4 ms·

> Why haven’t we already seen the same kind of transformation with respiratory viruses? My favorite conspiracy-adjacent theory is that pharmaceutical companies

> Why haven’t we already seen the same kind of transformation with respiratory viruses? My favorite conspiracy-adjacent theory is that pharmaceutical companies don’t have any intention to give up the multi-billion dollar market of cold and respiratory infections palliatives. Even if there is no ill intent, there are just no market or capitalistic incentives, because a one-shot solution for these pathogens is not going to create a market as rich as the previous one. To me this is the perfect representation of why believing the market is a positive force is wrong. If not for external pressure, in this case the market clearly signals that it’s best for us all to keep getting colds.

Schiendelman 4mo ago
Not from those companies, to be sure. That's not even a conspiracy-adjacent idea, a decent product manager will point out that a new company would be "counter positioned" to the existing palliative companies - for the palliative companies to compete, they'd have to undercut their own product success. (In most cases, they don't, which is one major way disruption happens). That has nothing to do with "the market". The market would start more new healthcare companies, and they'd be doing things like this blog post. The issue we have in many parts of the market is regulatory capture - a few companies have convinced government to make regulations that increase the cost of starting a competitor. Healthcare is definitely one of those places! Sure, a freer market would probably have problems some or even most of those regulations prevent. And at the same time, we've created a problem. I've heard it suggested that government should always shoulder the marginal cost of regulations they create, because that's the only way you avoid a couple of players preventing new entrants.

4 ms·

> Why haven’t we already seen the same kind of transformation with respiratory viruses? My favorite conspiracy-adjacent theory is that pharmaceutical companies

by camillomiller 4mo ago

Schiendelman 4mo ago
Not from those companies, to be sure. That's not even a conspiracy-adjacent idea, a decent product manager will point out that a new company would be "counter positioned" to the existing palliative companies - for the palliative companies to compete, they'd have to undercut their own product success. (In most cases, they don't, which is one major way disruption happens). That has nothing to do with "the market". The market would start more new healthcare companies, and they'd be doing things like this blog post. The issue we have in many parts of the market is regulatory capture - a few companies have convinced government to make regulations that increase the cost of starting a competitor. Healthcare is definitely one of those places! Sure, a freer market would probably have problems some or even most of those regulations prevent. And at the same time, we've created a problem. I've heard it suggested that government should always shoulder the marginal cost of regulations they create, because that's the only way you avoid a couple of players preventing new entrants.