5 ms·

I'm not sure where you derived 'subsistence wages' from. If I were going to suggest a solution, it would be more centered around increased government funding of

by DanI-S 14y ago

I'm not sure where you derived 'subsistence wages' from. If I were going to suggest a solution, it would be more centered around increased government funding of drug research, specifically with the aim reducing manufacturing costs. Funding cheap drugs for the developing world would probably reduce the need for other forms of economic aid in the long term, lessening the burden on all.

gaius 14y ago
What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits. Besides manufacturing is already cheap. That's the whole reason generic drugs exist. It's easy to copy something someone else has invested 10s of billions in creating in the first place.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  "What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits." ...those profits don't have to be drug company profits, so that's irrelevant. Not to mention, focusing on the status quo source of government spending power somewhat begs the question in the context of "does capitalism still make moral sense?"
jt2190 14y ago
He got that from this phrase: > Does capitalism still make moral sense... Suggesting that capitalism is immoral.
aggronn 14y ago
pharmaceutical companies are granted a monopoly on their IP (as everyone else is) because of the extensive, expensive, long term research required to develop the IP. manufacturing costs are almost trivial compared to the costs of R&D--that is to say, there isn't much improvement to be made there. retail costs can go down, as they do in the rest of the world when governments set price controls, but if every country on earth set a low price on pharmaceuticals, you would begin to worry that these companies would no longer have an incentive to innovate, which is potentially as or more dangerous than the status quo insofar as newer treatments would be less likely to occur in our lifetime.
jandrewrogers 14y ago
The expensive part is neither the research nor the production. The rate limiting step is very expensive development and clinical trials that happen after research and before production. Due to the way government funding is legally required to work, very expensive long-term investments like drug development cycles would be difficult to do efficiently under a federally funded program (at least in the US).

by DanI-S 14y ago

gaius 14y ago

What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits. Besides manufacturing is already cheap. That's the whole reason generic drugs exist. It's easy to copy something someone else has invested 10s of billions in creating in the first place.

EvilTerran 14y ago
"What pays for government funding? Taxes on profits." ...those profits don't have to be drug company profits, so that's irrelevant. Not to mention, focusing on the status quo source of government spending power somewhat begs the question in the context of "does capitalism still make moral sense?"

jt2190 14y ago

He got that from this phrase: > Does capitalism still make moral sense... Suggesting that capitalism is immoral.

aggronn 14y ago

pharmaceutical companies are granted a monopoly on their IP (as everyone else is) because of the extensive, expensive, long term research required to develop the IP. manufacturing costs are almost trivial compared to the costs of R&D--that is to say, there isn't much improvement to be made there. retail costs can go down, as they do in the rest of the world when governments set price controls, but if every country on earth set a low price on pharmaceuticals, you would begin to worry that these companies would no longer have an incentive to innovate, which is potentially as or more dangerous than the status quo insofar as newer treatments would be less likely to occur in our lifetime.

jandrewrogers 14y ago

The expensive part is neither the research nor the production. The rate limiting step is very expensive development and clinical trials that happen after research and before production. Due to the way government funding is legally required to work, very expensive long-term investments like drug development cycles would be difficult to do efficiently under a federally funded program (at least in the US).