• kev@lemmy.kevhomeit.trade
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    We have seem over and over again that companies will eventually become greedy and will kill all competition. One example Standard Oil , they will eventually not serve the customers as you mentioned. The customers will have to pay really high prices for lower quality service or product. I am not a lot into socialism because we come back to the same that one entity is controlling everything and we have seem also that the government sucks. So maybe a hybrid approach will be nice to try.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Insulin prices in the US is a great example of this. It’s not about being competitive, it’s about charging the absolute highest amount they can possibly get away with.

      • kev@lemmy.kevhomeit.trade
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes that’s a great example! Capitalism is great in paper it improves quality of life and the free market make companies more competitive but big corporations abuse this and create monopolies.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not a question of not being allowed to produce it, it’s anti-competitive practices by the pharmaceuticals industry, which capitalism rewards.

          Specifically, drug manufacturers have repeatedly made lots of little changes to their existing insulin products in order to apply for new patents on them. This process, called “evergreening,” has discouraged competitors from developing new versions of existing insulins because they’d have to chase so many changes. This has slowed down innovation, along with “pay for delay” deals, in which insulin manufacturers pay competitors to not copy specific drugs for a period of time.

          Source

          Even though there are very few insulin products that have patent protection on the compound itself, the vast majority of insulin products still have patent protection on the pens and other devices that deliver the dose of insulin. Novo Nordisk has patents for Novolog, Novolin, and FIASP products; Sanofi has patents on the devices for all of its products; and Eli Lilly still has patents on some devices that deliver Humulin and Humalog.

          The patent protection on the devices is significant. Because the pens and other insulin delivery devices can only be used on with one brand of insulin, competition on those products is effectively delayed. While a prospective competitor could develop a follow-on biologic or biosimilar of the insulin, it would have to develop its own delivery device.

          Source

          • AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Save for pay for delay, all of those rely on patents and copy-rights, which are government intervention.

            According to the first source, it also looks like competitors are entering and offering lower prices, including open source methods (though I have no idea how that really works). One of the biggest problems for all of them is the government saying “no, you can’t do this or that for whatever reason”. Sometimes it’s good for the government to intercede, but it seems like in this case it’s helping perpetuate monopolies.

    • AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Monopolies are pretty dangerous, and I’d like to avoid then as much as possible.

      I think that they’re generally created and sustained by government intervention though. Bailouts, legal fees, red tape, price controls, exceedingly long copyrights, they all hurt new competitors more than established ones.

        • AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          If one company decided that the average bread should cost 50 bucks then I’m going to buy someone else’s bread and that company loses a lot of money.

          If every company decided that the average bread should cost 50 bucks, that’s an extraordinary opportunity for a new competitor to come in with reasonable prices.

            • AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              One valid use of government power is punishing people who murder, and I’m not exactly sure what power cartels have outside of that.

              I googled it and the Wikipedia page said they’re inherently unstable, but I don’t know how reliable that is.

              In any case, I don’t see how my second example isn’t a cartel itself. All the bread companies are colluding to set the price of bread artificially high. The problem is there isn’t much to stop new competitors (or to stop members defecting).

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You should read Lenin’s “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”, you’re like 2 steps from it, just in this moment you try to turn back the clock instead of looking forward.