Well, if that's your reaction, it turns out you don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. The laissez-faire solution to this issue would be that no one would purchase his product because they detest his pricing decision so much. Of course, the people dying from parasitic infections might not have much choice until someone else comes along and develops a parallel patent independently, or until the patent expires in twenty-some-odd years. In the mean time, Shkrelli wins.
Here's an even better point to demonstrate the fact that no one really believes in free markets - for markets to be truly free, ALL elements of the market must be free - that would include both capital investment AND labor. In order for truly free markets to exist, we would need to abolish all limitations on immigration, and allow workers to travel freely to any place they choose.
Absent this freedom, living in a world where capital (i.e. corporations) have a fairly high degree of freedom, and laborers have almost none, creates a situation where corporations can abuse workers in one location with little fear of repercussion - the workers have almost no ability to relocate to a country with better labor protections. Without labor liquidity, the free market gives us no tools to address these disparities, and the only solution is regulation.
So the choices are as follows - totally free markets and zero immigration laws, freedom for capital and immigration restrictions that lead to worker abuses, or regulations to control the decision-making of capital. Which world do you want to live in?
No comments:
Post a Comment