What will you do when Biden is President?

[oskar]

You got me.

Would you be willing to rethink this view if you knew that economic theory and history have a different view?

I would have to be insane to look at something that is working nearly flawlessly in praxis in 30+ countries, and then to change my opinion to: actually it doesn't work, because of theory.

Theory is great to get a basic understanding of something, but even in fields that are much less chaotic than economics, you always test your math with scale models and real world observations, because it never shapes out exactly like you think. To have 30+ full scale models, but instead of looking at them, you ignore their existence and try to explain why they actually shouldn't work with theory makes no sense.

[wufwugy]

You got me.


I would have to be insane to look at something that is working nearly flawlessly in praxis in 30+ countries, and then to change my opinion to: actually it doesn't work, because of theory.

Theory is great to get a basic understanding of something, but even in fields that are much less chaotic than economics, you always test your math with scale models and real world observations, because it never shapes out exactly like you think. To have 30+ full scale models, but instead of looking at them, you ignore their existence and try to explain why they actually shouldn't work with theory makes no sense.

For these countries with monopolized healthcare:

What happens to the incentive for investors to take on big risky projects with potential payoff of creating new therapies that solve unsolved problems?

What happens to the incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate on something to make it better, more available, and lower cost?

[MadMojoMonkey]

For these countries with monopolized healthcare:

What happens to the incentive for investors to take on big risky projects with potential payoff of creating new therapies that solve unsolved problems?

What happens to the incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate on something to make it better, more available, and lower cost?

Their family members, friends and loved ones die of diseases.

Have you ever met a medical doctor who got into the profession to make money?
There are far less stressful ways to make money.

[wufwugy]

Have you ever met a medical doctor who got into the profession to make money?

All of them.

Their family members, friends and loved ones die of diseases.

Right now there are entrepreneurs funding research to solve the hardest medical problems that the monopoly doesn't fund. This high risk/high reward research that yields marketable results begins in high prices for early adopters. Over time, better ways of developing the therapies actualize, and price comes down while availability increases. Eventually, the therapies become standardized in the society.

[CoccoBill]

For these countries with monopolized healthcare:

What happens to the incentive for investors to take on big risky projects with potential payoff of creating new therapies that solve unsolved problems?

The projects are not run by state medical staff, they're run either by universities or private corporations. Monopolized healthcare (come on, should have been easy to come up with a more derogatory and dismissive term for it) does not include basic research, drug development nor production. So, not much I would think.

Here's which countries put out the most research per capita:

[wufwugy]

The projects are not run by state medical staff

I'm curious: who pays for it and do they get the money?

[Poopadoop]

I'm curious: who pays for it and do they get the money?

The public through taxation. The researchers get the money through grants that go through peer-review, just like NIH and NSF grants in the US.

Here's the thing: that research is not incentivized to make money, it's incentivized to be good for society as a whole. So, rather than creating drugs and then trying to create a market for said drugs (which I understand is a large part of what big pharma does in the US), they focus on things that actually help society.

[wufwugy]

The public through taxation. The researchers get the money through grants that go through peer-review, just like NIH and NSF grants in the US.

Here's the thing: that research is not incentivized to make money, it's incentivized to be good for society as a whole. So, rather than creating drugs and then trying to create a market for said drugs (which I understand is a large part of what big pharma does in the US), they focus on things that actually help society.

Do you think that products meant to make money can be helpful for society?

[Poopadoop]

Do you think that products meant to make money can be helpful for society?

Yes?

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and there's also charities that fund research in the non-US, just like in the US. But presumably (going out on a limb here) they're not incentivized to make money either. I know not being money-oriented sounds like a disaster to an economist because it turns the models upside-down, but it seems to work somewhat in the real world.

[wufwugy]

I know not being money-oriented sounds like a disaster to an economist because it turns the models upside-down, but it seems to work somewhat in the real world.

I LOL'd. Thanks for that.

Non-profit does work somewhat in the real world.

What do you think about what people do for profit in the real world?

[Poopadoop]

What do you think about what people do for profit in the real world?

I don't understand the question, sorry.