people who could discover things might - gasp! - not > be members of the elite class who could afford liesure and thus might > need to forego the life giving, commodity-buying labor of the multitud > in order to make them. Or, rather, if you gave a general social > incentive - the patent - to people who might discover something > important, then it might broaden the pool of people available to make > discoveries (it would also be handy to have as many of them as well > educated as possible, maybe even by people who have thought about > teaching and learning rather than programming computers, but that is a > crazy socialist idea. I elaborate something like it below). It did > indeed help that process to some extent, though it still wasn't nearly > enough - hence the public funding for basic science. Likewise all > those charities that collect money to study different diseases like > cancer or parkinson's or ALS. > > By the time we get to market failure in pharmaceutical sales, it > likely has almost nothing at all to do with patents. A pill that > costs $5 to produce either faces too small a market to make scale > profitable or the producer is too inefficient in the production > process itself (after the knowledge production). In the first case, a > patent won't help obviate the high price - it won't magically enlarge > the people who the drug applies to (though once it's patented, > companies generally try to find off label uses in order to try). And > in the second, the patent only prevents generics who might be able to > derive a better way of manufacturing it were they able to. If it is so > necessary, so fundamental, and widespread an improvement of the human > condition, it will likely be easy to recoup costs because of this > scale. A manufacturer would therefore realize that, if they can be > elastic on their price early on, they will be able to make it back > over the long life of the drug. If they really can't produce it any > cheaper, then it doesn't make sense for them to prevent others from > doing so. No one else is likely to produce it at all if it simple > can't be made any cheaper. > > In each case, the market fails to call the drug to production because > effective demand is not enough to produce a profitable or sustainable > business. When we call it market failure, we mean that, even though > we have all sorts of mechanisms in place to aid in the discovery and > production of important medical and technological breakthroughs, the > final mechanism - i.e. the private market - in the chain of > mechanisms through which we produce and distribute that knowledge in a > material, functional form is failing to produce the effects we > understand to be the main goal of the process - i.e. it isn't > producing and distributing that knowledge in a material, functional > form. > > It is here that we as a society need to start reflecting on some of > our assumptions about the current iteration of this process. First > absolute human desperation drove people to discoveries - or, more > likely, only the people who made these discoveries were able to > survive. Then as a baseline of human existence begins to level, many > more of the new discoveries were made by people with extra time and > resources with which to learn science or, as in the case of people > like Bacon's Invisible College or Taylor's time-work study, to collect > and synthesize others discoveries. Then we developed systems to > reward people who couldn't otherwise afford to not labor (in part > because, with the discoveries so far, the cost of human labor needed > to survive is so much cheaper) systems like patents and direct state > funding, and charities for basic science. > > Now we face a terrible situation of broad market failure. We could > possibly advance scientific and technological means to catapult us to > some never dreamed up level of comfort and liesure. But, as Gortz, > points out, the way the most recent advances are being distributed, > there again becomes an underclass of people who, despite being alive > when it should be the easiest possible thing for a human to do, still > struggle on a daily basis to meet their needs. This is, ironically, > because it is the cheapest it has ever been to live in terms of the > cost of human labor - thus those souls have less value as potential > bearers of basic human labor, at least according to the metric being > used to distribute the rewards of human labor produced in aggregate. > In short, we have plenty of people to work; and we have dwindling, but > likely sufficient (but unequally distributed) resources to maintain a > base of support for everyone; in many cases, we have plenty of > finished goods (houses comes to mind in the current economy) that > simply can't call forth a market for their sale. This generalized > market failure risks creating what is almost unheard of in nature: > where there are plenty of resources, readily available and easily > satisfying needs, yet a third of the population is left to die simply > because they don't readily fit into the arbitrary schema devised > within some segment of the group for how those resources and goods > will be distributed. Namely, they demand money from people who have > no way to get money because their labor is unnecessary in the > incredibly productive system that produces those goods. Or, as Zizek > riffs on Pareto optimality in /First as Tragedy, Then as Farce/ > > "A century ago, Vilfredo Pareto was the first to describe the > so-called 80/20 rule of social (and not only social) life: 80 percent > of the land is owned by 20 percent of the people, 80 percent of the > profits are produced by 20 percent of the employees, 80 percent of > decisions are made in 20 percent of the meeting time, 80 percent of > the links to the Web point to less than 20 percent of the Webpages, 80 > percent of the peas come from 20 percent of the peapods. As some > social analysts and economists have suggested, the contemporary > explosion of productivity confronts us with the ultimate case of this > rule: the coming global economy will tend towards a state in which > only 20 percent of the labor force are able to do all the necessary > work, so that 80 percent of people will be basically irrelevant and of > no use, thus potentially unemployed. As this logic reaches its > extreme, would it not be reasonable to bring it to its self-negation: > is not a system which renders 80 percent of people irrelevant and > useless itself irrelevant and of no use." > > If the current system were tweaked ever so slightly (note, I'm > bracketing the full communist solution, though I think, ultimately, > there is an overly utopian belief in science and progress there) such > that the incredible productivity realized a more generalized liesure > (i.e. ability to not work) that would set the new stage on which these > spikes of discovery can occur. The more people are educated, healthy, > and able to subsist without the essential necessity to work a > meaningless job for the majority of their life (a portion of it, sure, > but 8 whole hours a day! what is this, the 20th century?) the more > likely it is that new breakthroughs will occur - and that there will > be an enormous market to support their production and distribution. > Instead there is a microscopic overclass that can't stop making money > long enough to take a break so it perverts the entire edifice of > society in order to to buy more time, paying another handful of people > to do mundane tasks at a higher price than it is actually, socially > worth and doing nothing to advance knowledge or industry, relying > instead on patents, copyrights, trademarks, complicated financial > instruments, international arbitrage, legislative courtesans, and well > paid lawyers to leverage the general social production of value into a > rent paid to them for, evidently, simply being alive. > > It is this arrangement of social production and distribution that > creates "market failure" in our contemporary global society. It also > creates a generalized disintegration between what level of life we > could support and the level of life we do support. It is a long way > from obviating this, realigning these to values in some significant > way, to demanding golf courses and swimming pools for all. On the > other hand, it is likely only by artificially and collectively > deciding to mindfully realign these values that we will ever be able > to achieve that absurdly high level of sustainable, generalized > welfare. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can work towards > it an make it happen. It would by nice to think we'll get there > before we destroy the planet, but we seem more interested in the > latter than the former. Looks like the monkeys might get another shot > at it. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
