Re: Wages Vs Prices

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:06:40 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:03:40 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Trucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cures
>>>>for cancer and the like should be funded to the extent the tax
>>>>payers are willing to do so and the cost of such drugs should
>>>>be the production costs only. -- no patents.
>>>
>>>Then you'll attract precious little capital.
>>
>> Attracting capital is not the idea.
>
>It is if you want to attract people who've spent
>decades beyond high school becoming that caliber of
>research scientist.

Nope. Flat wrong. It still isn't. People like that want to spend
their time with other top scientists, doing cutting edge research, not
with parasite IP lawyers, going over the details of patent
infringement cases.

>So what, it becomes "open source"?

That's science. Duh.

>Put yourself
>on the board of that company. And you'd vote
>which way?

What makes you think boards of directors have anything to offer?

> Curing cancer is the idea.
>> Capital is attracted to profit opportunities. If people can be cured
>> of cancer by taking a single 10-cent pill, of course no capital is
>> going to be attracted. But make those pills cost $10 each, and reduce
>> the potency so you need a couple a day for a few years before your
>> cancer is cured, and suddenly, capital is going to be, like, _so_
>> attracted....
>
>Cancer is a Big Problem. The diseases cured by antibiotics
>were Big Problems, and antibiotics were considerably more
>than $0.10 pills. IOW, it Doesn't Seem Likely.

With a rent-seeking model of medical science, it is Downright
Impossible.

>The marginal
>utility of a cure for cancer is *considerably* more
>than a dime. The traffic'll bear it.

So cancer patients should be robbed to support the lavish lifestyles
of rent seeking millionaire patent lawyers and pharmaceutical company
executives and shareholders???

-- Roy L
.