4 ms·

Its late stage capitalism at its finest. Profiting off mass suffering is to be applauded and rewarded, not considered immoral and illegal. We would rather let e

Its late stage capitalism at its finest. Profiting off mass suffering is to be applauded and rewarded, not considered immoral and illegal. We would rather let each other die of treatable conditions than have slightly lower profit.

TomMarius 9y ago
Regulation has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalists (as in people believing in the free market) are actually opposed to what you're describing. What this non-profit did would happen immediately if there was no government to shut it down because there are high margins and so it's very desirable to enter the market with a lower price - and also charity.
- xyzzyz 9y ago
  If there was no government to shut down the nonprofit, the company wouldn’t have spent billions to develop the cure in the first place. Why would you do that, if anyone could just copy your work and profit for themselves?
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    As a charity, for example. The market would find a way, I'm sure. This is already well thought out, if you're truly interested, I recommend this article by a well known economist: https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-fda https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-... And also this one: https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medical-technology-does-not-depend-patents https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medic... It's in no one's interest to have people dying instead of buying and selling services.
    - xyzzyz 9y ago
      I cannot imagine charity ponying up $11 billion on anything at all, much less the development of a single drug. Of course, a lot of this cost is due to excessive FDA requirements, but the charities are not funding drug development right now, and I imagine there is better use of charity money, for things that aren’t worth for companies to get into.
      - TomMarius 9y ago
        You're thinking about a whole different world with mentality from this one. Right now the system works like it does - drugs get developed - and so there is no need for charity to do it. Charity is not just taking money and redirecting it, it's also operating a business - yes, you actually can run a business without taking massive margins and being greedy, that's what government tries to do (but fails because of involuntarity and lack of competition). Don't forget that the charities don't have the 11 billion now because the money goes elsewhere (to pharma corps), but people might give it to the charity if the corps didnt't exist. The same development could possibly cost less, that's another thing to consider. Overall my point is that the greed of pharma companies is not because of capitalism because it wouldn't be possible in pure capitalism. It's enabled by the government.
  - stu432 9y ago
    Yes, I would, and then I'd pay for an army to go shut down my competitors because there's no government to stop me and then 10x my profits.
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      You're very naive if you think that's worth it even in the slightest. See army budgets - and remember that no one will fight for you for your ideas, since you have none. And people (read: other armies) will oppose you.
oisdfjoijok 9y ago
Any data on how many cures are being invented in communist or socialist countries, compared to capitalist countries?
- rantanplan 9y ago
  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165
  - oisdfjoijok 9y ago
    Fine - so that is one. Any more numbers?
    - rantanplan 9y ago
      That is one? _That_ is one? Have you heard of cancer? That is _everything_! So what did we achieve with our superior capitalistic systems when it comes to fighting one of the worst threats to our species? Look, I ain't a communist, but I ain't in favor of capitalism either. What I know is that cheerleading will get us nowhere. We need to critically think about our course as a human species and if you think we're on a proper trajectory, think again.
      - kss238 9y ago
        It's one specific type of cancer (although it is for the most common subset of the most common type of cancer), not a panacea.
      - oisdfjoijok 9y ago
        There has been a lot of progress in fighting cancer. Survival rates for many types of cancer have increased tremendously. I assume this medication from Cuba is just one of many specific approaches.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Probably better to ask how many drugs are developed without public funding. Usually, the private sector finds public funds for the risky parts.. or starts off from discoveries made with public funds in a University.
icebraining 9y ago
There's nothing "late stage" about it, it's been going on forever. Literal wars have been fueled just to sell more product.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  I was reading about Res Rubber and the Belgian Congo yesterday. Horrific period in a time full of them.

TomMarius 9y ago

Regulation has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalists (as in people believing in the free market) are actually opposed to what you're describing. What this non-profit did would happen immediately if there was no government to shut it down because there are high margins and so it's very desirable to enter the market with a lower price - and also charity.

xyzzyz 9y ago
If there was no government to shut down the nonprofit, the company wouldn’t have spent billions to develop the cure in the first place. Why would you do that, if anyone could just copy your work and profit for themselves?
- TomMarius 9y ago
  As a charity, for example. The market would find a way, I'm sure. This is already well thought out, if you're truly interested, I recommend this article by a well known economist: https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-fda https://mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-... And also this one: https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medical-technology-does-not-depend-patents https://mises.org/library/advancing-pharmaceutical-and-medic... It's in no one's interest to have people dying instead of buying and selling services.
  - xyzzyz 9y ago
    I cannot imagine charity ponying up $11 billion on anything at all, much less the development of a single drug. Of course, a lot of this cost is due to excessive FDA requirements, but the charities are not funding drug development right now, and I imagine there is better use of charity money, for things that aren’t worth for companies to get into.
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      You're thinking about a whole different world with mentality from this one. Right now the system works like it does - drugs get developed - and so there is no need for charity to do it. Charity is not just taking money and redirecting it, it's also operating a business - yes, you actually can run a business without taking massive margins and being greedy, that's what government tries to do (but fails because of involuntarity and lack of competition). Don't forget that the charities don't have the 11 billion now because the money goes elsewhere (to pharma corps), but people might give it to the charity if the corps didnt't exist. The same development could possibly cost less, that's another thing to consider. Overall my point is that the greed of pharma companies is not because of capitalism because it wouldn't be possible in pure capitalism. It's enabled by the government.
- stu432 9y ago
  Yes, I would, and then I'd pay for an army to go shut down my competitors because there's no government to stop me and then 10x my profits.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    You're very naive if you think that's worth it even in the slightest. See army budgets - and remember that no one will fight for you for your ideas, since you have none. And people (read: other armies) will oppose you.

oisdfjoijok 9y ago

Any data on how many cures are being invented in communist or socialist countries, compared to capitalist countries?

rantanplan 9y ago
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39640165
- oisdfjoijok 9y ago
  Fine - so that is one. Any more numbers?
  - rantanplan 9y ago
    That is one? _That_ is one? Have you heard of cancer? That is _everything_! So what did we achieve with our superior capitalistic systems when it comes to fighting one of the worst threats to our species? Look, I ain't a communist, but I ain't in favor of capitalism either. What I know is that cheerleading will get us nowhere. We need to critically think about our course as a human species and if you think we're on a proper trajectory, think again.
    - kss238 9y ago
      It's one specific type of cancer (although it is for the most common subset of the most common type of cancer), not a panacea.
    - oisdfjoijok 9y ago
      There has been a lot of progress in fighting cancer. Survival rates for many types of cancer have increased tremendously. I assume this medication from Cuba is just one of many specific approaches.
jopsen 9y ago
Probably better to ask how many drugs are developed without public funding. Usually, the private sector finds public funds for the risky parts.. or starts off from discoveries made with public funds in a University.

icebraining 9y ago

There's nothing "late stage" about it, it's been going on forever. Literal wars have been fueled just to sell more product.

noir_lord 9y ago
I was reading about Res Rubber and the Belgian Congo yesterday. Horrific period in a time full of them.