4 ms·

>The current allocation of capital in the US is quite inefficient if we're interested in the welfare of the public. The welfare of the public today is not the

>The current allocation of capital in the US is quite inefficient if we're interested in the welfare of the public. The welfare of the public today is not the same as the welfare of the public for all time. The Soviet Union couldn't compete on the development of computers, because the USSR was trying to optimize towards what could computers be used for then and there. It turned out that computers could be used for a lot more than what people thought of at the time. Drug R&D and patents lead to enormous profits for companies, because they can charge outrageous prices for the drugs. But the benefit to the public is that now those drugs and the knowledge about them exist. That's going to have a cumulative positive effect for hundreds of years in the future.

bccdee 2y ago
You assume pharmaceutical profits are all funnelled to R&D, rather than to shareholders. I see no reason why we shouldn't slash profit margins on medicine and offer the money back in earmarked grants. So you see, I'm actually radically in favour of R&D.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  No, I'm not assuming that. The profit motive is why they get the capital to do the R&D. I'm not just talking about developing an entirely novel drug but also manufacturing and testing it. Without the possibility of this outrageous profit we would just get less drug research done. That money would then be invested in something else. Drug prices wouldn't be so outrageous (probably), but we probably also wouldn't have as many treatment options. They might be too expensive now, but there's a chance they won't be in 50 years.
  - bccdee 2y ago
    > The profit motive is why they get the capital to do the R&D. A massive amount of research is funded by public grants. iPhones are a famous example of a private-sector product almost entirely created off the back of public research. It is absolutely not true that private investment is required for pharmaceutical R&D.
nayuki 2y ago
> The Soviet Union couldn't compete on the development of computers, because the USSR was trying to optimize towards what could computers be used for then and there. There was a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8 Asianometry - "Why the Soviet Computer Failed" (18m56s) [2022-07-07]

bccdee 2y ago

You assume pharmaceutical profits are all funnelled to R&D, rather than to shareholders. I see no reason why we shouldn't slash profit margins on medicine and offer the money back in earmarked grants. So you see, I'm actually radically in favour of R&D.

Aerroon 2y ago
No, I'm not assuming that. The profit motive is why they get the capital to do the R&D. I'm not just talking about developing an entirely novel drug but also manufacturing and testing it. Without the possibility of this outrageous profit we would just get less drug research done. That money would then be invested in something else. Drug prices wouldn't be so outrageous (probably), but we probably also wouldn't have as many treatment options. They might be too expensive now, but there's a chance they won't be in 50 years.
- bccdee 2y ago
  > The profit motive is why they get the capital to do the R&D. A massive amount of research is funded by public grants. iPhones are a famous example of a private-sector product almost entirely created off the back of public research. It is absolutely not true that private investment is required for pharmaceutical R&D.

nayuki 2y ago

> The Soviet Union couldn't compete on the development of computers, because the USSR was trying to optimize towards what could computers be used for then and there. There was a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8 Asianometry - "Why the Soviet Computer Failed" (18m56s) [2022-07-07]