I agree government needs to be involved to an extent. My comment was still correct, the issues of medicine do not stem from capitalism. This does not mean capitalism is without flaw

[–] hark@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The example you gave doesn't make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. "the public" at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson's stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.

As for drug patents (and patents in general), the idea is to secure timed exclusivity to sell in the market in exchange for public disclosure of method of invention. If we didn't have patents, companies would instead treat drug formulations as trade secrets and so they'd hold onto that exclusivity as long as they can keep the formulation a secret or until another entity reinvents the same thing. There are issues with the patent process and especially with private companies benefiting from publicly-funded research while locking up exclusivity and jacking up prices, but those are still problems with capitalism, and they're still better than just letting the free market completely monopolize the process.

[–] HardNut@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The example you gave doesn’t make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. “the public” at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson’s stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.

If a corporation is publicly traded, then its ownership is held by the public collective that chooses to invest. The ownership in question is not your specific ownership of a share individually, the ownership in question is the ownership of the means of production, which a public collective invested in. It is not true that you buying one share privately implies the whole thing is private. That's like saying the fact that you voted in private means the government is privately controlled. Yes, private individuals can vote and buy stock, that does not make either private. It makes them public.

The definitions also agree with me btw

Private Ownership:

the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled "define private ownership")
Private companies are owned by those who establish them and those invited to invest in them. The public-at-large cannot buy shares or otherwise invest in private companies at their own discretion.

Public Ownership:

A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company's assets and profits. (Same source)
ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled "define public ownership")

So, if it's owned by the government, or has shares available for purchase by any public body, then it is public. If it's not owned by the state or public body, it's private.

Johnson & Johnson, just like all public corporations, has its shares available for purchase for the public. Therefor, it is public, not private. Honestly, the more you go into it, the harder it is to get away from the simple fact that private means private, and public means public.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you not understand what the point of a public offering is? It's to offer up shares of your company to others in order to raise funds so you can expand more rapidly. You throwing in the word "collective" is a poor game of word association. Are you trying to argue that publicly-traded companies are communist? You should really hit the books and straighten out your terminology because you're using it all wrong and you're only misleading others who don't know any better.

[–] HardNut@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You throwing in the word “collective” is a poor game of word association. Are you trying to argue that publicly-traded companies are communist?

You're really reading way too much into things. Just take out the word collective from my comment if it upsets you so much, it makes sense without it.

The conclusion I got to was that public corporations are not private companies. Looks like you're longer disputing that I guess, so you agree with that now?

[–] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I never said public corporations are private companies. You're confused and don't seem to have a point to make. Do you think publicly-traded companies are not capitalist?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

"Public companies" are owned by private individuals, you absolute dingus. Being for sale means private. They belong to specific persons and organizations.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Do you understand how something being owned by a democratic government is different than something being owned by individuals, whether it is publicly traded or not?

Like, from a power perspective, do you understand the difference for the average prole between the means of production being owned by individuals based on heredity vs being collectively owned by a democratic body?