4 ms·
The companies would be fine, but it would probably severely limit the availability of life-saving drugs in poorer countries. One can argue that on the whole, th
by jonas21 9y ago
The companies would be fine, but it would probably severely limit the availability of life-saving drugs in poorer countries. One can argue that on the whole, that's a worse outcome.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> The companies would be fine, but it would probably severely limit the availability of life-saving drugs in poorer countries. One can argue that on the whole, that's a worse outcome. Not really - countries like China and India don't recognize US (or European) pharmaceutical patents to begin with, so they're not bound to purchasing brand-name drugs from the original manufacturer.
- conanbatt 9y agoThat cannot be the reasoning behind imposing import restrictions. And even then I find the economic reasoning fault. > That it was the spirit of monopoly which originally both invented and propagated this doctrine cannot be doubted; and they who first taught it were by no means such fools as they who believed it. In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind.