What causes more inequality, or feelings of poverty, some CEOs’ obscene high salaries, or some prices, like those of Viagra?

Sir, I refer to David Crow’s “Cost of Viagra increases 27% as Pfizer raises US drug prices” June 3.

I have no idea why but my doctor has ordered me a different brand, so I am not a user of Viagra. That said it was astonishing to read that one single Viagra pill is now $73.85. That price must surely only be possible because of the official protection of intellectual property rights.

There should be a difference between the protections of a pharmaceutical industry, so that it can afford develop new medicines, and the protection of an extortion racket. As is, 10 Viagra pills would, at this price, represent a fairly decent monthly Universal Basic Income.

In a world in which so many prices are going down-down-down, among others because of automation and robots, can we afford to impact this way those who have to earn less and less and less income, or stay more at home, only because of automation and robots?

Perhaps Trump, instead of thinking of building up Mexican walls, should be thinking about tearing down some intellectual property protection walls. Open ended ones, like those that allowed “Martin Shkreli to raise the price of an Aids medicine from $13.50 to $750 a pill, reflects very badly on the state and governance of our society.

About a decade ago I wrote an Op-Ed in which I held that it was not logical that profits earned by means of protected intellectual property, were taxed at the same rate than those profits obtained from competing naked in the market. That argument is still valid, especially if those extra tax revenues become tax neutral, by feeding monthly UBIs.

PS. In the same vein, now we perhaps have to add a proposal on that profits generated with the use of robots, should be taxed higher than profits generated with the help of humans.

PS. Some years ago a friend, wanting to launch little-known-me as a candidate for the presidency of Venezuela, what a "friend", suggested a populist campaign based mostly on “Free Viagra for everyone”. He argued that would have more impact that my promises of sharing out all net oil revenues directly to all Venezuelans. He might have a point.

@PerKurowski

Is not graduation time a bit late to inform students: “There is more to university than money”?

Sir, Nancy Rothwell, the president and vice-chancellor of the University of Manchester, writes: “Each year I tell graduating students that if they leave university with only a degree and greater “earning power”, I consider we have failed them. A university experience should be about so much more than this.” “There is more to university than money” April 16.

Absolutely! But is not graduating time a bit late to disclose that? How much debt would students dare to take on in order to pay the tuition fees, if the request of admission papers contained a: “Warning, universities are more than about making money”.

By the way, has there recently been some academic research on the evolution of the remuneration of professors? These Piketty days, it would be interesting to see how that has evolved.

In 2007 I argued that higher education should be more of a joint venture between professors and students. Of course I did not mean all the professors’ salaries were to be based on the earning powers of students. As I said, I fully agree that universities are much more than that, but, some better alignment of incentives, seems to be much called for.

It would seem that just like easy house financing translates into higher house prices, easier education financing just translates into higher tuition fees. But, I may be wrong, so as I said research is needed… any papers coming up on this?

PS. Someone commented. "There must be a little sadism involved here, since graduation time is precisely when students most begin to think of money."

@PerKurowski ©

Does anyone see the grey showing on the roots of Lucy Kellaway’s hair or the smear of icing sugar on her leg? Not me!

Sir, you know I am usually a great admirer of Lucy Kellaway’s writings, but, this time, I think she’s got it wrong. “High heels and boxing gloves: a portrait of women at work” March 21

Kellaway writes: “If a company wants to show that it really values women and wants to prioritise action in the gender equality landscape, it will show pictures of them in which they don’t always look cool or gorgeous. They just look like professional women at work.”

Hold it there, my wife is a great lawyer, and she has never ever expressed to me any concerns about any type of discrimination based on gender; if anything she has lately felt, ever so slightly, more burdened by age. But, no matter how she looked at work (always gorgeous of course), she would always, no exceptions, prefer to be depicted as if not at work.

And we men are instinctive survivors. We know perfectly well we should never ever take photos of any woman, including Lucy Kellaway, with “grey showing on the roots of hair and a smear of icing sugar on leg”.

PS. The following is absolutely no opinion, especially not mine; its just a question:

Is there anything as deflationary as women willing to work for less? If women did not work, and stayed home to binge on over 100 episodes shows, then unemployment rate would be lower, salaries higher, and so central banks would get the higher inflation they desire and so allow us higher interest rates, and so we could all have a chance to earn a bit on our savings to cover for our retirements. Matching life styles with the economies is always challenging… so they say.

@PerKurowski ©

Taxing property or inheritance could, ceteris paribus, only lead to more inequality.

Sir, I refer to Janan Ganesh’s “Tory tax on property is perfect for the Piketty age” May 6.

If I was to make a fast list of what has increased inequality during the last decades that list would include rent extraction, crony capitalism, excessively exploited intellectual property rights, the power of global brands, be it Coca Cola or Real Madrid, the force residing in monopolies or excessive market shares, how managers have taken away corporate control from shareholders, and how bank regulators have allowed such incredible high leverages in the banks while ascertaining to the public these were sound institutions… inheritances would not be on it.

And if I was to combat inequalities I would not start by taxing properties or inheritance since, in the great scheme of things, ceteris paribus, meaning money will keep on flowing how it normally flows, that could lead to even more inequality.

Do I have any suggestions? For a starter two:

First all profits derived from operating under the protection of intellectual property rights or excessive market shares, should be taxed at a higher rate that profits obtained by competing naked in the market.

Second, the tax deductibility as an expense of any salary should be limited to fifty times the median salary of the nation.

Your objection to Carney´s salary, though correct, is a very petty minded objection not worthy of FT.

Sir, I questioned Mark Carney´s appointment to become the next governor of the Bank of England based on the fact that as the current chairman of the Financial Stability Board he was one of those regulators who did not understand the distortions that their capital requirements based on perceived risks were causing, and therefore he could be of no real service to the real economy of Britain. 

That is a real objection! Your objection to Carney, “True cost of Carney”, December 22, based on his high salary, though correct, is a very petty minded objection not worthy of FT. 

PS. In another effort to make you understand the Basel II distortions I invite you to read a comment where I explain these in terms of the distortions similar regulatory changes to the pay-out for roulette bets would cause.

Martin Wolf did right opening the cage!

Sir who could have thought a year ago that we would read Martin Wolf say “Why regulators should intervene in bankers pay”, in the Financial Times, January 15, and agree that he has a valid point; that the system cannot stand to see many franchises of public confidence so savagely exploited by so few. Mind you, on a much different scale, that is exactly how we ended up turning over Venezuela into the hands of an instigator of hate.

Perhaps what we now need is a new layer of progressive taxes specially designed for those who earn more than 100 times the income per capita of the country. The argument seems also applicable to the area of intellectual property rights. When we the society agreed to award patents and invest money defending these so that new inventions would follow, we never did it in order to help the general managers of those patents to earn salaries like hedge funds managers or bankers.

But also what could be most needed, in this case for all, instead of new regulations, is to restore the power of the shareholders since as long as management can decide their own salaries, the market constraints have really not a chance to operate. There’s a fiction making its rounds in the world that the big salary checks are all well deserved and well earned. Who do you think put a spin on that theory?

Does Le Pen want a patent?

Sir, once when reading an analysis of the cash flows derived from the sale of a music CD went, I was surprised to see how much went to the record company, how much to the taxman and how relatively little to the musicians and composer, being these last ones those you really think of in terms of being defended by the intellectual property rights. I mention this because when reading Krishna Guha’s “IMF says workers’ share of income pie is shrinking” April 5, we are presented with only two possible culprits, globalization (in terms of placing productions where salaries are lower) or technological change, while perhaps the intensified award and enforcement of intellectual property rights that has lead to the creation of so many non-regulated monopolies might have a lot to do with the salaries being less and less of the cake. Hearing about the possibility that patents could be awarded on such exotics as tax saving strategies and also reading, in the same FT, a headline that states “Rivals are stealing my ideas, says Le Pen”, I guess that we who live on salaries better have a much closer look on this issue than what the IMF has done.

Sir, excuse me! I just read your editorial of today “Capital versus labour” where you as the cause for the growing share of profits also mention “globalization and technological innovation” and where you with globalization limit yourself to "competition in labour markets” and so I guess my previous comments of intellectual property rights that might have gone berserk, applies to your editorial too.