Topic: Read this before having an opinion on economics - page 8. (Read 25890 times)

Just because you are unimaginative does not mean those are the only options.

For instance, there could be competing for profit research organizations who then sell their data to pharmaceutical companies. They might even have arrangements by which they share resources and results, to save costs on very expensive research.

Alternatively, the pharmaceutical companies themselves may pool together for research, perhaps with an internal bidding process to determine which entity gets a short "monopoly" on producing the drug.

I can think of only one way to fund pharmaceutical research without IP: funding from a government that collects taxes to cover the cost of research.  It's either this kind of government, or we have intellectual property.

They want new treatments to sell, except that they can't sell them, not for profit anyway. So why would they want new treatments? Anyone with enough money to build a factory can just take the research and make the product cheaper than anyone who participated in the research.

Most, if not all, big pharma today already do reverse engineering of the competitors products to learn something that might be useful for their own research. I don't underestimate it I'm afraid. And a few months is peanuts compared to the 20 years or so it takes to find a good drug through research. The time it takes to reverse engineer the drug is about the same time it takes for someone to make it known to the customers, through advertising.

I think you did stumble on the reson for IP in the first place in your comment above. Trade secrets. With no IP I would be a fool to try to capitalize my inventions. Better to keep them secret and make money that way. Let's say I invent a drug that cures every disease known to man, I wouldn't put it on the market, I'd keep it and only give it to those who work for me. That way they'll never be sick and I'd make tons of money more than my competitors. Until someone else figures it out, which may or may not happen. That's the original thought with IP. You get a temporary monopoly for your invention, in exchange for sharing it with the world. It doesn't work flawlessly, but it works.

The thing about IP is the "I" in it. It's hard, if not impossible, to use analogies to physical property. They're just different beasts. But let's say I write a book. You then feel that you have the right to all the hours I spent writing and researching it. Not writing your own book about the same subject, but to take my work away from me. That's not right.

"Mr. Volmer said that it was 'really strange that so few people came out.'".  Lol.

I agree.  I brought up the link only for the man-bites-dog appeal.

I'm not shocked, really.  All governments are functionally owned by the wealthy citizens, and a good show of social solidarity would generally encourage the middle classes to not complain later if the wealthy are willing to put up now.  Of course, the middle class is who pays for almost everything anyway, and the wealthy will get their taxes cut again later on, but it's always a horse and pony show anyway.

It's one thing to give your own money away voluntarily. It's another thing to force everyone else to do the same thing.

Yes, it will certainly have some effect.  Now, if taxes didn't exist, some ability to fund research would be lost too.  I'm not convinced that the increased generosity would make up for that.

Just for your puzzlement/horror: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

If you perceive society as parasitic and coercive, you're going to be less inclined to feel generous towards it. That seems fairly uncontroversial to me. It's irrational to think that will have no effect whatsoever. There's also the matter of simply having less money to give to charity.

I had read the thread, even participated a bit, even proposed rich sponsors as an option for the funding of medical research (especially when they, or their loved ones, were affected by disease --not ruling out philanthropy though).

I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth.  I was illustrating my disagreement with the stress you placed on (a) rich people and (b) taxes, in this context.  My point is that if you're the philanthropic type, you'll contribute, rich or not, within your possibilities.  If you can otherwise afford philanthropy, taxes will not change that, qualitatively.  You'll contribute less.  Some research will still get done.

If you mean that taxes will resent rich people out of causes they otherwise believe in... doesn't sound rational to me.  I don't think that's how philanthropically inclined people think either.  Sounds more like a cop out.

Maybe some rich people without much of a philanthropic inclination would be guilted into otherwise "giving back" if taxes didn't exist?  Makes sense to me.  Would that allow for more research than taxing them?  Not sure.

(I'm not discussing whether medical research would justify taxing.  Only the relative effectiveness of taxing vs trusting people to contribute on their own.)

And sorry if the tone came across as trying to ridicule your position.  Our cultural backgrounds are very different and I was amused (not in a paternalistic way, but in a "this is refreshing to hear" way) by the dissonance, hence the jocular tone.

I never claimed otherwise.


No, that wasn't my point.


You clearly weren't following the discussion. Before you make anymore snide comments, go back and read the thread a little more so you know what you're talking about.

Or even better: how many more billionaires would feel generous if the government gave them money instead?

You don't need to be a millionaire to donate money to a good cause either, do you?  If your point is that aggregation of resources makes efforts more effective or that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will put the money to better use than your average NGO, nothing stops non-millionaires from donating to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Not arguing for or against taxing here, but frankly, that kind of statement makes you sound like a hammer desperately looking for nails.


[Emphasis mine]

I suppose he pays way more than his secretary overall, via other kinds of taxes.  If not... well, problem solved?

Relatively speaking, this is questionable.  Warren Buffet has been quoted as saying that he pays less in federal income taxes than his own secretary.  The point he was trying to make was that the tax code is so complicated that one needs a professional in order to utilize it to one's full advantage, which he can afford and his secretary cannot.

Kiba, it's a debate.  The whole point of a debate is to discuss.  We know your opinion, but if we want to discuss this issue why do you care? If you don't want to participate, don't.  The fact that you make money off a business with no IP protection is a valid point, but in no way is the last word on the matter. 

That was my point. Even while being robbed at gunpoint, they are generous enough to give away their money. How many more billionaires would feel generous if they weren't already being forced to give away their money? We will probably never find out.

Aren't Bill Gates and Warren Buffet paying taxes?

People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, when allowed to spend their money as they please, do engage philanthropy. Who knows how many billionaires would feel more generous towards society if they weren't being robbed at gunpoint.

Honestly I think helping one out of a million people is a waste of money (unless it's me) but society doesn't view it that way.
How many times have you heard people cry about not having a cure for xyz disease that affects 1000 people a year or whatever.
Seen fundraisers to help research a rare disease? Personally I'd prefer to worry about the big stuff and have a bigger impact.
I still think there are advantages to gov research though. Some say that pharmaceutical companies would rather treat than cure because they sell more products.
I'd assume the gov would prefer to cure than treat.

Now if we could just get bitcoin bounties together to cure diseases and open source the drug formula then maybe we'd have something.
I'd be all for that. I'll give a healthy contribution.

Economic Policy, Ludwig von Mises

http://mises.org/etexts/ecopol.pdf

All this debate about the merit of IP is a whole bunch of useless talk.

I make money and I don't need IP. End of debate.