5 ms·
Which would in turn create a massive opportunity for companies like Bayer to undercut the market. The concept that the government would be more incentivized an
by wdewind 12y ago
Which would in turn create a massive opportunity for companies like Bayer to undercut the market. The concept that the government would be more incentivized and thus more likely to discover novel uses for a product than it's sellers doesn't really make sense to me.
- corin_ 12y agoReally the big difference is that with the government their motivation will always (in theory, of course) be finding the best cure, whereas for businesses it could go either way. Sure, Bayer might have a great opportunity to undercut the market. Alternatively Bayer might have a less efficient but more-profitable drug which incentivates them away from stuff like this.
- CWuestefeld 12y agowith the government their motivation will always (in theory, of course) be finding the best cure Well, that ignores all of public choice theory. Under this model, the entities of government (the politicians, the regulators, the regulatory agencies) only have the incentive to ensure their own outcomes. That overlaps to a certain extent with finding the best cure, but it's far from synonymous.
- CWuestefeld 12y agoMuch as I love the market (I'm a Hayek groupie), I think there's a free rider problem here. Why would Bayer invest in improving the market for aspirin (paying for research, marketing, etc.) when the benefit of that investment would be enjoy by countless other generic makers, with Bayer reaping hardly any of it?
- wdewind 12y agoBut is the government more incentivized? If so why?