3 ms·

How do we interpret this heartless-sounding statement? In the absence of original source material, whatever interpretation you apply will inevitably be a proje

by jfasi 9y ago

How do we interpret this heartless-sounding statement? In the absence of original source material, whatever interpretation you apply will inevitably be a projection of your pre-existing views on the matter. If you want to knee-jerk your way to the standard "Goldman Sachs is Evil" view, help yourself to the rest of the top-level comments in this thread. If you're still reading, I think I have a worthwhile point to offer: Let's not forget, Goldman Sachs and its biotech brethren are businesses. All business involves long-term strategic planning, often behind closed doors, to answer the question of "what application of our existing money will make us the most money in the future?" When viewed through this lens, Goldman's statement can be polished up to "of all the biotech investment options we're weighing, investment in outright cures for infectious diseases is less profitable in the long-term because curing people has a nonlinear effect on the patient population." It's a simple statement of fact. OP's summary, and I strongly encourage you to actually read it if you haven't, goes on to say that Goldman's research suggests long-term research and product investment would be best applied to medical conditions like cancer and aging, for which a cure for an individual doesn't result in a diminishing market. This isn't nearly as evil-sounding as the article aims to make it sound. At worst, it highlights something we already know: market-based solutions tend to be flawed, and if we want investment in treatments for infectious diseases we need to turn to forces that are exempt from market forces (i.e. government research funding). At best, it's an indication that we can expect more investment to go into things like cancer and age-related diseases.

danharaj 9y ago
The Goldman Sachs analysts didn't ask an unreasonable question. What are absolutely dismal are the conditions that make it a reasonable question. And what makes them dismal people is that they are totally cool being part of the system that makes such questions reasonable. > In the absence of original source material, whatever interpretation you apply will inevitably be a projection of your pre-existing views on the matter. Literally all interpretation one does about anything is a "projection" of their pre-existing views on the matter.
- Balgair 9y ago
  > What are absolutely dismal are the conditions that make it a reasonable question I'm a pretty free-market kinda guy, but all systems have flaws. Biotech and capitalism seem to have a fair few chasms between them, and this GS report illustrates one of them quite well. Capitalism is not a 'complete' theory, holes exist in it, as they do in all things. If anything, as the GP states, GS is pointing this one out. Suggestions for what to do about this 'hole in theory' are needed though; likely it's government funding (in a 'lighthouses' manner).
DoreenMichele 9y ago
Funny that capitalism and profit motive have such an evil reputation when, historically, bees were revered by several very civilized nations, such as Persia and Greece, for being a symbol of mutually beneficial interaction and how business should be done as a civilizing force. There are inherent challenges in monetizing healthcare. It isn't better to expect it by default to be "free" as the solution to that. But I don't think that means we can't keep our eyes on the prize. Ultimately, healthcare should primarily improve health and welfare. I once read a witty piece that I only poorly remember that used the expression the bottom line to make the point that while a business does need to be profitable, profit should be its lowest priority. Accomplishing something useful and beneficial should be the main goal. Money is a necessity to keep the doors open, but you shouldn't actually be in the business of milking your customers for every penny, especially if that means doing other questionable things to get there. To my mind, that should go double for healthcare.
- Balgair 9y ago
  > very civilized nations, such as Persia and Greece Eh, maybe back then, but today they would be seen as worse than ISIS. Pederasty and slavery are wholly intolerable. We've taken their good ideas and run with them, leaving the vast amount of horrible ones behind. That said, you are totally correct. The modern corporation would be anathema to people from 150 years ago. Corporations were very tightly controlled by the state for a very long time due to the potential for vast profits to warp politics (also due to antisemitism, class-ism, and racism; the usual)
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    One of my favorite college professors gave me the expression "I am the primitive of my way." Whatever else was going on in Persia and Greece, there are reasons they were considered shining beacons. I think one of those reasons was their concept of trade as a civilizing force, superior to, say, raiding your neighbors and just taking whatever you could get. That concept of trade as a civilizing force seems somewhat lost these days and I think we are worse off for forgetting it. I realize you are mostly agreeing with me. This would no doubt go better in person. Conversational tone is really hard to convey online.
sorokod 9y ago
Thomas Aquinas defines( over simplifying here) evil as an absence of good. Works well in this case.
magissima 9y ago
Even if focusing on currently uncurable conditions like cancer isn't a bad thing in itself, it means that a cure for cancer would be disastrous for the bottom line of biotech companies that follow this strategy. It's not just a different allocation of resources, it's an incentive to deprioritize cures in general. Any plan to maximize healthcare profit will result in perverse incentives, which is what those "knee-jerk Goldman Sachs is Evil" comments are largely criticizing. Obviously Goldman Sachs is stating the facts, but the assumption is that the choice with greater profitability is the correct one. That that assumption underlies medical research and development is the evil part.

by jfasi 9y ago

danharaj 9y ago

The Goldman Sachs analysts didn't ask an unreasonable question. What are absolutely dismal are the conditions that make it a reasonable question. And what makes them dismal people is that they are totally cool being part of the system that makes such questions reasonable. > In the absence of original source material, whatever interpretation you apply will inevitably be a projection of your pre-existing views on the matter. Literally all interpretation one does about anything is a "projection" of their pre-existing views on the matter.

Balgair 9y ago
> What are absolutely dismal are the conditions that make it a reasonable question I'm a pretty free-market kinda guy, but all systems have flaws. Biotech and capitalism seem to have a fair few chasms between them, and this GS report illustrates one of them quite well. Capitalism is not a 'complete' theory, holes exist in it, as they do in all things. If anything, as the GP states, GS is pointing this one out. Suggestions for what to do about this 'hole in theory' are needed though; likely it's government funding (in a 'lighthouses' manner).

DoreenMichele 9y ago

Funny that capitalism and profit motive have such an evil reputation when, historically, bees were revered by several very civilized nations, such as Persia and Greece, for being a symbol of mutually beneficial interaction and how business should be done as a civilizing force. There are inherent challenges in monetizing healthcare. It isn't better to expect it by default to be "free" as the solution to that. But I don't think that means we can't keep our eyes on the prize. Ultimately, healthcare should primarily improve health and welfare. I once read a witty piece that I only poorly remember that used the expression the bottom line to make the point that while a business does need to be profitable, profit should be its lowest priority. Accomplishing something useful and beneficial should be the main goal. Money is a necessity to keep the doors open, but you shouldn't actually be in the business of milking your customers for every penny, especially if that means doing other questionable things to get there. To my mind, that should go double for healthcare.

Balgair 9y ago
> very civilized nations, such as Persia and Greece Eh, maybe back then, but today they would be seen as worse than ISIS. Pederasty and slavery are wholly intolerable. We've taken their good ideas and run with them, leaving the vast amount of horrible ones behind. That said, you are totally correct. The modern corporation would be anathema to people from 150 years ago. Corporations were very tightly controlled by the state for a very long time due to the potential for vast profits to warp politics (also due to antisemitism, class-ism, and racism; the usual)
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  One of my favorite college professors gave me the expression "I am the primitive of my way." Whatever else was going on in Persia and Greece, there are reasons they were considered shining beacons. I think one of those reasons was their concept of trade as a civilizing force, superior to, say, raiding your neighbors and just taking whatever you could get. That concept of trade as a civilizing force seems somewhat lost these days and I think we are worse off for forgetting it. I realize you are mostly agreeing with me. This would no doubt go better in person. Conversational tone is really hard to convey online.

sorokod 9y ago

Thomas Aquinas defines( over simplifying here) evil as an absence of good. Works well in this case.

magissima 9y ago

Even if focusing on currently uncurable conditions like cancer isn't a bad thing in itself, it means that a cure for cancer would be disastrous for the bottom line of biotech companies that follow this strategy. It's not just a different allocation of resources, it's an incentive to deprioritize cures in general. Any plan to maximize healthcare profit will result in perverse incentives, which is what those "knee-jerk Goldman Sachs is Evil" comments are largely criticizing. Obviously Goldman Sachs is stating the facts, but the assumption is that the choice with greater profitability is the correct one. That that assumption underlies medical research and development is the evil part.