zeke5123a
5d ago
Except it didn’t “end it as a going concern.” People were still crazy and you still had cases.
zeke5123a
5d ago
I’m suggesting that just like pretty much every other product there is no liability shield. It is a weird argument — if Person A can be vaccinated then Person B being unvaxxed ought not impact Person A. That’s where I’m not seeing the externality.
If we allow for liability, then Pharma will increase the cost of vaccines to cover liability. The vast majority of vaccines would show a small cost increase. The ones that don’t probably aren’t that valuable in the first place.
zeke5123a
5d ago
Why wouldn’t pharma just increase the cost of the vaccine to cover the increased cost of liability?
zeke5123a
5d ago
But a large part of that value was captured by the customer (ie not an externality).
The argument for eliminating liability is that the cost benefit to the individual is negative (otherwise pharma could raise the cost to account for liability while customers would still buy since positive EV) but the benefit to society is positive.
Of course there could be an elasticity issue but that implies the cost to vaccines are much higher compared to what people think.
zeke5123a
5d ago
I would be fine with a free market system if the liability shield was removed.
zeke5123a
5d ago
This suggests the costs of vaccines don’t equal the value form vaccines unless the courts are overvaluing wrongful deaths.
What is the argument that there is a very large positive externality?
zeke5123a
5d ago
RFK Jr provided a reasonable critique of vaccines. They are shielded for liability. Arguably the fox is guarding the hen house. So all things equal you’d expect vaccines to marginally fail the learned hand formula though not massively because reputation still matters.
That doesn’t mean vaccines are bad or even most vaccines or bad. It does mean bringing back liability seems like a reasonable step to encourage pharma companies to internalize the costs of vaccines.
Does RFK go too far? Almost certainly. But the core economic argument doesn’t seem fallacious.
zeke5123a
6d ago
I think Gorsuch would fall on the side that the 8th covers punitive damages. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-177_d0fi.pdf
zeke5123a
6d ago
But you started off saying:
“Your analogy doesn't hold because the purpose of a civil suit isn't to punish the defendant but to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss.”
Damages clearly are about making victims whole. Punitive damages are about trying to regulate behavior (ie deterrence). That is, civil suits are in part about making the victim whole and in part about regulating behavior.
zeke5123a
6d ago
Punitive damages are literally trying to punish someone; not make the plaintiff whole.
zeke5123a
6d ago
Can you provide a link for the Mitsubishi award? I did a simple Google and couldn’t find it.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Selzer said Harris +3. I think it was Trump +13. This wasn’t a close call that went the other way. This was a disaster for Selzer. But it was obvious that Selzer was way off for the numerous reasons I articulated pre election. Note I didn’t try to call the election; I merely said the poll was obviously wrong for a few reasons and that was correct.
zeke5123a
7d ago
It is functionally the same. Ad hominem in the classic sense is “your argument is bad because you are a bad person.”
There was zero intent to engage with the concept that Tulsi is good or bad pick Instead, the poster just said “she is a crank.” It is functionally the same—not addressing the issue and instead basically name calling.
Funny enough the poster claimed I was engaging in ad hominem. Instead, I was pointing out that the poster’s judgement isn’t great—especially when it comes to political topics. So read most charitably his comments re Tulsi amounted to “trust my judgement.” So bringing up his bad judgement is directly addressing his argument. He couldn’t handle it and decided to throw a fit and block me.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Dude. This isn’t an ad hominem. You made nothing but an ad hominem in the OP and then I called out that maybe you should show more humility.
As for the Selzer poll, I pointed out that the Selzer poll would require believing there were massive shifts in multiple populations over a short time that wasn’t captured by anyone (indeed her prior poll showed Trump +18 — a 21 point move wasn’t explained by Biden to Harris). That should’ve given you pause. Calling those bad arguments ignores the fact that those arguments actually reflected reality whereas yours did not.
zeke5123a
7d ago
She is a crank whereas your opinions are perfect and normal. Oh but wait — weren’t you the one defending the Selzter poll and calling other people (like me) partisans hacks despite us clearly stating the facts for our doubts? And yet who was right? Maybe that should cause you to have just a minuscule amount of introspection instead of just criticizing your out group. That is, maybe you get a lot of things wrong.
zeke5123a
8d ago
I would add a lot of other “female” coded jobs (eg HR) are largely (though not entirely) created by the government but paid by private sector directly.
zeke5123a
8d ago
But it kind of feels like free riding off of people who are destroying themselves.
zeke5123a
8d ago
For me, it is fine. I can gamble once a week a couple of dollars and it is fun without causing me any harm.
But I can’t help but note the business doesn’t really run on people like me. I don’t make the house enough money. It is dependent on the whales. Those guys lose a ton of money. I the business is unseemly.
zeke5123a
9d ago
Ehh we shall see. And those are proposals being put out by people close to Trump (eg Sacks).
These are the same reason types who got upset about mask bans when ignoring the giant thumb government had put on masking.
zeke5123a
10d ago
But this is my problem with Reason types—they never account for context. Yes, it would be bad if government routinely goes around punishing people for speech the government doesn’t like. But it would also be bad if the government routinely went around rewarding folks for speech the government likes.
So NBC, ABC, and CBS get billions of dollars free subsidies from the government. They were rewarded with this because it was thought broadcasting things like the news was in the public interest. But it has become obviously clear that those three organizations aren’t broadcasting the news but acting as an appendage of the DNC. Why should the government subsidize the speech of the DNC?
Take away the subsidy and let ABC, NBC, or CBS bid on the broadband. Use the money to pay down debt.
zeke5123a
10d ago
I don’t think the first amendment requires giving person A, B, and C a subsidy that isn’t given to anyone else. In fact, one could flip this on its head and say providing the subsidy is harming the freedom of speech rights of others (since relatively speaking their speech is more expensive)
That just isn’t correct. The vast majority of manufacturers are subject to strict liability and they don’t capture all of the benefit. Yet they survive because they make an EV+ product.
More options
Context Copy link