We could just have nationalized pharma and direct research and production rationally at lower prices. The scientists and research directions are managed for the most part by the state and organic energy already, pharma just does marketing and purchasing trials. Anyone with money (i.e. the state) could do that, probably for less.
You would kill, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of people with your hubris.
I encourage you to read some econmetrics papers on governmental success rates as 'picking winners.' They are terrible allocators and would be more likely to try to build a pharma R&D center in Michigan and Wisconsin for general election concerns.
Are you kidding me? The way the private sector "picks winners" more consistently is by tweaking existing molecules or creating two-in-one pills for patent protection purposes. In other words, by avoiding real work.
Not really, it's an expensive and risky undertaking so only very wealthy investors or the state can afford this. That doesn't mean that the investors are a value add other than providing money. Furthermore, many publicly useful innovations will not be able to capture a positive return despite being beneficial for society as a whole, so private money is actually poison.
Comments
We could just have nationalized pharma and direct research and production rationally at lower prices. The scientists and research directions are managed for the most part by the state and organic energy already, pharma just does marketing and purchasing trials. Anyone with money (i.e. the state) could do that, probably for less.
You would kill, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of people with your hubris.
I encourage you to read some econmetrics papers on governmental success rates as 'picking winners.' They are terrible allocators and would be more likely to try to build a pharma R&D center in Michigan and Wisconsin for general election concerns.
Are you kidding me? The way the private sector "picks winners" more consistently is by tweaking existing molecules or creating two-in-one pills for patent protection purposes. In other words, by avoiding real work.
If it's really easy that "anyone" can do it, wouldn't you expect investors to flood in and drive the cost of capital to near-zero?
Not really, it's an expensive and risky undertaking so only very wealthy investors or the state can afford this. That doesn't mean that the investors are a value add other than providing money. Furthermore, many publicly useful innovations will not be able to capture a positive return despite being beneficial for society as a whole, so private money is actually poison.