Re: Wages Vs Prices

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.



People generally want to get paid.

So what, it becomes "open source"? 


That's science.  Duh.



No, that's not particularly "science".

The Edison paradigm for technology development
hasn't been much improved on, beyond
integration into modern finance.

Um, anything worth doing is worth doing for
money. The all but utter failure of "open
source" as a business model proves it.

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.



But that was the model under which antibiotics came.

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???


Cancer patients can certainly pay for treatment just
like everybody else. But I suppose research scientists
can work as greeters at Wally World to support the
research. It's science! It's immune to the laws of
economics.

-- Roy L 
--
Les Cargill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: F, etc.
    ... that a "cancer only" med can get away with. ... I can't figger why they cost so much. ... that is part of every med's price. ... a taste of my pre-January life again. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: F, etc.
    ... that a "cancer only" med can get away with. ... I can't figger why they cost so much. ... that is part of every med's price. ... a taste of my pre-January life again. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Prices soar for cancer drugs
    ... Though it is hard to imagine it would cost that much, ... single drug - are causing alarm among patients and insurance companies. ... Breast Cancer Coalition, which is planning a conference focused on drug ... The report does not include drugs given ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Told ya so.
    ... Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year- ... Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds per ... treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS -- ... approved drugs each year because of cost, ...
    (misc.rural)
  • Re: Productivity - Norway leads the table.
    ... if someone gets cancer, ... Someone brought the tape to the news folk so it ... Yes health care always ends up rationed somehow. ... cost is actually lower too in most cases. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)