3 ms·

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 we

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.

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.