M
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
It costs 5 BILLION dollars to introduce a new drug, start to finish. Private investors and investment firms are a prime reason for the development of new drugs. Without that flow of cash, the appearance of new, less toxic and more effective drugs would slow to a relative trickle. Particularly if government (with limited budget and no hurry) is placed in charge.
I am alive solely because of a new drug that fights are very rare and aggressive lymphoma. Celgene gave me $500,000 of free drug to participate in a clinical trial and the subsequent long-term study of the drug. It is now on the market and others and I am alive because of it.
There are two sides to every coin.
I am alive solely because of a new drug that fights are very rare and aggressive lymphoma. Celgene gave me $500,000 of free drug to participate in a clinical trial and the subsequent long-term study of the drug. It is now on the market and others and I am alive because of it.
There are two sides to every coin.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
m.youtube.com/watch?v=CDb2RDAh5Dw
Here is a video with a research scientist discussing the approval process and it’s effects on the population.
Here is a video with a research scientist discussing the approval process and it’s effects on the population.
E
exnihilo
Guest
So it all boils down to the government. Yet people who want lower prices think more government is the solution.
po18guy
Well-known member
Yeah…
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
But it’s private drug companies that want to maintain their monopolies using the government. This is the end result of capital accumulation under capitalism.
Viewing economics in terms of “more government” and “less government” is asinine. The interests of the most powerful private companies and the state are intertwined.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Of course private companies want a monopoly. But it is the government that grants it. In economics monopolies are exclusively the grant of government. In other words, without government there would be no monopolies.
Viewing economics in terms of government is essential to economics. In fact the earlier term for the discipline was ‘political economy’. The name recognized the essential role the state plays in determining the economy.
When corporations work closely with the state the term for that economy is fascism. So no, what we have here isn’t the end result of capitalism but the result of fascism. If you want to fix the problem you need to move towards capitalism. What that practically means is less government.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I’m not saying that the government has an unimportant role in economics, I’m commenting on the fact that your libertarian economics ignores the way that private capital and the state intersects. While you ostensibly admit that it is the will of capital that leads to the state granting monopolies, you don’t seem to account for the fact that it is those who own the most capital in society, and thus those who have some of the most power, who are upholding these state monopolies. How do you prevent these monopolies arising without limiting capital accumulation? As long as you allow individuals to accumulate an indefinite amount of capital, these monopolies will arise.
The government grants it at the behest of private companies, though. “Big government” is held up by those that own the most capital in society. How are you going to prevent companies lobbying and influencing the government to achieve these monopolies? Simply calling for “small government” isn’t a solution and it fails to acknowledge the actual root of “big government.”
I mean that isn’t really the definition of fascism at all, but I’ve seen worse on here. Fascism is the movement that attempts to preserve capitalism once it falls into a crisis so bad that liberal capitalism can no longer preserve it. It unites many of the masses disillusioned with capitalism and uses them for the preservation of capitalism. This does involve a merging of the state and corporations, but also the destruction of the workers’ movement, and often some kind of scapegoat for the failings of capitalism, like the Jews. So fascism is often the end result of capitalism, though it’s different to what we’re describing here.
As I noted earlier, the kind of capital accumulation that leads to the creation of these states monopolies is inevitable if you’re going to allow individuals to accumulate capital indefinitely. “Less government” isn’t tackling the problem at its source, and you’d have to somehow limit capital accumulation. As capital accumulation is an intrinsic part of capitalism, the majority of society’s capital will always eventually end up in the ownership of a small amount of people, leading to the development of the companies responsible for the creation of these state mandated monopolies.
E
exnihilo
Guest
My economics doesn’t ignore how capital and the state interact at all. You prevent monopolies by the government not granting them. It is really simple. You can have monopolies under socialist government. In fact monopolies are very common under them.
No, big government is upheld by those with political power. You can have big government under socialism. Again, that is the norm actually. And communism is the best example. Actually calling for small government is exactly the solution. If government isn’t granting monopolies then you won’t have them.
Fascism can have different meanings to different people. The way I used it was in the sense the state exerts control through corporations. Fascism is socialism with a facade of private ownership. Fascism is a solution for the failings of socialism, not capitalism.
M
mikekle
Guest
I agree, Ive always felt very suspicious of the war on drugs and big pharma.
If a person visits a doctor and receives a script for ‘X’, and it helps them, but then they cannot continue to afford to visit the doctor to pay the pharmacy, if they seek another source for the same drug, they could be arrested and charged…Im sorry but that is ridiculous!
The war on drugs just ensures people MUST obtain the drugs only after going thru a doctor and a pharmacy, its really about making sure there is absolutely no competition.
Another very strange fact…back in 2012 when the tough new prescription drug laws took effect, NOT ONE pharma company tried to legally fight it…although some of the drugs effected by these new laws were selling like hotcakes (making them billions).
This would be like the Govt suggesting alcohol prohibition be brought back, and not a single beer company trying to stop it…or even complain about it! LOL
It really makes my head hurt when I think about this and how corrupt and tyrannical our Govt is today, but cunning they have been at ‘convincing’ majority of the public they are doing what is right and good.
BTW, since 2012 when these laws took effect, overdose deaths and general hospital visits for heroin and other opiate issues has risen over 45%…so it seems it was safer when these laws were not in effect…? They essentially just pushed all the former pill addicts to readily available heroin (which was surprisingly everywhere as soon as this law took effect?)…this stinks of collusion imo.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Needing a prescription from a doctor is of course a monopoly created by the state. At one time Americans could walk into a pharmacy and buy what they wanted.
You make an important point about big corporations not resisting regulation. This isn’t true just for pharmaceuticals but for almost every industry now. That is why I think we are a fascist economy. The business power is all in the hands of a few corporations now. They work along with the government now. They don’t object to new regulations because the government takes care of them by putting up barriers to entry or giving them a monopoly power. In fact it is the costly regulations that often make sure they have no competition. The bottom line is it isn’t a very competitive market in many fields. It isn’t capitalism anymore.
- Status