5 ms·

In general, folks tend to produce things that other people are willing to pay for. Why should pharma be any different? And why is this wrong? Because having in

In general, folks tend to produce things that other people are willing to pay for. Why should pharma be any different? And why is this wrong? Because having individuals with limited resources independently pursuing their own goals doesn't necessarily maximize overall utility, or even any actual individual's utility. It's entirely possible to have a scenario where, say, nobody would individually pay for something to be researched, but everyone would be willing to chip in a small portion of the cost if everyone else did the same. Since it's difficult to ensure wide-scale cooperation, it doesn't happen and the result is that everyone is worse off. I don't understand the mindset that sees a problem that, by elementary game theory, doesn't have an optimal outcome reachable by simple self-interest, and proposes that what we need is more self-interest.

anamax 17y ago
> Because having individuals with limited resources independently pursuing their own goals doesn't necessarily maximize overall utility, or even any actual individual's utility. If folks would rather spend their money on Viagra than antibiotics.... > It's entirely possible to have a scenario where, say, nobody would individually pay for something to be researched, but everyone would be willing to chip in a small portion of the cost if everyone else did the same. The problem with that theory is that it doesn't account for the claimed observation that eyelash extenders get funding while antibiotics don't. So, either the theory or observation is wrong. > I don't understand the mindset that sees a problem that, by elementary game theory, doesn't have an optimal outcome reachable by simple self-interest, and proposes that what we need is more self-interest. Are you actually claiming that the vast majority of people have more self-interest in eyelash extenders that antibiotics?

anamax 17y ago

> Because having individuals with limited resources independently pursuing their own goals doesn't necessarily maximize overall utility, or even any actual individual's utility. If folks would rather spend their money on Viagra than antibiotics.... > It's entirely possible to have a scenario where, say, nobody would individually pay for something to be researched, but everyone would be willing to chip in a small portion of the cost if everyone else did the same. The problem with that theory is that it doesn't account for the claimed observation that eyelash extenders get funding while antibiotics don't. So, either the theory or observation is wrong. > I don't understand the mindset that sees a problem that, by elementary game theory, doesn't have an optimal outcome reachable by simple self-interest, and proposes that what we need is more self-interest. Are you actually claiming that the vast majority of people have more self-interest in eyelash extenders that antibiotics?