2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:58 pm UTC

Is there a generic version of that $85 dollar drug in the US? A lot of times a price v price comparison between the US and other countries doesn't give you the whole picture, as generics in the US are often pretty similar to other countries.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The argument is that most of the costs are in R&D, not manufacturing. So if the R&D costs are recouped in the US market, then sales outside the US are almost pure profit.


That and marginal costs. I would imagine that a number of manufacturing costs are also fixed. A market twice as large probably isn't going to have twice the manufacturing costs. Plus, you've got time as a factor too. A good bit of delay in bringing new drugs to market, so if you're looking to increase sales, a new market for an existing drug is going to be way faster than investing more in R&D.

It's just market segmentation. You grab as much profit as you can in every market, even if the amount of profit isn't the same.

It isn't reasonable to think that drug costs in the US could be twenty or thirty times cheaper without increases elsewhere, I think. Pharma companies are not massive balls of infinite profit, so they almost certainly will have to adjust pricing strategies if US profits change. But...honestly, if the rest of the world ends up paying rates more similar to ours, and ours drops, well...that doesn't seem like a bad deal. Kind of fair, even.

Albeit kind of hard on lower income countries, but I suppose that's the expected outcome if you want medicines priced more similarly.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:Is there a generic version of that $85 dollar drug in the US? A lot of times a price v price comparison between the US and other countries doesn't give you the whole picture, as generics in the US are often pretty similar to other countries.
Pharmaceutical patents last only 20 years from filing, and filing tends to happens years before going to market. So a generic would be legal and probably exists unless it's some very obscure drug.

Of course, it still says something bad about the American market that people are actually paying 1600% more than they need to.

@Zohar: It should be pretty trivial for to find out if your medicine has a generic version. Good doctors will prescribe the generic one in the first place and decent ones should respond to a request to switch to a generic if you ask them.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:[
It isn't reasonable to think that drug costs in the US could be twenty or thirty times cheaper without increases elsewhere, I think.
I actually don't think it could be that much. Name brand drug companies look to be making around 10%-30% total profit averaging around 15%, so the most that could be reduced to drug prices across the board is that amount. The US provides the biggest share. So the US could probably only cut drug prices by about 1/3rd before cutting into R&D spending or having other countries pick up more costs.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:21 pm UTC

Yeah, the $85 price is for the generic brand, and as I wrote with insurance it comes down to $10, which is reasonable but still 2.5 times more than the same drug in Israel.

And Dark567, next time I'm in Israel I'll show you some receipts so you can tell the difference. Yes, it most definitely is a difference of 20-30 times more.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

US drug companies could stand to cut their marketing budgets. I'd actually favor allowing companies to form trusts to limit their marketing expenses.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:29 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:And Dark567, next time I'm in Israel I'll show you some receipts so you can tell the difference. Yes, it most definitely is a difference of 20-30 times more.
I'm not saying I don't believe you. Just want to make sure we're comparing across the board. I often see news reports that will compare name brand price in the US vs. name brand outside and not generic vs generic which is usually closer.

Fair enough on the marketing budgets.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:34 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:US drug companies could stand to cut their marketing budgets.
Banning direct-to-consumer drug advertising for prescription drugs would drop those marketing costs considerably, I expect.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:38 pm UTC

The generics can be more expensive in the U.S. simply because their name-brand competition is so much higher. It's not like the companies producing generics are doing so for the public welfare, they'e trying to make a profit too. If the supply/demand curve settles out 20x higher in the U.S. than in other countries, that's where they're going to set the price for U.S. customers.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:40 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:[
It isn't reasonable to think that drug costs in the US could be twenty or thirty times cheaper without increases elsewhere, I think.
I actually don't think it could be that much. Name brand drug companies look to be making around 10%-30% total profit averaging around 15%, so the most that could be reduced to drug prices across the board is that amount. The US provides the biggest share. So the US could probably only cut drug prices by about 1/3rd before cutting into R&D spending or having other countries pick up more costs.


Exactly. And that's presuming their first thought is "let's cut profits", which seems unrealistically charitable.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:41 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:The generics can be more expensive in the U.S. simply because their name-brand competition is so much higher. It's not like the companies producing generics are doing so for the public welfare, they'e trying to make a profit too. If the supply/demand curve settles out 20x higher in the U.S. than in other countries, that's where they're going to set the price for U.S. customers.
Also the insurance system. Consumers tend not to shop around for cheap ones when no matter what they are paying the $10 co-pay.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:58 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:Banning direct-to-consumer drug advertising for prescription drugs would drop those marketing costs considerably, I expect.
If this is correct, that's only about 10%. Although I'd agree it's generally problematic for other reasons.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:10 pm UTC

Is there any evidence that prices of any drug in the US have anything to do with what a drug actually costs, even including research, during its period of exclusivity? Recent press suggests that drugs cost whatever companies think will return the highest profits. Which is good work if you can get it. And is there any measure of how much any given drug exhibits greater efficacy then the drug it replaces. For example how much better than prior statins than Lipitor? Was the increased cost reflected in better patient outcomes, or was it merely an exercise in exclusivity?
Dark567 wrote:Consumers tend not to shop around for cheap ones when no matter what they are paying the $10 co-pay.
Unless consumers are better educated than doctors I'm not sure that that is a meaningful statement. They can't write scripts and don't have the required skill to validate their decision making process. Nor do I think that any Presidential candidate can make any headway against this as long as Congress is constituted as it is currently.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:24 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Dark567 wrote:Consumers tend not to shop around for cheap ones when no matter what they are paying the $10 co-pay.
Unless consumers are better educated than doctors I'm not sure that that is a meaningful statement. They can't write scripts and don't have the required skill to validate their decision making process. Nor do I think that any Presidential candidate can make any headway against this as long as Congress is constituted as it is currently.


HDHPs (what The Affordable Care Act greatly incentivizes) have consumers pay a percentage-based fee. Insurance companies have begun to drop the old plans and many people have been forced into HDHPs as a result.

There's nothing "illegal" about co-pays right now, but effectively, the tax and regulatory environment favors a very different plan now. Its only a matter of time before insurance companies basically do your "silver / gold HDHP" style services. In any case, current law is already moving people to proportional co-insurance models instead of the flat-fee copay model.

For a lot of HDHPs (at least, all the ones offered at my company), consumers have to shop online for pills and generics are favored. I'm currently on a "Bronze" plan. I'm personally responsible for all medical costs till $3400 (in-network). For pills, my insurance will pay 80% of the costs after that, but I'd still be paying 20% for the medicine. (HDHP insurance is truly insurance, with very little "health plan" in there. I'm guaranteed to never pay more than ~$6300 in health care costs per year).

So I'm going to be very sensitive to prices. Even those with "gold" plans will have deductibles as high as $1300, with 10% co-insurance after that for medicine. In any case: the hope is that consumers start shopping around for medicine now. And you can talk to your doctor to help find cheaper medicines if that becomes an issue.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Is there any evidence that prices of any drug in the US have anything to do with what a drug actually costs, even including research, during its period of exclusivity? Recent press suggests that drugs cost whatever companies think will return the highest profits.
After the fact? I don't think so, even in principle; but the expected (economic) value of the drug is a big consideration in what gets research money in the first place.
Unless consumers are better educated than doctors I'm not sure that that is a meaningful statement. They can't write scripts and don't have the required skill to validate their decision making process.
Checking if a drug has a generic equivalent doesn't take much knowledge. And it's not like there's tangible difference for doctors to evaluate there.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:05 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Unless consumers are better educated than doctors I'm not sure that that is a meaningful statement. They can't write scripts and don't have the required skill to validate their decision making process.
Checking if a drug has a generic equivalent doesn't take much knowledge. And it's not like there's tangible difference for doctors to evaluate there.

Doctor/Patient relationships generally have a certain power dynamic in that the doctor is supposed to know what they are doing, more-so than the patient. If a doctor proscribes a name-brand drug and not a generic that power dynamic will guide the patient to accepting that the name brand drug is somehow 'better' then the generic. Drugs being marketed directly to consumers reinforces this perception, familiarity with the brand gives it a certain (unearned) credibility in decision making. Drug companies flood doctors with free samples to get those brand names in front of the patients, the doctor gives the brand dame to the patient and confers their position of authority on the brand name.

Marketing is a subtle thing of multiple cues and psychological triggers working in concert and ,unfortunately, it works.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:14 pm UTC

Cruz is campaigning today with the Christian extremist Bryan Fischer, who has said that Muslims are a "toxic cancer", that immigrants should be forced to accept Christianity, that homosexuality should be illegal, that gay activists are Nazis, that homosexuality was responsible for the Holocaust, that the First Amendment only protects Christians, that women and gays should be barred from public office, and that ISIS is God's punishment for America's acceptance of homosexuality. How is the media continuing to give him a free pass on this, despite having doggedly pursued the more tenuous extremist links of other candidates?
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:23 pm UTC

Trump fever. People aren't even paying attention to anyone else anymore.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:Checking if a drug has a generic equivalent doesn't take much knowledge. And it's not like there's tangible difference for doctors to evaluate there.
This first. Suppose a condition arises where a current drug is removed from the drugs available from your insurance provider. Where in effect the choice is not between Lipitor and a generic, but requires that the patient chooses from a list of alternatives provided by an insurance company. The insurance provider has made a decision based on some metric not to pay for a specific type of drug, either branded or generic. Assuming a generic is same as a branded drug then the point is moot, the only decision is based on price, but it isn't in the other case. And if no generic is available than again it isn't a choice based on price, if your insurer chose not to provide that in their formulary of drugs.

@Lazar

Because today they are covering the Preacher that got shot multiple times after praying with Cruz.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:41 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:But what about Red Pride, my communist LGBTQ fanzine funded by government dollars??
You run LRGBTQ? I loved your article calling for the banning of heterosexual relationship on TV!
Dauric wrote:Marketing is a subtle thing of multiple cues and psychological triggers working in concert and ,unfortunately, it works.
Sure, but I was responding to your claim that customers shopping around was semantically impossible.
morriswalters wrote:And if no generic is available than again it isn't a choice based on price, if your insurer chose not to provide that in their formulary of drugs.
Please follow the context of the statements you are replying to. We were discussing generics specifically. Relevant text reproduced in spoiler.
Spoiler:
Zohar: healthcare there is about 20 times cheaper than here in the US (for instance a specific drug I take costs $85 here without insurance, $4 in Israel, even with my insurance here it's still around $10).
Dark567: Is there a generic version of that $85 dollar drug in the US? A lot of times a price v price comparison between the US and other countries doesn't give you the whole picture, as generics in the US are often pretty similar to other countries.
Dauric: The generics can be more expensive in the U.S. simply because their name-brand competition is so much higher. It's not like the companies producing generics are doing so for the public welfare, they'e trying to make a profit too. If the supply/demand curve settles out 20x higher in the U.S. than in other countries, that's where they're going to set the price for U.S. customers.
Dark567: Also the insurance system. Consumers tend not to shop around for cheap ones when no matter what they are paying the $10 co-pay.
Morris Walters: Unless consumers are better educated than doctors I'm not sure that that is a meaningful statement. They can't write scripts and don't have the required skill to validate their decision making process. Nor do I think that any Presidential candidate can make any headway against this as long as Congress is constituted as it is currently.
Quizatz Haderac: Checking if a drug has a generic equivalent doesn't take much knowledge. And it's not like there's tangible difference for doctors to evaluate there.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:34 am UTC

You were discussing generics, I asked a related question. If you felt my response was out of the path of the discussion nothing compels you to reply.

Generics are the defaults for a lot of Pharmacies. My pharmacy transitioned me to the generic for Celebrex as soon as it was available, without intervention, and they have done this without exception every time the question has arisen. The statement I was trying to illuminate involved the non simple case, when it isn't just, is the generic cheaper?

If you have pharmacy benefits then the calculus can change if the generic isn't covered. My insurance provider informed me that the generic Celebrex wasn't cheap enough.(my copay was 10 dollars) Do I absorb the increased cost of purchasing celecoxib without the benefit of my insurance, or are the cheaper alternatives in my providers list of medications equivalent or close enough? I don't need an answer to this, it just illuminates the point I originally made.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:49 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:You were discussing generics, I asked a related question. If you felt my response was out of the path of the discussion nothing compels you to reply.

Generics are the defaults for a lot of Pharmacies. My pharmacy transitioned me to the generic for Celebrex as soon as it was available, without intervention, and they have done this without exception every time the question has arisen. The statement I was trying to illuminate involved the non simple case, when it isn't just, is the generic cheaper?

If you have pharmacy benefits then the calculus can change if the generic isn't covered. My insurance provider informed me that the generic Celebrex wasn't cheap enough.(my copay was 10 dollars) Do I absorb the increased cost of purchasing celecoxib without the benefit of my insurance, or are the cheaper alternatives in my providers list of medications equivalent or close enough? I don't need an answer to this, it just illuminates the point I originally made.


The whole point of generics is that they use the same active ingredient as the original drug. So it shouldn't matter whether you use the generic or the brand name product, because both should give the same benefit. If your provider is willing to offer you the brand-name drug for cheaper than you would pay for the generic, then presumably you would go with the brand-name drug.

This is one of those things about the American system that people from other countries really find baffling.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:19 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:If your provider is willing to offer you the brand-name drug for cheaper than you would pay for the generic, then presumably you would go with the brand-name drug.
You have it reversed. My provider suggests that the cost of the generic is too close to the cost of the Brand name so they have changed the tier of reimbursement of the generic, upwards. In other words the generic I currently take will be priced the same as the Brand name drug. Therefore I either change drugs or my carrier will charge my copay so that it is the same as the Branded drug increasing my cost. Or I can buy it in Canada. I didn't say it was rational, it is what it is. I would love to move to a single payer system, but Sanders can't make it happen. At least not yet. Discussions about generics are mostly feelgood exercises. And distinctions from country to country aren't really useful, since the safety and regulatory regimes are so different.
LaserGuy wrote:This is one of those things about the American system that people from other countries really find baffling.
Imagine how it feels to live here.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jseah » Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:46 am UTC

Thesh wrote:A surplus can actually hurt your economy by reducing the money supply.

A surplus would, ideally, be returned to the economy via re-investment. Many countries have sovereign wealth funds.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7518
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:38 am UTC

jseah wrote:A surplus would, ideally, be returned to the economy via re-investment. Many countries have sovereign wealth funds.

Many sovereign wealth funds are aimed at foreign investment - their goal is explicitly to prevent the money from going into the local economy. Then it's a method to force structural export surpluses, and its effect on government surpluses is mostly an accounting side effect.

Government investment in the domestic commercial economy is a different kettle of tea. After all, that's just another formulation for a gradual nationalization of the means of production. That's hardcore socialism, not Bernie Sanders socialism.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:45 am UTC

jseah wrote:
Thesh wrote:A surplus can actually hurt your economy by reducing the money supply.

A surplus would, ideally, be returned to the economy via re-investment. Many countries have sovereign wealth funds.


Technically, if you reinvest the money in the economy then it is no longer a surplus.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jseah » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:55 am UTC

^Thesh: It is a surplus because it is earning the government interest and can be drawn down in times of war/economic depression.

Zamfir wrote:
jseah wrote:A surplus would, ideally, be returned to the economy via re-investment. Many countries have sovereign wealth funds.

Many sovereign wealth funds are aimed at foreign investment - their goal is explicitly to prevent the money from going into the local economy. Then it's a method to force structural export surpluses, and its effect on government surpluses is mostly an accounting side effect.

Government investment in the domestic commercial economy is a different kettle of tea. After all, that's just another formulation for a gradual nationalization of the means of production. That's hardcore socialism, not Bernie Sanders socialism.
Don't they invest overseas because the profit is to be found there? I don't recall special rules about how SWFs work other than they aim to earn money just like any other fund. Or well, since they are sovereign wealth funds, with the power of a state behind them, rules are... flexible.
If (hypothetically) the US government had not a deficit but instead a surplus the size of the current deficit and it was parked in a SWF, most of it would be in the US because US companies (despite what you might think) are profitable.

It doesn't have to work like socialism. Not if there's a separation that ensures the government doesn't try to run the companies it nominally owns (merely profits from them), doesn't politicise the process of choosing the investment and consistently aims for the best risk-reward ratio like any other investor.
How you manage this separation is a matter of your policy. A separate entity with its own rules not directly controlled by the government, mandated to retain certain liquidity, risk profile, etc. might be a good start. It's just like a really big hedge fund, with one creditor: the treasury.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7518
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:24 am UTC

It's the difference between building a public bridge, or loaning money to a commercial toll-bridge company.

Don't they invest overseas because the profit is to be found there?

A SWF is not a formally defined category, but the canonical use of the term is for funds that were explicitly set up to invest abroad, in foreign currency. For example to recycle export surpluses so they won't drive up the currency. In resource exporting countries, or countries with export-driven industrial policy. Or to build a buffer against crises and the IMF. Or just for demographic reasons - when the future population is old, you would reverse the balance of trade and de-invest. These are not separate reasons - many countries deal with a combination of them.

Now look at the US: they're not big resource exporters, relative to the US economy. They don't put much stock in export-driven growth, since the US market is big enough to sustain first-rate, domestic-only industries. Demographics are on the young side, for rich countries. They don't need a buffer against the IMF, because they can set the terms in crises. After Bretton Woods, the US has run a sustained negative balance of trade without visible downsides. They're really in a different position than SWF countries.
It doesn't have to work like socialism. Not if there's a separation that ensures the government doesn't try to run the companies it nominally owns (merely profits from them), doesn't politicise the process of choosing the investment and consistently aims for the best risk-reward ratio like any other investor.

Well, even in the most technocratic wet dream, you can't depoliticize some decisions. How much will you invest and when will you withdraw? What's your risk profile? What classes of investments are acceptable? The same decisions that any passive partner in an investment fund has to make - but at these scales, those decisions shape the entire economy. And who will be the neutral technocrats who run the entity? As with judges or central bankers, 'neutrality' is in the eye of the beholder.

Edit:shortened because too long

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jseah » Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:14 pm UTC

^But the government, like has been mentioned, shouldn't run certain things simply because of bureaucracy. Creating an investment fund allows the government to reap monetary returns from areas you wouldn't expect a government to be involved in, while still not being involved with it. Eg. holding stocks in various industries like mining, telecoms, etc. which the government shouldn't run.

You can call the fund something not SWF but what I had in mind was basically a giant hedge fund meant to re-invest revenue surpluses to avoid surpluses causing deflationary pressure. With the explicit goal of making money and serving as a 'rainy day reserve' that's slightly less liquid than cash.
Similarly, running the fund with the goal of making money would seem to be a good way to insulate politics from messing up the economy with the billions (trillions?) of dollars in the fund.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:04 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Well, even in the most technocratic wet dream, you can't depoliticize some decisions. How much will you invest and when will you withdraw?
Ifbig we were to do such a thing, it could be done either as an index fund (Just buy up x % of all public traded US stocks and have a standing offer to buy the last x % of IPOs) or an an instrument of inter-bank lending that simply lends to the best bidder (among US FDIC banks).

When to invest and withdraw would still be political decisions, as increasing and paying down the debt is now.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

jseah wrote:^But the government, like has been mentioned, shouldn't run certain things simply because of bureaucracy. Creating an investment fund allows the government to reap monetary returns from areas you wouldn't expect a government to be involved in, while still not being involved with it. Eg. holding stocks in various industries like mining, telecoms, etc. which the government shouldn't run.

You can call the fund something not SWF but what I had in mind was basically a giant hedge fund meant to re-invest revenue surpluses to avoid surpluses causing deflationary pressure. With the explicit goal of making money and serving as a 'rainy day reserve' that's slightly less liquid than cash.
Similarly, running the fund with the goal of making money would seem to be a good way to insulate politics from messing up the economy with the billions (trillions?) of dollars in the fund.


If the US Government buys stocks, then the US Government gets voting rights to those companies. With the amount of money we're talking about here, the US Government would be a large minority shareholder of a huge number of companies. I don't think the American people would like that.

If the US Government buys bonds, then the US Government can get screwed by bankruptcies and such. It'd basically be the government entering the finance sector hardcore. Imagine if the US Government were holding Mortgaged-Backed securities at the height of the housing bubble of 2008! Too big to fail indeed.

Honestly, the best "investment" the US Government can make is to issue its own debt to itself: akin to the current Social Security Trust Fund (which currently owns $2.8 Trillion of the US's own debt). This "circular" dependency makes things harder to understand I guess, but it honestly is a solid approach to this problem.

Which actually comes up against a good point: the US Government may have 104%+ debt to GDP ratio, but the US Government owns a ton of its own debt. In 2013, roughly $5 Trillion of the US debt is held by the US Government itself, and another $2.5 Trillion is owned by the Fed (not a US Government... probably best to call the Fed pseudo-government entity). So of our $18 Trillion, a solid 40%+ of it is owed to ourselves. The reason why we have debt owed to outself is as a good accounting trick: different agencies may run a surplus, and that surplus is then loaned out to other parts of the government. The Social Security Trust Fund is a good example of this in practice, with over $2.5 Trillion of US Debt that it owns.

But yeah, the Social Security Trust Fund is a good example of what level of money we're talking about here. If the Social Security Trust Fund owned stocks, they would be larger than SPY ($175 Billion), Vanguard Total Market( $389 Billion), combined... by an order of magnitude.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11263
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

I call it "The Mittens Effect".

31% of people polled about Mitt Romney's speech said it made them more likely to vote for Trump.
Only 20% said it made them less likely to do so. But 43% said his speech made no difference to them at all.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby freezeblade » Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:59 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I call it "The Mittens Effect".

31% of people polled about Mitt Romney's speech said it made them more likely to vote for Trump.
Only 20% said it made them less likely to do so. But 43% said his speech made no difference to them at all.


I'd say this is more The Trump EffectTM. There was that polling done that Trump supporters are immune to facts and figures, and if you show them facts that are unfavorable to Trump, they harden their positive views about him. Which really, IMHO of course, is frightening.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:59 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I call it "The Mittens Effect".

31% of people polled about Mitt Romney's speech said it made them more likely to vote for Trump.
Only 20% said it made them less likely to do so. But 43% said his speech made no difference to them at all.


And 80% of the people who responded to that poll only learned about Mitt Romney's speech from the pollster.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone expected Romney to be influential. He hit his high water mark in his run, and the strongest support for him was only that he was not Obama. Very few cared for him personally.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone expected Romney to be influential. He hit his high water mark in his run, and the strongest support for him was only that he was not Obama. Very few cared for him personally.


It was mostly how well he spoke his point that struck me personally.

Rubio's idea of "taking down Trump" is insulting Trump's hand size. Mitt Romney may not be too influential anymore, but he struck at the heart of Trump's ideals, and criticized every aspect of Trump. From how Trump runs a campaign (ex: throwing out protesters and directly insulting debate moderators), to his Xenophobic ideals, to his non-conservative agenda (less important for non-Republicans. But... it should be important to Republicans specifically).

Yeah, Mitt Romney asked for Trump's endorsement several years ago. But his speech against Trump was actually very good.

-----------

In any case, Mitt Romney's speech seems to have rallied the establishment Republicans behind the cause. Besides, Mitt Romney himself probably knows the limits of his own image. That's why he's probably working through his aligned Super-PAC "American Future Fund" to create anti-Trump ads on network TV.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

The fact that Romney happens to be generally correct regarding Trump is, at this point, irrelevant. Accuracy alone does not win elections. Nobody, anywhere, contests that Trump is impolite to everyone, and his ideals are often boorish and offensive. His supporters are not unaware of this.

They're cheering it on.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:25 pm UTC

The Trump supporters I know of personally still seem to be in denial over how close this guy is to Hitler.

"He doesn't _really_ mean a religious test." "He doesn't _really_ mean a muslim database, does he?" I still hear this sort of stuff all the time. Trump supporters in my experience tend to not really know the facts of the guy. Anecdotal evidence of course, but that's how I see it right now.

If Republicans are making a mistake, its that they are overemphasizing their "conservative ideals", which has made them grow increasingly disconnected from the average American (or even: the average Republican)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The fact that Romney happens to be generally correct regarding Trump is, at this point, irrelevant. Accuracy alone does not win elections. Nobody, anywhere, contests that Trump is impolite to everyone, and his ideals are often boorish and offensive. His supporters are not unaware of this.

They're cheering it on.

We shall see how Cruz fairs against Trump tonight. A 8 PT lead in a primary is nothing given the standard deviation. Trump chances of winning has gone down measurably.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:30 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The fact that Romney happens to be generally correct regarding Trump is, at this point, irrelevant. Accuracy alone does not win elections. Nobody, anywhere, contests that Trump is impolite to everyone, and his ideals are often boorish and offensive. His supporters are not unaware of this.

They're cheering it on.

We shall see how Cruz fairs against Trump tonight. A 8 PT lead in a primary is nothing given the standard deviation. Trump chances of winning has gone down measurably.


This is also a good point. In only a week, the amount of Trump support has dropped dramatically. Cruz won Kansas and Maine by a comfortable margin, while Trump barely edged a win in the other two states (35% vs 31% Rubio in Kentucky, 41% vs 37% Cruz in Louisiana).

In contrast, Cruz had 20%+ wins over Trump in both Kansas and Maine. That's only after what... 4 days of negative advertisements (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday ads, since it really only started after Trump's Super-Tuesday win)? I think Tyndmyr is grossly underestimating the power of SuperPAC negative campaign ads and their ability to sway the public.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leovan, The Great Hippo and 9 guests