|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:So hold on a second, if we are proposing robots that can execute all human jobs on behalf of humanity, than why do any jobs or any person need to paid in first place? At that point the human worker is strictly performative. This is basically where I am at yeah. Like in this situation "what wage you get paid" is meaningless; there shouldn't even be money anymore.
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait lol the guy who thinks all work is vital to QoL actually works in drug marketing loving a great many of his arguments in this thread are explained by knowing there is someone desperately trying to convince himself "what I do must be good, and necessary, because I am paid well for it" behind them, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:This is basically where I am at yeah. Like in this situation "what wage you get paid" is meaningless; there shouldn't even be money anymore. Money is useful. Even when a group of people don't have currency it they invent something to use instead. Abolishing money is unnecessarily reductionist.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:one might otherwise hope that doctors are able to disseminate this sort of information through the normal academic channels, being ostensibly trained for such Man, you would think so, but in practice a lot of the task of bringing new products and their applications to the attention of doctors falls on the companies. At the very least they're also interacting (because otherwise there's no way to get the info out) with the medical schools and journals that contribute to continuing education for medical professionals. Which does bring up the point... V. Illych L. posted:- indeed, i would say that if they simply trust what the marketing people say then that's worse than simply not getting updated at all, re: the american opioid epidemic That yeah, blindly trusting what the marketing people say is a really bad idea. Skeptically receiving and validating that information is probably better than not getting it at all, though. Like...I am not in any way going to defend a lot of what goes on in Pharma marketing. Just not going to do it. It doesn't deserve defense. Marketing direct to consumers should not be done. But some parts of it are legitimate and necessary, and would have to end up being done at some level (marketing to medical schools and journals and etc) no matter what so the information about what is available could be disseminated to doctors.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Money is useful. Even when a group of people don't have currency it they invent something to use instead. Abolishing money is unnecessarily reductionist. Yeah, as long as we don't live in a literal post-scarcity society (ie: there isn't really an economy anymore) there will have to be some kind of currency.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:31
|
|
Somfin posted:KN, I want you to answer this directly: No, they shouldn't die. They should be given food, shelter, and healthcare. OwlFancier posted:If you set out to wipe cars off the face of the earth, and replace all their actually needed functions with more efficient options, who would suffer? What does any of this have to do with the necessity of people participating in labor? If you wanted to design such a world where cars were unnecessary then people would still need to build and maintain it. People would just walk or take public transportation to work. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:intellectual exercise for you, KN. You have an intentionally simplistic view of what sales and marketing means, especially in a pre-commercial setting focused on rare diseases. But I'll flatter you despite knowing you have no intention of contributing to the discussion beyond being needlessly combative with those you disagree with. There are many considerations on if and how a medicine should be developed given a scarcity in labor that is capable of developing new and innovative medicines. Some basic questions might be: How many people have this condition? What are current treatments for this condition? What are the medicines currently in clinical development? What is the current unmet need for doctors and their patients? How should a clinical trial be designed to ensure this unmet need will be addressed? Will doctors find this medicine useful assuming various clinical endpoints are achieved? If so, how do we ensure doctors are aware it exists such that they're not using old, inferior products? How do we track how many patients are receiving it over time? How do we track physician perceptions of safety/efficacy vs. other current and future products? How do we forecast future expectations to manage manufacturing and staffing? Helping to answer these questions such that medicines are developed quickly, cheaply, and address the largest unmet need is the benefit to the world. See how none of that includes TV ads or other direct to consumer, mass media marketing meant to scare patients? They aren't very efficient when your potential customer base is 5-10k patients per year that only become aware of their need for a therapy when diagnosed at a physician's office.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Money is useful. Even when a group of people don't have currency it they invent something to use instead. Abolishing money is unnecessarily reductionist. Money is an inefficient means of rationing. wateroverfire posted:Yeah, as long as we don't live in a literal post-scarcity society (ie: there isn't really an economy anymore) there will have to be some kind of currency. See above where I say "given the premise that robots do all necessary jobs for humanity and human work is strictly performative/voluntary." Although even still, money is an inefficient means of rationing a limited supply. If what I am saying is wrong then explain this: 
Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Money is an inefficient means of rationing. Yeah, if robots are doing everything (and there isn't an economy behind the robots, etc) there's probably no need for money because everything a person wants can just... exist. At that point the idea of a job or money is kind of meaningless. Money is a pretty efficient means of rationing, tho, compared to basically anything else I can think of. edit: Uhh...that's propaganda to support the rationing regime during WWII, which was necessary because there literally wasn't enough productive capacity to supply everything people wanted to buy and supply the war effort at the same time.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Money is a pretty efficient means of rationing, tho, compared to basically anything else I can think of. But during WW2 when it was actually important to ration or the country might lose a war, the gov't said "none of this free market nonsense, we are seizing factories are mandating wages/prices and handing out ration booklets." If money and markets are more efficient then why do that? It's the case that money means the wealthiest individuals get first dibs even if that means they get to feed their cat the milk that poor people needed to feed their children. That's not efficient.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Uhh...that's propaganda to support the rationing regime during WWII, which was necessary because there literally wasn't enough productive capacity to supply everything people wanted to buy and supply the war effort at the same time. So in a scarcity situation, the gov't decided that actually the free market is not the most efficient way to distribute these limited supplies. No? quote:there literally wasn't enough productive capacity to supply everything people wanted to buy Like isn't this the definition of an economy that hasn't made it to post-scarcity?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:But during WW2 when it was actually important to ration or the country might lose a war, the gov't said "none of this free market nonsense, we are seizing factories are mandating wages/prices and handing out ration booklets." If money and markets are more efficient then why do that? You still paid money for things during WWII rationing. You just couldn't buy more than your ration book would allow. http://ameshistory.org/content/world-war-ii-rationing-us-homefront The point of rationing during WWII is that there literally wasn't enough capacity to supply consumer goods and war goods at the same time, so the government limited the consumer goods people could buy. It was about necessity not efficiency.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The point of rationing during WWII is that there literally wasn't enough capacity to supply consumer goods and war goods at the same time, so the government limited the consumer goods people could buy. It was about necessity not efficiency. This is some semantics honestly. "Not enough production capacity to meet demands" is a scarcity economy by definition. If the free market was the most efficient means to distribute a limited supply of goods then they wouldn't institute rationing or mandate wages/prices.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Be a real shame if we were living in a world where some people are wasting huge amounts of resources such that consumption controls might be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
And yeah, especially with regards to things like housing/food/medicine it just isn't a question of distributing a limited supply. How can that possibly be when we have multiple empty residences for every homeless person? Sounds like a wild inefficiency to me strictly from the standpoint of society is putting in production to create commodities that go unused while people who need those commodities can't afford to use them. That's not just less efficient, that's extremely wasteful - except from the perspective of number go up because profits for developers / real estate owners. You can't just give housing to anyone that needs it!!! The real estate values would plummet!!! Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:27 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Nah clearly you just need to ramp up production even more. Build more houses for speculating parasites to buy, that'll fix it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:This is some semantics honestly. You're conflating money with the market and aside from all the other ways your arguments are dumb, that is I think where you are most specifically going wrong. Without money or something like money you're down to barter, which is inefficient as gently caress. Or like...gifting...I guess. You can't run an economy much bigger than a county that way. Markets are theoretically efficient for a given specification of efficient. Not so efficient at quickly providing guns, bullets, and provisions in the quantities required to fight total war to hold off a no-poo poo existential threat. But very efficient at aggregating the needs and wants of consumers and organizing resources to provide those things.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You're conflating money with the market and aside from all the other ways your arguments are dumb, that is I think where you are most specifically going wrong. You're assuming there still needs to be exchange going on of some kind versus something like everyone just orders what they want as needed from the gov't amazon equivalent which gets stuff to your house same-day or next day and it is all just free with caps on what you can reasonably do (such that you can't order 100 pairs of shoes or whatever). I'm talking about post scarcity economics with robots doing 99%+ of all necessary labor. You or any other private citizen would have nothing I'd want that I'd need money or barter goods to acquire. What would I be buying from you that I can't have made by the robots? wateroverfire posted:Markets are theoretically efficient for a given specification of efficient. Not so efficient at quickly providing guns, bullets, and provisions in the quantities required to fight total war to hold off a no-poo poo existential threat. But very efficient at aggregating the needs and wants of consumers and organizing resources to provide those things. They're really not. I will work up a better effort post around this. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:31 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:You're assuming there still needs to be exchange going on of some kind versus everone just orders what they want as needed from the gov't amazon equivalent and it is all just free with caps on what you can reasonably do (such that you can't order 100 pairs of shoes or whatever). If you're talking about post-scarcity economics with robots doing basically everything then sure, yeah, I agree. There's literally no need for an economy. But that is not a thing that exists now nor is it a thing that is likely to exist any time within our lifetimes and it's not what anyone ELSE ITT seems to be talking about so it's confusing af.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:But that is not a thing that exists now nor is it a thing that is likely to exist any time within our lifetimes and it's not what anyone ELSE ITT seems to be talking about so it's confusing af. I think we are though granted there's like a few different conversations happening like someone mentioned. quote:But that is not a thing that exists now nor is it a thing that is likely to exist any time within our lifetimes But I kind of contest this honestly because as I already said we're already post-scarcity on basic necessities like food/housing/medicine. If we had the will to do it then it could be done and probably within our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Scarcity can exist for some things and not others and even if we agree to give everyone a high standard of living money is going to be the best way to sort out amongst ourselves what we want/get if we can't have literally everything that exists in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:money is going to be the best way to sort out amongst ourselves what we want/get if we can't have literally everything that exists in the world. Sure except for when it isn't and the gov't seizes control of production and institutes rationing because it needs to take things seriously for a while instead of playing games with rich people. e: Anyway originally I said "money implies poverty;" so if you're not post-scarcity and still need money to distribute scarce goods then there is an implication that there is going to be poverty no? Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:53 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Sure except for when it isn't and the gov't seizes control of production and institutes rationing because it needs to take things seriously for a while instead of playing games with rich people. You said it but that doesn't mean everyone agreed. But yeah, when you cut a bunch of context out of my statement it takes on a different meaning. imagine that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
I mean it's right, you can't have a market without the threat of poverty, you can't sell people what they aren't at risk of being denied.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Well either way, the notion being presented here of "we had barter then it moved to currency because currency better" is just wrong. Is what happens when you try to learn history from economics books. Decent article that summarizes; https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ quote:But various anthropologists have pointed out that this barter economy has never been witnessed as researchers have traveled to undeveloped parts of the globe. “No example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money,” wrote the Cambridge anthropology professor Caroline Humphrey in a 1985 paper. “All available ethnography suggests that there never has been such a thing.” 'Debt: the first 5000 years' is a good read also. And yeah, markets don't function without deprivation. That's part and parcel of how they work. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:12 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
And it has the obvious consequence that if you want to preserve the market for a thing, for which you have solved the supply problem of, you must find a way to manufacture deprivation, in order to keep the market going.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:No, they shouldn't die. They should be given food, shelter, and healthcare. which are the purview of the public research institutions that actually develop them, KN. your contribution to this exercise is "hm. can my bosses gouge those suffering from said conditions for enough money to make it worth our while to take these out of the public sphere." or, if I was a piece of human refuse attempting to justify a life spent fine-tuning a machine that runs on extracting the maximum value from human suffering, I might separate that question out into several sub-questions, as follows. quote:How many people have this condition? What are current treatments for this condition? What are the medicines currently in clinical development? What is the current unmet need for doctors and their patients? How should a clinical trial be designed to ensure this unmet need will be addressed? Will doctors find this medicine useful assuming various clinical endpoints are achieved? If so, how do we ensure doctors are aware it exists such that they're not using old, inferior products? How do we track how many patients are receiving it over time? How do we track physician perceptions of safety/efficacy vs. other current and future products? How do we forecast future expectations to manage manufacturing and staffing? your job does not exist in other countries, because in other countries, it is a matter of general agreement that you are a parasite on the back of a larger, more grotesque parasite, messily slurping away at a great, raw wound in the social fabric, only ever pausing to angrily hiss at anyone trying to fix the problem you derive your sustenance from perpetuating. someone with such a focus on how to optimize systems would, you would think, agree that this is an egregious misuse of you as a person. but evidently the slurpin's are good enough to outweigh that tiny voice in the back of your head saying "the zero-subscriber twitch streamer contributes more to society than you." Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:Paraphrasing..."pharma marketing doesn't exist outside the US.." I have bad news for you, dude.... =( Moridin920 posted:Well either way, the notion being presented here of "we had barter then it moved to currency because currency better" is just wrong. Is what happens when you try to learn history from economics books. I don't think anyone has said ITT that we had barter then moved to currency because currency better. I'm just straight up saying currency better, only way to run an industrial economy.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
quote:If so, how do we ensure doctors are aware it exists such that they're not using old, inferior products? Lol if you truly believe that marketing and sales agents are useful for this purpose. Like yeah Purdue Pharma was just informing doctors of the new drugs on the market eh?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean it's right, you can't have a market without the threat of poverty, you can't sell people what they aren't at risk of being denied. Not all things have to be part of the markets tho, as someone else mentioned I think. Markets for some luxury and recreational goods. wateroverfire posted:I don't think anyone has said ITT that we had barter then moved to currency because currency better. I'm just straight up saying currency better, only way to run an industrial economy. I'm at a loss for how "well actually a barter economy never existed" was a rebuttal of anything posted so far.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
drat the forums are moving slow, I'ma come back later. All I'ma say for now is I think we can make a really good go at central planning without currency even with today's tech let alone if we developed things specifically to help us do that.quote:If so, how do we ensure doctors are aware it exists such that they're not using old, inferior products? Also lol if you truly believe that marketing and sales agents are useful for this purpose. Like yeah Purdue Pharma was just informing doctors of the new drugs on the market eh
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:24
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Part of the problem with your argument and the reason that you're running head first into a lot of other posters in this thread is that you seem to be conflating the idea of "make-work" and "work that is not socially useful." They aren't necessarily the same thing. Make-work is generally understood to be something that has no benefit to anyone whatsoever, and that's ultimately a net drag on the economy. There probably isn't much of that for obvious reasons. I agree with your definitions of make-work vs. work that is not socially useful. While I would argue the work that I do has social value as it contributes to the creation and approval of medicine, if the industry was restructured such that bio-pharmaceutical companies were not in competition with each other then there would be significant redundancy. Each company that has a potential asset in a given disease area has to employ someone to develop treatment landscapes, forecasts, analytics because its proprietary information. Assuming that all drug development was nationalized and such information could be shared broadly then there would need to be far less people employed in that field. This would decrease the overall labor expense necessary to bring drugs to market. The same thing could be said for pepsi vs. coke, or uber vs. lyft, or any place that employs people doing duplicative work for different employers. What people are saying here, though, is that if such efficiencies could be realized that anyone who's job is lost via redundancies or automation should no longer need to enter the work force so long as the status quo is maintained. That's fine if you believe the status quo is sufficient or even too much given climate change or whatever. But if that wasn't a concern, there's no reason that people shouldn't be retrained such that their labor is socially useful. Using the bio-pharma example, eliminating redundant work could mean those people are retrained to expand fundamental science/drug discovery and computational biology/bioinformatics necessary to analyze the increased clinical data. I don't see lower labor participation rates or fewer working hours as the end-goal of automation and economic reforms. It may lead to less labor required to meet the basic needs of every individual, but the new surplus labor can still be spent in socially useful ways rather than sitting idle.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Not all things have to be part of the markets tho, as someone else mentioned I think. Markets for some luxury and recreational goods. Maybe I'm confusing threads but didn't someone go "how would you even do it without currency, just barter?" I was more getting at a) barter as described by Adam Smith never existed so if that's in your mind get it out and b) there are many ways to determine how to distribute goods/services that don't involve currencies.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Not all things have to be part of the markets tho, as someone else mentioned I think. Markets for some luxury and recreational goods. If your best defence of markets is that they can only function for pointless things then why bother with them at all?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:
It's not about sitting idle, it's about having the freedom to determine how you want to use your own time. It's about people being free to pursue their own interests/hobbies/skills without worrying about becoming homeless. If you had no worries about basic needs like food/medicine/clothing/housing would you choose to spend most of your waking life advertising pharmaceuticals? If yes then great and if no then you'd be free to go do whatever else you want to do.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't see lower labor participation rates or fewer working hours as the end-goal of automation and economic reforms. It may lead to less labor required to meet the basic needs of every individual, but the new surplus labor can still be spent in socially useful ways rather than sitting idle. Yet another statement that says more about you than anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If your best defence of markets is that they can only function for pointless things then why bother with them at all? That's not the best defense of markets by a long shot. =P
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
I think markets have their points and their place but I also think they aren't above criticism/change or even throwing out entirely if we land on a superior method or grow past them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:31
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:your job does not exist in other countries, because in other countries, it is a matter of general agreement that you are a parasite on the back of a larger, more grotesque parasite, messily slurping away at a great, raw wound in the social fabric, only ever pausing to angrily hiss at anyone trying to fix the problem you derive your sustenance from perpetuating. Very simple task for you today, Yeowch. Go to a few pharmaceutical or biotech website's careers section. See if they have any jobs under the "sales" or "marketing and market research" or "finance" or "analytics" or "market access" definitions that exist outside the US. Or if there are US-based roles that have "Global" responsibilities other than simply "US." I'll help you get started
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I think markets have their points and their place but I also think they aren't above criticism/change or even throwing out entirely if we land on a superior method or grow past them. Sure. We just...don't really have anything better, at this point. Things that are less lovely in some ways and (potentially a lot) more lovely in other ways, but not better. edit: Ok that's not quite right. For some things markets don't work very well, and we can probably do better than the market outcome with what we have now. Non-elective healthcare is one example.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Lol at enjoyment of life being a "pointless thing"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2019 20:34
|
|