4 ms·

> And that's how you get to a 3 trillion ponzi bubble in crypto that solves no problem, while similar investment into medical startups would create thousands of

by Jochim 4y ago

> And that's how you get to a 3 trillion ponzi bubble in crypto that solves no problem, while similar investment into medical startups would create thousands of products, treatments and long term wealth. I'm extremely glad that the types of people involved in crypto are in no way incentivised to do the same thing to the medical industry. Theranos was bad enough. I'm not sure why you'd ever want to see crypto's web of scams and lies replicated in the medical industry. At least with crypto the harm is mainly limited to finances. When the grifters are peddling drugs and medical devices the consequences are much more dire. > Sorry, but no amount of downvotes will make me accept a clearly populist and virtue signaling approach that will actively harm patients and discourage investment in medical innovation. Not allowing bad actors free reign over people's health isn't populist or virtue signalling. The majority of these regulations were written in blood.

manholio 4y ago
Flawless in principle, but harmful slogans in practice because it fails to develop those ideas for the particular situation at hand. Sure, medical regulation should exist - I specifically mentioned the "primum non nocere" principle as the basis for that protection. Things like access to source code and right to repair, some guarantee the device can be removed and won't become actively harmful etc. But some of the specific kind of regulation this article argues for are unreasonable to the point of killing the prospect of a cure. The point of the crypto example is not that regulation is harmful, but that people respond to incentives - exactly the same investors have a choice between some sort of a MMORPG poker that is crypto versus a medical start-up. And guess what, they choose the "investment" where money is moved around and they have the chance to earn something at the loss of others, as opposed to the medical startup that could cure people but is - due to dumb regulations - more likely to lose money in the average/EV case. It's not me who brings the crypto madnesses into the medical field, it's whomever bombastically claims some irrational behavior from investors, while expecting them to foot the bill for medical innovation - that was the premiss of the comment you replied to.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  That's because you assume that progress comes from millionaires investing cheap central-bank money into start-ups, which isn't how the world works. When you count on the collusion of gamblers and oligopolists to take socially positive gambles you're already stuck in a dead end.
  - manholio 4y ago
    You might have missed the part where I write: "as long as we as a society make no public concerted effort to cure these people and leave them to the mercy of the markets...". Everything follows.
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      Even then, I'd rather let the big corp do their things being while regulated than letting reckless startups harming people in the process of trying to get a nice exit getting acquired by the same big corps. I've yet to see an example where the move fast, break things and kill people line of thinking from the SV produced some net social gains.

by Jochim 4y ago

manholio 4y ago

Flawless in principle, but harmful slogans in practice because it fails to develop those ideas for the particular situation at hand. Sure, medical regulation should exist - I specifically mentioned the "primum non nocere" principle as the basis for that protection. Things like access to source code and right to repair, some guarantee the device can be removed and won't become actively harmful etc. But some of the specific kind of regulation this article argues for are unreasonable to the point of killing the prospect of a cure. The point of the crypto example is not that regulation is harmful, but that people respond to incentives - exactly the same investors have a choice between some sort of a MMORPG poker that is crypto versus a medical start-up. And guess what, they choose the "investment" where money is moved around and they have the chance to earn something at the loss of others, as opposed to the medical startup that could cure people but is - due to dumb regulations - more likely to lose money in the average/EV case. It's not me who brings the crypto madnesses into the medical field, it's whomever bombastically claims some irrational behavior from investors, while expecting them to foot the bill for medical innovation - that was the premiss of the comment you replied to.

littlestymaar 4y ago
That's because you assume that progress comes from millionaires investing cheap central-bank money into start-ups, which isn't how the world works. When you count on the collusion of gamblers and oligopolists to take socially positive gambles you're already stuck in a dead end.
- manholio 4y ago
  You might have missed the part where I write: "as long as we as a society make no public concerted effort to cure these people and leave them to the mercy of the markets...". Everything follows.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    Even then, I'd rather let the big corp do their things being while regulated than letting reckless startups harming people in the process of trying to get a nice exit getting acquired by the same big corps. I've yet to see an example where the move fast, break things and kill people line of thinking from the SV produced some net social gains.