I’d say that fair profit is a ratio of materials+labor costs. Basically a supply chain merchant’s VAT. Find a rate at which a well run shop is able to turn a profit allowing it to hire more workers and expand if successful enough, and cap the “fair profit” at whatever that is as a ratio to labor and material costs.
Really the worst hit industries will be ones that are particularly prone to brand taxing, and it actually disincentivizes offshoring since cheaping out on labor and regulatory costs correspondingly limits your upper profit margins.
In the medical device and pharmaceutical industries, this more or less already exists in countries with socialized medicine. It’s not as explicit as my formula, but the price of medications and devices are regulated. Industry needs to demonstrate the actual benefit of a new product over a prior product for the system to pay for it, and the price of the product is then set on the basis of the health economic value it brings.
Some say it stifles innovation, but honestly, it eliminates the bullshit minor changes that are only made to continue justifying high prices and exclusivity.
Anyway, I think the “Exodus of industry” argument is an empty threat the shareholder class makes when they feel threatened. A market is a market, and if they want to continue to sell in it, they have to follow the rules, even when they change.
It’s important to note that much of the R&D pharma relies on is publicly funded via academic grants in research carried out at universities. It’s not to say that pharma doesn’t also carry out clinical research, which of course does carry a cost, but a lot of the development dollars for a given drug are spent well before they make it into pharma’s hands.
I kinda agree but not too much. National scale industrial companies are a necessity for modern complex products. Keeping companies from going international (or at least beyond multinational bloc scale for places like the EU or Mercosur) is more than fair in my mind.
You can have an international product without international stores but Windows for example can be an OS but be banned from expanding into software or a cloud company for example. Google can be search engine but not an ad platform. Etc
Fast food cartels seem to work ok. Maccas, KFC, Hungry Jacks, Subway, Red Rooster, Chicken Treat, Nandos, Grill’d etc (and I use these examples because the americans will recognize some, but not others which are Australian or Western Australian only) can all coexist while also being statewide, national and/or international franchise chains. None of them can really squash out the others because the customer demands choice, and no one store can reliably deliver all the possible options that consumers seem to want. Sure, they have plenty of other ethical concerns attached, but so far, monopoly seems not to be one of them.
I would love to see regulations define “fair profit.”
Material costs + labor costs + fair profit = retail price.
Fair profit cannot be more than X% of retail price.
I’d say that fair profit is a ratio of materials+labor costs. Basically a supply chain merchant’s VAT. Find a rate at which a well run shop is able to turn a profit allowing it to hire more workers and expand if successful enough, and cap the “fair profit” at whatever that is as a ratio to labor and material costs.
Really the worst hit industries will be ones that are particularly prone to brand taxing, and it actually disincentivizes offshoring since cheaping out on labor and regulatory costs correspondingly limits your upper profit margins.
deleted by creator
In the medical device and pharmaceutical industries, this more or less already exists in countries with socialized medicine. It’s not as explicit as my formula, but the price of medications and devices are regulated. Industry needs to demonstrate the actual benefit of a new product over a prior product for the system to pay for it, and the price of the product is then set on the basis of the health economic value it brings.
Some say it stifles innovation, but honestly, it eliminates the bullshit minor changes that are only made to continue justifying high prices and exclusivity.
Anyway, I think the “Exodus of industry” argument is an empty threat the shareholder class makes when they feel threatened. A market is a market, and if they want to continue to sell in it, they have to follow the rules, even when they change.
deleted by creator
It’s always externalized exploitation because they’re all multinational corporations.
It’s true that many of the big players are based in the US, e.g. Pfizer, J&J, Merck, AbbVie, Abbott, EliLily, etc.
But there are plenty that aren’t:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_biomedical_companies_by_revenue
It’s important to note that much of the R&D pharma relies on is publicly funded via academic grants in research carried out at universities. It’s not to say that pharma doesn’t also carry out clinical research, which of course does carry a cost, but a lot of the development dollars for a given drug are spent well before they make it into pharma’s hands.
deleted by creator
Companies just need to be kept small, if they can afford to expand then it means they are making too much money
I kinda agree but not too much. National scale industrial companies are a necessity for modern complex products. Keeping companies from going international (or at least beyond multinational bloc scale for places like the EU or Mercosur) is more than fair in my mind.
You can have an international product without international stores but Windows for example can be an OS but be banned from expanding into software or a cloud company for example. Google can be search engine but not an ad platform. Etc
I guess that too, I was imagining more for the prevention of shady tax dodging shiz
Fast food cartels seem to work ok. Maccas, KFC, Hungry Jacks, Subway, Red Rooster, Chicken Treat, Nandos, Grill’d etc (and I use these examples because the americans will recognize some, but not others which are Australian or Western Australian only) can all coexist while also being statewide, national and/or international franchise chains. None of them can really squash out the others because the customer demands choice, and no one store can reliably deliver all the possible options that consumers seem to want. Sure, they have plenty of other ethical concerns attached, but so far, monopoly seems not to be one of them.