The world is moving to subscription based business models from ownership based models.
Buying house -> Renting one
Buying MS Office -> Annual subscription (software-as-as-service)
Buying cars for running a taxi service -> Using someone else's car for a fee (Uber)
Buying seeds -> Pay royalty to Monsanto for seed use (seeds are slightly genetically modified from naturally occurring ones, so they can claim to be engineered and therefore patented. If you then somehow make all natural varieties extinct and you own the only remaining species).
Building a motel/hotel -> Using someone's else house or hotel for a fee
So why not Big Pharma too?
Someone on this site said it once: immunity-as-a-service model for COVID-19 vaccines. Pay your annual fee to upgrade your immunity to the latest threats out there (like the antivirus on your computer).
Think about how much money you make from treating patients indefinitely vs curing them in one shot? Why would you ever release a cure? You'd try to stop any information about non-patentable remedies
Yours is a wonderful comment. If a company offers a (fill in the blank)-as-a-service its stock valuation increases. Drug companies would do just about anything to create a situation where everyone on earth must take their shots at least every year for their entire lives. However, one aspect (your first example) strikes me as not quite right.
Buying house -> Renting one
Renting and landlords have been around for hundreds of years. The new model for land ownership is modelled after the Chinese system. You can have a house, but you get permission from the government to place your house on the land and cannot own the land. They have already copied this model in places like Thailand and the idea is to impose this sort of "land reform" on the rest of the world.
The Chinese system (also used in other countries) is explicit in that the homeowner does not own the land under it and is only permitted to have a house there. It is unlike systems that tax assets.
You are correct that it is old. However, when I wrote this. I was thinking of the recent news item about BlackRock buying up residential properties, increasingly driving "commoners" out of the market due to rising prices. We might be moving to much higher levels of renting than in the recent past, if there are no more affordable homes to buy.
AKA "you will own nothing and you will be happy" model.
Economically efficient for sure. Only problem is the owners can choose to terminate service at any point, if they don't like you. What if you have no alternatives?
This is not as economically efficient as capitalism! They just claim it is on CNN.
What this model does is give them power over you. They can live with the lower efficiency.
The problem of service denial has already started in the form of being denied the right to free speech online, but it is most certainly not the only problem with this way of doing things.
Buying MS Office -> Annual subscription (software-as-as-service)
Yeah...It be a shame if someone told people about free alternatives like Libre Office, wouldnt it?
Buying cars for running a taxi service -> Using someone else's car for a fee (Uber)
Arguably, this screws the big taxi companies that monopolize all the taxi medallions in large cities (you have to have one of these to drive a taxi), thus making it easier for someone to start their own business.
Buying seeds -> Pay royalty to Monsanto for seed use (seeds are slightly genetically modified from naturally occurring ones, so they can claim to be engineered and therefore patented. If you then somehow make all natural varieties extinct and you own the only remaining species).
yeah, if only natural seeds were still available for sale online. If only somebody would actually grow seed stock to sell to farmers as a discount over the monsanto crap...
Building a motel/hotel -> Using someone's else house or hotel for a fee
is there something wrong with renting out a room in your own home that you barely use? I mean there are risks obviously, but is there some moral objection to that? if you're talking about the apps that list your room, even hotels have to advertise, ffs.
So why not Big Pharma too?
It all comes down to that old Communist saying, "Never let a good tragedy go to waste."
As to the upgrade language. It's a little sketch, but it also makes sense that companies wanna use the "hep language" of the young'in to make themselves look modern and with it.
Someone on this site said it once: immunity-as-a-service model for COVID-19 vaccines. Pay your annual fee to upgrade your immunity to the latest threats out there (like the antivirus on your computer).
The argument here is to do you own research before making a decision on any medical treatment. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Think about how much money you make from treating patients indefinitely vs curing them in one shot? Why would you ever release a cure? You'd try to stop any information about non-patentable remedies.
My examples might not be the best ones. But they aren't that important. I was only using them show the trend, which taken to extremes (like "you will own nothing and be happy") is troubling. Troubling because the owners can deny you service if they don't like you.
What happens if the group of owners is small and they form a collusion on whom to provide service to? They would have way too much power over the commoners.
I also added another comment which provides context to what I was thinking about when I talked about renting a house.
The world is moving to subscription based business models from ownership based models.
So why not Big Pharma too?
Someone on this site said it once: immunity-as-a-service model for COVID-19 vaccines. Pay your annual fee to upgrade your immunity to the latest threats out there (like the antivirus on your computer).
Think about how much money you make from treating patients indefinitely vs curing them in one shot? Why would you ever release a cure? You'd try to stop any information about non-patentable remedies
Yours is a wonderful comment. If a company offers a (fill in the blank)-as-a-service its stock valuation increases. Drug companies would do just about anything to create a situation where everyone on earth must take their shots at least every year for their entire lives. However, one aspect (your first example) strikes me as not quite right.
Renting and landlords have been around for hundreds of years. The new model for land ownership is modelled after the Chinese system. You can have a house, but you get permission from the government to place your house on the land and cannot own the land. They have already copied this model in places like Thailand and the idea is to impose this sort of "land reform" on the rest of the world.
The Chinese system (also used in other countries) is explicit in that the homeowner does not own the land under it and is only permitted to have a house there. It is unlike systems that tax assets.
You are correct that it is old. However, when I wrote this. I was thinking of the recent news item about BlackRock buying up residential properties, increasingly driving "commoners" out of the market due to rising prices. We might be moving to much higher levels of renting than in the recent past, if there are no more affordable homes to buy.
AKA "you will own nothing and you will be happy" model.
Economically efficient for sure. Only problem is the owners can choose to terminate service at any point, if they don't like you. What if you have no alternatives?
This is not as economically efficient as capitalism! They just claim it is on CNN.
What this model does is give them power over you. They can live with the lower efficiency.
The problem of service denial has already started in the form of being denied the right to free speech online, but it is most certainly not the only problem with this way of doing things.
Nothing new
Yeah...It be a shame if someone told people about free alternatives like Libre Office, wouldnt it?
Arguably, this screws the big taxi companies that monopolize all the taxi medallions in large cities (you have to have one of these to drive a taxi), thus making it easier for someone to start their own business.
yeah, if only natural seeds were still available for sale online. If only somebody would actually grow seed stock to sell to farmers as a discount over the monsanto crap...
is there something wrong with renting out a room in your own home that you barely use? I mean there are risks obviously, but is there some moral objection to that? if you're talking about the apps that list your room, even hotels have to advertise, ffs.
It all comes down to that old Communist saying, "Never let a good tragedy go to waste."
As to the upgrade language. It's a little sketch, but it also makes sense that companies wanna use the "hep language" of the young'in to make themselves look modern and with it.
The argument here is to do you own research before making a decision on any medical treatment. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
On this we agree.
My examples might not be the best ones. But they aren't that important. I was only using them show the trend, which taken to extremes (like "you will own nothing and be happy") is troubling. Troubling because the owners can deny you service if they don't like you.
What happens if the group of owners is small and they form a collusion on whom to provide service to? They would have way too much power over the commoners.
I also added another comment which provides context to what I was thinking about when I talked about renting a house.
you mispelled aids