Vaccines are a ferociously divisive topic. On one side are hippies, liberals, and constitutionals who are either anti-establishment or anti-force and extremely pro-nature and wellness to pro-conspiracy with everything in between. On the other hand, there are those who are either terrified of infectious disease, or extremely pro-government and medical establishment. Both sides love to spout the science behind their beliefs. Some go for the touchy feely, others, straight to the toxic, and many, regurgitate the political line of the myth of “herd immunity.”
In truth, vaccines are a economic issue; the science, whether established or not, is irrelevant when put through the filter of economics. The science of economics explains to all that for profit companies, that have no competition to their products, and have no liability for any damages their products may incur and have a state sponsored mandate for the consumption of those products, will never, under any circumstance, produce a safe and effective product. This is because it would literally be irrational for them to do so. This is not to say that all their products will be dangerous, no, enough of them will be but in the end, all incentives have a strong downward push on quality and even stronger upward push on consumption.
This means that just enough money will be spent on employees and quality control to ensure the product does not hurt everyone, but at some point, a much lower point than a competitive brand oriented market, a percentage of production will be extremely poorly made with no care for the results.
Vaccines are dangerous not because of the science, but because of the economic vacuum they are produced inside of; they simply do not have any incentive to be a viable, effective, safe product.
Capitalism has an invisible heart. This is not an original idea of mine but was actually the title of a fictional novel. Nevertheless, it is true, it not only has a invisible hand, that hand is powered by a invisible and altruistic heart. This altruism is only possible because of the purifying and innovative power of competition! The power of competition cannot ever be underestimated.
Competition is unbiased in its biasness. Competition will allow those with the best product, in any terms of price, quality, brand, process, etc. to succeed. It is this triumph as a product that allows for its inherent benevolence. Consumers, in a competitive market will choose the best product with full faith that the very nature of competition will greatly enhance its effectiveness and truthfulness. A popular meme is that we vote with our dollars; this meme combined with the benevolence of the majority means that great faith can be had in the well branded product the majority chooses in a competitive market.
Man, as opposed to competition, is very biased in its un-biasness. In the sense of a market, the control of man is found in regulation. Regulation, by its very nature, is the merging of the executive with the legislative or rule making combined with prosecution authority. Not only does this create uncertainty, it absolutely removes or combats competition. Regulation takes away the decentralized competition and replaces the infinite amount of research and decisions made in real time into the hands of extremely few men saddled with their own limited experience, knowledge and preferences.
This centralized power always, without any exception leads to corruption. Its very makeup is the embodiment of corruption. Competition allows the countless masses to test and experiment, to collectively choose; inversely, regulation allows for single judgment to be made, based not on quality or effectiveness, but on what the every changing and inferior whims of man. Whether these choices and picks are made from the highest amount of kickbacks under the table, or who knows who, or even just a personal preference for a brand or company, regulation is corruption, and what is the benevolent self-interest of the aggregate quickly is turned into the conceited self-interest of the corrupt few.
There is only one way to create a monopoly; restriction to entry to a market. This means that if new companies are unable to sell a new brand of a product already on the market, then the product already on the market does not have any threat of new competition and eventually, if consolidation is allowed to continue, one company will work its way into complete control of the market; in economics, this is called “cornering the market.” There are only two possible ways in which restriction to entry to a market happens: First, through natural barriers. If a company owns the only mine in the world that produces a particular mineral, then they have a natural monopoly. Literally no other company can produce that mineral because there is only one mine.
The other form of monopoly is a government created, or “use of force” created monopoly. This is when competition is put out of business by the State or the State prevents any new competition from entering the market. The way in which this happens in most cases is through regulation. Every new regulation arbitrarily issued through fiat law making processes makes it more difficult for the weaker companies to stay afloat and makes it even more impossible for new companies to enter the market.
At some point, regulation gets so intense that the actual regulations typically will explicitly deny a non-established company from entering the market.
This is especially true, as an example, with the world of medication. In a free and open market, huge payouts would go to the person or company who effectively discovered the cure to cancer. The discoverer would be able to get a short term government created monopoly from the patent office, a great incentive to promote innovate and the recouping of research costs, and they would make incredible money while at the same time quickly taking the market share away from the established cancer medicine producers. At some point in the not so distant past, the FDA passed regulations that would explicitly not allow an individual or upstart company to cure cancer. The cure would literally have to be sold to an already large and established company. With this arrangement, it is only rational that the large company would shelve the new innovative product so as to not cut into their profits from the obsolete treatment or medicine already being produced.
The Reversed Economics of a Monopoly
It is not in a monopoly’s best interest to produce at the competitive markets equilibrium. It is not in a monopoly’s interest to innovate, it is not in its interest to provide a high quality product, to a point, it is not in its interest to produce a great working atmosphere. These things are not necessary because there is no competition, there is no other place to work, there is more money to be made by restricting supply to increase price than by improvements, and there is major cost compared to benefit in every extra unit of quality control because there is no competition.
One major policy that can be implemented to try and create an incentive for a monopoly to have a high quality product is simply clearly defined liability. Liability is a negative incentive, it is a form of tax or fee that attaches cost to an action or activity or even more to not doing an action or activity. It forces a monopoly to pay for extra poor quality. With that said, litigation is nothing like competition in terms of increasing the level of quality.
For example, that if the product works great 10% of the time, ok 50% of the time no matter what will be significantly worse the remaining percentage if there is not liability. We could say that the product would be useless another 35% of the time and actually dangerous 5% of the time. This is possible and economical because if it is the only option on the market and there is a high enough demand for the product, consumers will still buy the product even with the high risk or low quality. But if there is liability, that dangerous 5% might jump up to 1% and so forth making the product much safer but not compared to a 98% excellent rating the same product would have in a free and competitive market.
The Economics of Vaccines
With a basic review of monopolies and their inherent need of an incestuous relationship with the state, this brings us to vaccines.
As a basic lesson, only the big pharmaceutical companies are able to produce vaccines because in order to be a producer, a company has to be handpicked by a regulatory agency, in this case, the CDC, to produce a particular product or specific vaccine. Some variation may happen per virus, but as a whole, one company is picked for one vaccine to be produced and no other company is permitted to compete for market share in that specific inoculation.
The vaccine that is picked by regulators is typically administered on a regulator determined schedule. This schedule starts the inoculations anywhere from 1 day old to 12 years old to 100 years old and the administrators of the vaccines, believing that the time frame was chosen through consensus, dutifully do their best to make sure and stick to the government schedule.
In most cases, the companies who are chosen for the vaccine, who literally have a monopoly on that product, are required to conduct their own clinical trials on their own product. These trials do not control for the many reported side effects and injury their marketing division track post-release of the vaccine. The limited self-administered or non-third-party tests and trials are only controlling for things like fever and irritation at the injection site.
I do not know if it is the State or the monopoly who has any sort of quality control supervision, this information is difficult to attain. Either way, it is semantics because there is no incentive, whatsoever, to produce a high quality product as the market is compelled through high demand and constant marketing, to buy the single low quality product available to them. The observed, or non-scientific cost perceived by the consumers as a whole would have to be higher than the perceived cost of the illness being inoculated against before true rejection of the product would happen on a large scale and so therefore there is a exceptionally high level of poor quality allowed for the producing companies to have optimal amount of profits to be made.
Once the product is on the market, all liability is by federal law removed from the vaccine producers. This literally means they are a monopoly without any liability. Because there are no studies or agencies or databases being used to actively track the actual negative side effects or injury from the product, the industry that administers the vaccines does not actively recognize, in general, the side effects in real time from the vaccines. This means that it is very hard to get an actual diagnosis of vaccine injury.
For those who are able to get proof of injury, they then go before a federal government “tribunal” if you will made up of just lawyers and state employees. No judge, no jury, no verdict. Simply an arbitrary ruling of men on compensation for injury; compensation taken from a government fund specifically for vaccine injury, and compensation that averages a decade to attain.
The vaccine industry is an industry that is made of 100% for profit companies, with no liability or competition, producing a product with no relevant studies or data collection, pushed by the state, scheduled by the state and promoted by the medical complex with again no third party, peer reviewed, published research or data.
One more time, a for profit company with no liability and no competition and a government actively doing all the marketing and promotion.
In conclusion, it would be highly irrational for these state selected monopolistic companies to produce a safe and effective product. Therefore, the economics of vaccine production nullify the science and pose a real and concerning product or quality control failure and potential danger to the health of those consuming the product. In fact, there is an incentive for the product to fail as having a relatively small population infected drives demand.