Skip to main content

The Fair Price Fallacy


The notion is rampant that producers and businesspersons are responsible for the supply of their goods at a so-called and so-believed fair price. 

What is a fair price after all? Is it not merely the supposition of a price which is only remotely convenient for the individual considering the product? Is it not merely the desired price for any given individual? 

Of course, the producer and the businessperson are easy to vilify in the public eye, as he or she is recognizable as a person who has or who has been fortunate, and the reader or onlooker is hardly familiar with the background or daily routine of that individual. 

However, the narrative of the supposed have-not is gripping and moralistic in stature, and the passerby may easily envision a way in which this individual's perceived misfortune may be corrected by a nominal adjustment of freedom for those whose routine struggles are diluted by their obscurity or their inconspicuousness. 

Nowhere is this discussion more prevalent than within the field of drugs and medicine. 

To become a better student of the discussion on fair pricing in the medical industry, one must investigate the enormity of the built-in, long-run costs of product and safety testing, research and development, clinical, regulatory and quality compliance, and the desensitizing factors of a consumer base widely insulated from drug prices through the apparatus of nationalized insurance and the attending incentives, applied to practitioners through the legal perils of medical malpractice and the aforementioned underexposed consumer, to comprehensively, rather than precisely, prescribe treatment. 

These total costs are incurred by companies whose several products might even fail to reach the market after the arduous 12-year stint from lab to medicine cabinet. 

And remember, of the many drugs that enter preclinical testing, only 0.001% of them will advance to human testing, and from this meager total only 20% will eventually be approved, putting the average probability of any single drug eventually reaching the market at 0.0002%.

By the way, there is roughly a $1 difference between the average price of gas in Detroit and that of San Francisco. 

I am wondering how this cost, as well as the costs of other goods and services, including utilities, rents and mortgages, might be reconciled by the popular and politicized model of deduction which has enabled an assignment of blame and crass scrutiny upon the executives of corporations who have merely priced their products at a market-clearing level which concomitantly satisfies the interests and applied valuations held by their shareholders who have personally taken a stake in their business. 

To be clear, there is nuanced contrast between high-order luxury goods and others which have evolved into basic essentials, expectations or even entitlements. Of course, the majority of these goods which are classified as basic were historically or incipiently deemed luxuries. But over time people adjust their expectation thresholds to anticipate even those returns which have never been procured of their own personal might but rather through a system of transfers politely codified as welfare or the common good

The primary distinction between the reception of drug prices and the prices of cars and other luxuries, for instance, where you will find tremendous differences in price by car brand, performance, etc., is the moralistic sentiment backing the institution of thought that individuals, or their perceived standing as something more vile or responsible through the name and edifices forming their corporate countenance, are endowed with that responsibility to target an ill-defined and completely-unknown price level that would be held as more fair. 

Of course, hardly anyone would legitimately claim that BMW or Mercedes-Benz ought to reduce their prices to align with the contentions of so-called or so-believed price pundits who claim to possess knowledge of the elusive fair pricing of products. 

Ultimately, I would urge any economist or logical thinker with a leaning toward truth or objectivity to first question whether a fair price may truly ever exist and more chiefly what any price organically signals to an individual or to the market. And in the case of Mylan, which today falls prey to the heated and accusatory abuse of Congressional opinion, the claims that Mylan has acquired some form of monopoly in the epinephrine autoinjector industry may find traction only due to yet another form of privilege honored by those very talking heads who today relentlessly and unabashedly denounce Mylan's CEO: that privilege of patent protection. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters. 

In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity. 

Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility. 

Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue.

What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the final keystro…

One of Every Three American Adults is a Criminal

Earlier today, the Wall Street Journal posted an article on the growing epidemic of criminal records. The article reports that nearly one out of every three American adults has a criminal record — a statistic corroborated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose records show 77.7 million individuals on file in the organization's master criminal database. Is this an indication of a society which is becoming more violent and criminal, or of one which is becoming ever-populated with needless and overreaching laws, ordinances, and regulations? In a country whose growing majority depends upon government for salary or entitlements, this is indeed the mechanism through which the dependency is enabled. Some are apparently more than willing to surrender increments of freedom for the promise of free stuff.    

Along with the extensive and pervasive development of laws in the United States, their execution has become more vile and horrid; and the experience of police brutality, along wit…