3 ms·

I wouldn't have a major issue with a company profitting from the cure for cancer. On the other hand, I hate to seethe senior management of said company reaping

I wouldn't have a major issue with a company profitting from the cure for cancer. On the other hand, I hate to seethe senior management of said company reaping handsome profits while people without the means to pay for it die without it. And I have major issue with sick people's inability to pay when the initial research was either done by or funded by taxpayer dollars. And then apply that same principle to all the middlemen who handle the drug and add little to no value to it, but still profit handsomely. . .but that's for another thread.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
I think it's a slippery slope though: exactly who should profit and how much profit is too much? Posing those kinds of questions raises the ire of the "free market/profit motive cures everything" crowd that drives our current brand of capitalism. Once we give something over to the machine, we introduce the very problem. IMO, we need to completely rethink what should be left to the markets vs. what we produce as a society for the good of humanity.
- robomartin 14y ago
  That's a tough one because it is beyond clear that --and I am going to use that word-- innovation does not originate in government, master plans or even companies with huge funding. Make a list of all the major products in the last fifty years, the companies they came from and how they got started to prove the point. I can't think of a single major scientific discovery in any scientific field over the last, say, 500 years, that was originated or planned by any government or government agency in any country or culture. Typical examples given are such things as power plants, roads, bridges, water and sewage distribution systems and such large infrastructure projects. These, I argue, have only been created at such scales mostly out of two positions: war-time strategic needs (autobahn and US highway system) and the "natural" evolution of human settlements (as they got larger the infrastructure was a must). In other words, I have never seen any proof that any government engaged in some kind of a long-range master plan to build and deploy infrastructure in support of specific future goals. Well, except for China.
  - babesh 14y ago
    Its not always the direct innovation that government creates, is the seeding of an environment that allows the innovation or prevents the rise of extreme elements: Agricultural and mining state colleges in the US, UC system, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, bringing electricity to rural areas during the Great Depression, public work projects that allowed artists to keep on producing works of art, the Space program. All these infrastructure projects and applied research projects helped lay the groundwork for innovation. Sowing seeds and letting the next generation harvest them. The supposed pay forward of Silicon Valley.
    - RougeFemme 14y ago
      Absolutely agree. The government sows the seeds and the next generation and private entities harvest them.
  - Retric 14y ago
    The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS. More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic Medical findings where government funded. PS: There are literally thousands of counter examples but I think I destroyed your point as it stands.
    - RougeFemme 14y ago
      Yes, GPS is one of my favorite examples, after the internet. Maybe private enterprise would have thought it first. . .maybe someone in the private sector was thinking about it at the same as the Department of Defense, but the fact is the government got it out there first.
      - robomartin 14y ago
        GPS was a military technology. The program was not developed with the forward vision of what it is being used for today. That is the case for a lot of military technology. So, I guess, if we derive such great benefits from war and killing people by the millions we should continue to fund these great government programs. Right? Right.

unclebucknasty 14y ago

I think it's a slippery slope though: exactly who should profit and how much profit is too much? Posing those kinds of questions raises the ire of the "free market/profit motive cures everything" crowd that drives our current brand of capitalism. Once we give something over to the machine, we introduce the very problem. IMO, we need to completely rethink what should be left to the markets vs. what we produce as a society for the good of humanity.

robomartin 14y ago
That's a tough one because it is beyond clear that --and I am going to use that word-- innovation does not originate in government, master plans or even companies with huge funding. Make a list of all the major products in the last fifty years, the companies they came from and how they got started to prove the point. I can't think of a single major scientific discovery in any scientific field over the last, say, 500 years, that was originated or planned by any government or government agency in any country or culture. Typical examples given are such things as power plants, roads, bridges, water and sewage distribution systems and such large infrastructure projects. These, I argue, have only been created at such scales mostly out of two positions: war-time strategic needs (autobahn and US highway system) and the "natural" evolution of human settlements (as they got larger the infrastructure was a must). In other words, I have never seen any proof that any government engaged in some kind of a long-range master plan to build and deploy infrastructure in support of specific future goals. Well, except for China.
- babesh 14y ago
  Its not always the direct innovation that government creates, is the seeding of an environment that allows the innovation or prevents the rise of extreme elements: Agricultural and mining state colleges in the US, UC system, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, bringing electricity to rural areas during the Great Depression, public work projects that allowed artists to keep on producing works of art, the Space program. All these infrastructure projects and applied research projects helped lay the groundwork for innovation. Sowing seeds and letting the next generation harvest them. The supposed pay forward of Silicon Valley.
  - RougeFemme 14y ago
    Absolutely agree. The government sows the seeds and the next generation and private entities harvest them.
- Retric 14y ago
  The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS. More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic Medical findings where government funded. PS: There are literally thousands of counter examples but I think I destroyed your point as it stands.
  - RougeFemme 14y ago
    Yes, GPS is one of my favorite examples, after the internet. Maybe private enterprise would have thought it first. . .maybe someone in the private sector was thinking about it at the same as the Department of Defense, but the fact is the government got it out there first.
    - robomartin 14y ago
      GPS was a military technology. The program was not developed with the forward vision of what it is being used for today. That is the case for a lot of military technology. So, I guess, if we derive such great benefits from war and killing people by the millions we should continue to fund these great government programs. Right? Right.