That is total nonsense, That sounds like the argument of a paid shill. .
Look at our federal and trade debts. We Americans can't afford to subsidize people in other countries. This is an argument for American isolationism. We should be more like Switzerland. We don't have allies, we just have people who want to use us.
That is total nonsense, That sounds like the argument of a paid shill. .
Look at our federal and trade debts. We Americans can't afford to subsidize people in other countries. This is an argument for American isolationism. We should be more like Switzerland. We don't have allies, we just have people who want to use us.
Please point out the non-sense. I'm not sure what you are referring to with our federal and trade debts. If you are saying that our country is in debt due to government overspending, you're correct.
You're also correct that we can't afford to subsidize people in other countries.
But this is absolutely not an argument for isolationism. Isolationism would tax or prevent the importation of foreign made drugs and I'm absolutely for that. We should have as little regulation as humanly possible because we are the last beacon of freedom, free enterprise, and innovation. If its killed here, there's no where left for it to run.
You comment suggested that it was a good thing that Americans paid more for drugs because it benefitted the rest of the world - "...Artificially limit the price of drugs in the US and the entire world will have fewer options..."
Believe me, I am all for expansion of individual freedom and less government in America. However it is the government which is the problem when it enforces patents that allow companies to charge Americans higher prices than they do people in other countries.
The solution is to get government out of the way, stop enforcing those particular patents, and allow other companies to produce that product. There is no natural right to a monopoly.
1. "You comment suggested that it was a good thing that Americans paid more for drugs". It's not a good thing Americans pay more for drugs anymore than it is a good thing that criminals are locked up. I'd rather that neither was the case. Yet, here in the real world, both must be true or worse outcomes will ensue.
2. "However it is the government which is the problem when it enforces patents that allow companies to charge Americans higher prices than they do people in other countries." Again, compared to what. Would you prefer a world which offered no patent protection and drug prices were regulated by bureaucrats? It's a world that has much fewer options for pharmaceutical health care.
3. While there is no natural right to a monopoly, existence of property rights and their enforcement are valid roles for government. If you don't have property rights, you will have much less investment in the creation of intellectual property and many sick people will have FAR fewer options.
(1) I agree that it costs a lot of money to develop drugs and that there is a high degree of risk. And therefore that drug companies should be allowed to reap a great deal of profit for successful drugs.
At the same time am waiting to hear from you a suggestion as to how we can stop Americans from having to pay a disproportionate share of the burdens.
(2) I never suggested that we do away with patent protection in general. However, the right to a monopoly is not a natural right. It a conditional right granted by government under the understanding that the right advances the interests of society at large. When that is no longer true, then there is no reason to grant a monopoly right for that instance.
It doesn't have to be a complex bureaucracy to maintain this. All it takes is a simple decision rule: If the wholesale/manufacturer price charged in America is 1.5 times or more what is charged in another country, then the Patent Office permanently invalidates that patent. I agree that we have to also bring don the cost of drug approval, and perhaps we should harmonize our approval system with that of other nations.
Put Elon Musk in charge of the implementation, and it won't cost much.
If you have a better plan, then let's hear it.
(3) You conflate traditional property rights with intellectual property rights. All functioning societies throughout history have had property rights for physical possessions. This is evident in a written form in the Code of Hammurabi composed during 1755–1750 BC. The existence of patent rights has been much more sporadic. It has been prone to corruption as with the British system of Letters Patent being used as a means of the King raising revenue through granting monopoly in a markets. I believe that all systems tend towards corruption without continual reform, and that is exactly what has happened with IP/patent rights.
Intellectual property rights and the granting of monopiles are artificial, and would not exist without active government enforcement. If you really believe in free markets they would seem an anomaly. They are granted only on the assumption that these rights will spur innovation and improve the general welfare of the country. This is kind of a socialist idea, right ?
Patent rights do not come without cost to Americans, as our government has to trade away jobs for Americans when it is negotiating trade deals with other countries to insure that IP rights are respected in other countries.
It is therefore an affront when Americans get charged more for products than other people, when it is we Americans that sacrifice the most to protect IP rights.
That is total nonsense, That sounds like the argument of a paid shill. .
Look at our federal and trade debts. We Americans can't afford to subsidize people in other countries. This is an argument for American isolationism. We should be more like Switzerland. We don't have allies, we just have people who want to use us.
Please point out the non-sense. I'm not sure what you are referring to with our federal and trade debts. If you are saying that our country is in debt due to government overspending, you're correct.
You're also correct that we can't afford to subsidize people in other countries.
But this is absolutely not an argument for isolationism. Isolationism would tax or prevent the importation of foreign made drugs and I'm absolutely for that. We should have as little regulation as humanly possible because we are the last beacon of freedom, free enterprise, and innovation. If its killed here, there's no where left for it to run.
You comment suggested that it was a good thing that Americans paid more for drugs because it benefitted the rest of the world - "...Artificially limit the price of drugs in the US and the entire world will have fewer options..."
Believe me, I am all for expansion of individual freedom and less government in America. However it is the government which is the problem when it enforces patents that allow companies to charge Americans higher prices than they do people in other countries.
The solution is to get government out of the way, stop enforcing those particular patents, and allow other companies to produce that product. There is no natural right to a monopoly.
1. "You comment suggested that it was a good thing that Americans paid more for drugs". It's not a good thing Americans pay more for drugs anymore than it is a good thing that criminals are locked up. I'd rather that neither was the case. Yet, here in the real world, both must be true or worse outcomes will ensue.
2. "However it is the government which is the problem when it enforces patents that allow companies to charge Americans higher prices than they do people in other countries." Again, compared to what. Would you prefer a world which offered no patent protection and drug prices were regulated by bureaucrats? It's a world that has much fewer options for pharmaceutical health care.
3. While there is no natural right to a monopoly, existence of property rights and their enforcement are valid roles for government. If you don't have property rights, you will have much less investment in the creation of intellectual property and many sick people will have FAR fewer options.
(1) I agree that it costs a lot of money to develop drugs and that there is a high degree of risk. And therefore that drug companies should be allowed to reap a great deal of profit for successful drugs.
At the same time am waiting to hear from you a suggestion as to how we can stop Americans from having to pay a disproportionate share of the burdens.
(2) I never suggested that we do away with patent protection in general. However, the right to a monopoly is not a natural right. It a conditional right granted by government under the understanding that the right advances the interests of society at large. When that is no longer true, then there is no reason to grant a monopoly right for that instance.
It doesn't have to be a complex bureaucracy to maintain this. All it takes is a simple decision rule: If the wholesale/manufacturer price charged in America is 1.5 times or more what is charged in another country, then the Patent Office permanently invalidates that patent. I agree that we have to also bring don the cost of drug approval, and perhaps we should harmonize our approval system with that of other nations.
Put Elon Musk in charge of the implementation, and it won't cost much.
If you have a better plan, then let's hear it.
(3) You conflate traditional property rights with intellectual property rights. All functioning societies throughout history have had property rights for physical possessions. This is evident in a written form in the Code of Hammurabi composed during 1755–1750 BC. The existence of patent rights has been much more sporadic. It has been prone to corruption as with the British system of Letters Patent being used as a means of the King raising revenue through granting monopoly in a markets. I believe that all systems tend towards corruption without continual reform, and that is exactly what has happened with IP/patent rights.
Intellectual property rights and the granting of monopiles are artificial, and would not exist without active government enforcement. If you really believe in free markets they would seem an anomaly. They are granted only on the assumption that these rights will spur innovation and improve the general welfare of the country. This is kind of a socialist idea, right ?
Patent rights do not come without cost to Americans, as our government has to trade away jobs for Americans when it is negotiating trade deals with other countries to insure that IP rights are respected in other countries.
It is therefore an affront when Americans get charged more for products than other people, when it is we Americans that sacrifice the most to protect IP rights.