I agree and we have to include pretty much the entire military industrial complex because even when private companies create equipment and weaponry they receive a government contract in advance, thus eliminating any real risk.Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
I’d wager we could produce the same amount with 1/10 of the expenditures if there were an efficient marketplace producing the equipment and weaponry.
I agree and we have to include pretty much the entire military industrial complex because even when private companies create equipment and weaponry they receive a government contract in advance, thus eliminating any real risk.Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
I’d wager we could produce the same amount with 1/10 of the expenditures if there were an efficient marketplace producing the equipment and weaponry.
I too desire access to military grade weaponry at an affordable price.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
What are you planning to do with it?!
Peace and quiet from my neighbor's dogs via a show of overwhelming power for starters. Maybe finally keep the neighborhood kids off my front yard's low retaining wall while they wait for the bus. Beyond that, I haven't really decided.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
When I had a paper route there was a tiny dog that barked his brains out at me and the owner literally told me to throw firecrackers at it to scare it away. I never did because I didn’t have any.
Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
Fair. What should be the response? Price controls? Give the Feds a piece of the action?
Like venture capital?Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
Fair. What should be the response? Price controls? Give the Feds a piece of the action?
With the proceeds going to fund bigger social security payments to Boomers!!!! JK.Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
Fair. What should be the response? Price controls? Give the Feds a piece of the action?
But to fund social security? Maybe.
That's good. My overarching concern is that I'd prefer to lock in things like this to specific funds. I agree with conservative critique that if govt gets too much money, it wastes it. Maybe there is no good way to lock in the funds, though.Better spent to shore up Medicare. Better tie in too.
That's a whole lot of puffery that doesn't address my point that the risk is still there, it's just been socialized so no single person or institution takes on the risk, but rather the taxpayer.
Then you go on to prove my other point, that after the taxpayer has shielded the researcher from the risk, the individuals and institution involved derive all the monetary benefit after having no risk.
It isn't pufferey, though. There is an entire field of research called "target validation". It boils down to determining whether a biological target is truly involved in disease progression or not, and whether modulating that target is a valid disease modifying strategy or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes not.
Years ago I worked on drugs to lower blood pressure. It made perfect sense, we would be knocking down an enzyme that causes vasodilation. But.. when it we got the compounds into animal studies we found out that it only worked for a short time. Blood pressure decreased a lot, then a little, then not at all, then when you took the animals off the drug, their BP shot up! Another enzyme was being produced to compensate. Bad news. An invalid target. Shut that research down!
Target validation does not avert all risk, as things that "work" (are efficacious) can fail in clinical trials, such as for reasons of causing undesirable side effects. But it establishes that the entire idea is worth exploring, and for-profit institutions are loath to jump into the game until that has been proven by non-profits, typically university research.
Yes, taxpayers foot the bill for biomedical research, and the economic impact over the long run is enormously favorable, with (depending on the study) between a 2.5/1 and 5/1 return on investment. Earlier I mentioned several entire classes of drugs that were pioneered through the basic research done in academia.
Yes, we can monetarily benefit once we discover a drug, based on patent law and the Bayh-Dole act. It is a driver of innovation. That also doesn't happen in industry, where you sign over patent rights to the parent company and don't ever get a dime.
If the returns on the investments was 5 to 1 private companies would invest in them.
Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
Fair. What should be the response? Price controls? Give the Feds a piece of the action?
This is getting way beyond my initial criticism that the risk wasn't really being removed, but I'll play.
If the .gov is funding the research for drugs and treatment protocol, then the results need to be socialized just like the risk was. The patents and IP should be free to use by anyone in the field, fostering competition and lowering prices. The demand for those products is inelastic, so if the true purpose of the .gov funding for these is to make the lives of its citizens better, the only way to provide maximum benefit to its citizens is to remove the market restrictions and make them available to as many as possible.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
Fair. What should be the response? Price controls? Give the Feds a piece of the action?
This is getting way beyond my initial criticism that the risk wasn't really being removed, but I'll play.
If the .gov is funding the research for drugs and treatment protocol, then the results need to be socialized just like the risk was. The patents and IP should be free to use by anyone in the field, fostering competition and lowering prices. The demand for those products is inelastic, so if the true purpose of the .gov funding for these is to make the lives of its citizens better, the only way to provide maximum benefit to its citizens is to remove the market restrictions and make them available to as many as possible.
@bradstevens The sun shines on every dog's ass once in a while.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB