5 ms·

Monopoly on life-saving medicine created by a scientist? Sold at prices out of reach for most people?

by tolmasky 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 12y ago
Still better than their non-existence.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  The scientist (or team) in question who creates the drug is almost never the one collecting the rents. A researcher working for Pfizer is essentially getting the same deal as a researcher working for the government or a publicly funded university. The main difference is that the government and publicly funded universities do not have a marketing line item on their budget that is ~120% of their R&D budget.
  - Pyxl101 12y ago
    > A researcher working for Pfizer is essentially getting the same deal as a researcher working for the government or a publicly funded university. A voluntary agreement that the scientist and Pfizer both believe is in their own interest. The scientist presumably believes that Pfizer's funding and research equipment etc. is worth the shared ownership or whatever arrangement results. > The scientist (or team) in question who creates the drug is almost never the one collecting the rents. Can you clarify what you mean? If Pfizer conducts the research then they collect the rent. If an independent scientist conducts the research, then they will own the IP and will collect the rent instead.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      >A voluntary agreement No job contract is truly voluntary in the absence of a guaranteed livable income. Period. Take the implicit threat of poverty out of the salary/job negotiation process (e.g. with a basic income) and then we can talk about "voluntary" contracts. >Can you clarify what you mean? If Pfizer conducts the research then they collect the rent. Legal entities do not conduct research, people do. Legal entities do collect rents, though (which are then distributed). Ostensibly, the patent system is there to spur innovation by people.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Exaggeration? Small jobs are everywhere (washing dishes, hauling, yard work) that put off starvation. That means you can take a (little) while to decide on a job, and reject jobs that don't appeal. Its not "take the 1st job you find or die".
        sgift 12y ago
        So, to not take a job I don't want I have to take another (small) job. Sounds pretty much like "you either have some job or you die" to me. And not exactly voluntary.
        JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Yes but the job-offerer is not in the driver's seat- you are. That's the point.
  - bzbarsky 12y ago
    Citation please on the 120% number? The only times I've seen anything close to that it turned out that was the overall SG&A number as described in <http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/05/20/but_dont_drug_companies_spend_more_on_marketing.php> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/05/20/but_dont_dru.... But if you have a reliable source for this number, I would be very curious to see it. If you _are_ talking about SG&A, then I assure you that the government and publicly funded universities have SG&A numbers absolutely dwarfing their R&D spend.
- tolmasky 12y ago
  False dichotomy. You said "Monopolies are okay when the the good in question only exists because of the monopolist." I was asking if, given their existence, it would really be "OK" to have one person control it. You came back with suggesting its better than them not existing, which is fine, but is only relevant to this discussion if you can prove that it wouldn't have existed without the monopoly. I am doubtful of this. Its easy to see the error in this logic since it basically applies to all things: a monopoly on food production is better than food not existing. A monopoly on housing is better than no houses, etc etc.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    >I was asking if, given their existence, it would really be "OK" to have one person control it. You came back with suggesting its better than them not existing, which is fine, but is only relevant to this discussion if you can prove that it wouldn't have existed without the monopoly. I am doubtful of this. That's what my rule was assuming. I'm not claiming that it's true of any particular drug, only that if it is, then the monopoly is okay. >Its easy to see the error in this logic since it basically applies to all things: a monopoly on food production is better than food not existing. A monopoly on housing is better than no houses, etc etc. I wasn't saying the monopoly is optimal, just "okay", as in "not bad for the reasons we traditionally think of monopolies as being bad". It's why a monopoly on salt is intuitively stupider my monopoly on my labor.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Food and houses are things that would exist without the monopolist, so the argument doesn't apply. Therefore you haven't showed an error in the logic.

Monopoly on life-saving medicine created by a scientist? Sold at prices out of reach for most people?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

SilasX 12y ago

Still better than their non-existence.

crdoconnor 12y ago
The scientist (or team) in question who creates the drug is almost never the one collecting the rents. A researcher working for Pfizer is essentially getting the same deal as a researcher working for the government or a publicly funded university. The main difference is that the government and publicly funded universities do not have a marketing line item on their budget that is ~120% of their R&D budget.
- Pyxl101 12y ago
  > A researcher working for Pfizer is essentially getting the same deal as a researcher working for the government or a publicly funded university. A voluntary agreement that the scientist and Pfizer both believe is in their own interest. The scientist presumably believes that Pfizer's funding and research equipment etc. is worth the shared ownership or whatever arrangement results. > The scientist (or team) in question who creates the drug is almost never the one collecting the rents. Can you clarify what you mean? If Pfizer conducts the research then they collect the rent. If an independent scientist conducts the research, then they will own the IP and will collect the rent instead.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >A voluntary agreement No job contract is truly voluntary in the absence of a guaranteed livable income. Period. Take the implicit threat of poverty out of the salary/job negotiation process (e.g. with a basic income) and then we can talk about "voluntary" contracts. >Can you clarify what you mean? If Pfizer conducts the research then they collect the rent. Legal entities do not conduct research, people do. Legal entities do collect rents, though (which are then distributed). Ostensibly, the patent system is there to spur innovation by people.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Exaggeration? Small jobs are everywhere (washing dishes, hauling, yard work) that put off starvation. That means you can take a (little) while to decide on a job, and reject jobs that don't appeal. Its not "take the 1st job you find or die".
      - sgift 12y ago
        So, to not take a job I don't want I have to take another (small) job. Sounds pretty much like "you either have some job or you die" to me. And not exactly voluntary.
        JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Yes but the job-offerer is not in the driver's seat- you are. That's the point.
- bzbarsky 12y ago
  Citation please on the 120% number? The only times I've seen anything close to that it turned out that was the overall SG&A number as described in <http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/05/20/but_dont_drug_companies_spend_more_on_marketing.php> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/05/20/but_dont_dru.... But if you have a reliable source for this number, I would be very curious to see it. If you _are_ talking about SG&A, then I assure you that the government and publicly funded universities have SG&A numbers absolutely dwarfing their R&D spend.
tolmasky 12y ago
False dichotomy. You said "Monopolies are okay when the the good in question only exists because of the monopolist." I was asking if, given their existence, it would really be "OK" to have one person control it. You came back with suggesting its better than them not existing, which is fine, but is only relevant to this discussion if you can prove that it wouldn't have existed without the monopoly. I am doubtful of this. Its easy to see the error in this logic since it basically applies to all things: a monopoly on food production is better than food not existing. A monopoly on housing is better than no houses, etc etc.
- SilasX 12y ago
  >I was asking if, given their existence, it would really be "OK" to have one person control it. You came back with suggesting its better than them not existing, which is fine, but is only relevant to this discussion if you can prove that it wouldn't have existed without the monopoly. I am doubtful of this. That's what my rule was assuming. I'm not claiming that it's true of any particular drug, only that if it is, then the monopoly is okay. >Its easy to see the error in this logic since it basically applies to all things: a monopoly on food production is better than food not existing. A monopoly on housing is better than no houses, etc etc. I wasn't saying the monopoly is optimal, just "okay", as in "not bad for the reasons we traditionally think of monopolies as being bad". It's why a monopoly on salt is intuitively stupider my monopoly on my labor.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Food and houses are things that would exist without the monopolist, so the argument doesn't apply. Therefore you haven't showed an error in the logic.