The law vs the greater good

[Capt Caveman]

Bull
Fucking
Shit

Has never been true, will never be true. Most of the breakthrough inventions of all time have been largely uncompensated, at least to the creators. Things are invented, then some greedy fucktard swoops in and exploits it for personal gain. The inventions, however, happen separate from the earnings.

Go research, develop and manufacture a drug with funding from folks that have no plans to be compensated. Good luck.

 

[Phokus]

Tex, I usually enjoy your posts, but this is just ridiculous "feel good" nonsense.

What's a "little compassion" to you is "not enough" to someone else. You can't base business decisions on "compassion". Too many times governments do and look what it's done to countless countries.

Like universal healthcare coverage at half the cost? Horrible. Why can't sick people just learn to die? - Republicans.

 

[Phokus]

Drug development really should be done at the university level. They do a lot of the research that drug companies use to develop the drugs anyway. And many drugs are co-developed with universities.

 

[PrinceofWands]

They have 4 times the population of the US. It should be easy.

Which is great, but ~90% of them live in sewers and subsist on flies. Rather reduces the likelihood of genius developing fully, or focus being on long-term illness.

In the long run you're right though...they can essentially crowdsource it, once everyone gets regular meals. Sheer volume will win sooner or later.

 

[PokerGuy]

The inventions, however, happen separate from the earnings.

You seem to be living in 1850 or so. The world has changed. Sure, inventions will happen no matter what, as humans are inherently curious. But it's not just an invention that is needed, you need development, and research, and testing, and clinical trials, and production, and you need to be able to pay for the inevitable lawsuits when there's a side effect etc etc etc.

You think if you take away the monetary incentives everything would continue the same way, but reality says otherwise.

 

[diesbudt]

Drug development really should be done at the university level. They do a lot of the research that drug companies use to develop the drugs anyway. And many drugs are co-developed with universities.

This wouldn't be a bad idea. Giving schools more money. Reducing the need of such high tuitions. Could circle around to helping the economy in a big way.

 

[Texashiker]

Tex, I usually enjoy your posts,

Thank you.

What's a "little compassion" to you is "not enough" to someone else. You can't base business decisions on "compassion". Too many times governments do and look what it's done to countless countries.

Would we rather have people cooking meth, or making medicine to control high blood pressure?

With so much bad stuff going on the world, what is wrong with someone cutting into the possible profits of a mega drug company?

The people buying the drugs probably would not be able to afford to buy the drugs anyway.

The American owned drug company is probably hoping to get a contract with the indian government.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Go research, develop and manufacture a drug with funding from folks that have no plans to be compensated. Good luck.

You mean like say, Jonas Salk?

"When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk#cite_note-3"

Again, MOST invention throughout all of history was done exactly as you disparage. If I had a talent for, or interest in, biology I'd happily do it sideline, and DEFINITELY work full time for minimum wage at it. Because I'm actually a decent human being.

I do have a talent for other things, all of which I volunteer and donate my time on, and have happily done for minimum wage in the past. Again, the difference between being a greedy, selfish piece of crap, and an actual human being.

 

[diesbudt]

You seem to be living in 1850 or so. The world has changed. Sure, inventions will happen no matter what, as humans are inherently curious. But it's not just an invention that is needed, you need development, and research, and testing, and clinical trials, and production, and you need to be able to pay for the inevitable lawsuits when there's a side effect etc etc etc.

You think if you take away the monetary incentives everything would continue the same way, but reality says otherwise.

Correct. Inventions will happen. But a lot of them may not be good or high in quality.

Money and ambition breeds innovation. Curiosity breeds inventions.

Mix the 3? You get stronger/better/newer inventions that may take root in civilization.

 

[PokerGuy]

This wouldn't be a bad idea. Giving schools more money. Reducing the need of such high tuitions. Could circle around to helping the economy in a big way.

Sure thing... and where is this money going to come from? Who's paying for this? Someone has to pay for this stuff.

Uni's do a lot of research, but ultimately they partner up with big pharma... why? Because there's a big difference between researching something in lab and actually developing it and bringing it to market.

 

[diesbudt]

Sure thing... and where is this money going to come from? Who's paying for this? Someone has to pay for this stuff.

Uni's do a lot of research, but ultimately they partner up with big pharma... why? Because there's a big difference between researching something in lab and actually developing it and bringing it to market.

Sure there are snags, but it has some bright points. Though there is a LOT of steps that the pharmaacetical companies go through that the universities don't. Such as FDA approval, testing in trials, blind and double blind studies. Side effect research taken beyond just a university lab experiment.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You seem to be living in 1850 or so. The world has changed. Sure, inventions will happen no matter what, as humans are inherently curious. But it's not just an invention that is needed, you need development, and research, and testing, and clinical trials, and production, and you need to be able to pay for the inevitable lawsuits when there's a side effect etc etc etc.

You think if you take away the monetary incentives everything would continue the same way, but reality says otherwise.

Those are mostly invented systemic failures designed to concentrate wealth and sustain the plutocracy/control. They only exist because we allow them to, and are wholly unnecessary to life. We don't NEED those things, we SUFFER those things.

Would certain EXTREMELY technical types of research be SLIGHTLY hindered relying on individual innovation? Yes. Certainly. Are there simple and effective ways to compensate that don't rely on greed and maximizing profits? Absolutely.

And that's Jenga.

 

[PokerGuy]

With so much bad stuff going on the world, what is wrong with someone cutting into the possible profits of a mega drug company?

Oh, so it's OK to steal from a "mega drug company", but not from someone else. Can you provide some more clarity around who it's OK to steal from so we all know? Who's products should people be able steal?

 

[Capt Caveman]

You mean like say, Jonas Salk?

"When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk#cite_note-3"

Again, MOST invention throughout all of history was done exactly as you disparage. If I had a talent for, or interest in, biology I'd happily do it sideline, and DEFINITELY work full time for minimum wage at it. Because I'm actually a decent human being.

I do have a talent for other things, all of which I volunteer and donate my time on, and have happily done for minimum wage in the past. Again, the difference between being a greedy, selfish piece of crap, and an actual human being.

How many of these drugs are produced compared to the private sector?

 

[Texashiker]

Oh, so it's OK to steal from a "mega drug company", but not from someone else. Can you provide some more clarity around who it's OK to steal from so we all know? Who's products should people be able steal?

Does stealing promote the greater good of the community?

I believe in this case, yes it does.

 

[PokerGuy]

Those are mostly invented systemic failures designed to concentrate wealth and sustain the plutocracy/control. They only exist because we allow them to, and are wholly unnecessary to life. We don't NEED those things, we SUFFER those things.

Would certain EXTREMELY technical types of research be SLIGHTLY hindered relying on individual innovation? Yes. Certainly. Are there simple and effective ways to compensate that don't rely on greed and maximizing profits? Absolutely.

And that's Jenga.

hahahaha... you must live in an interesting fantasy world.

 

[PokerGuy]

Does stealing promote the greater good of the community?

I believe, yes it does.

So, can people steal from you then? Please post your address on craigslist and invite everyone to come by and take whatever they'd like. It's for the good of the community after all.

Again, put aside the utopian drivel for a minute and think about how actual reality works.

 

[Texashiker]

So, can people steal from you then? Please post your address on craigslist and invite everyone to come by and take whatever they'd like. It's for the good of the community after all.

I do not rake in billions in profits.

My wife and I drop stuff off at the local goodwill all the time, which benefits the community.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Does stealing promote the greater good of the community?

I believe in this case, yes it does.

Then why don't you steal from the local supermarket to feed the hungry?

And you do know that all drug companies provide patient assistance programs.

Instead of trolling here, why don't you spend your time requesting your public officials to grant more money to universities and non-profits for research and development?

 

[Texashiker]

Then why don't you steal from the local supermarket to feed the hungry?

Because I can afford to buy my food, and still give that homeless guy $10.

There is a homeless man that stands outside the local super walmart. I give him money from time to time.

 

[diesbudt]

hahahaha... you must live in an interesting fantasy world.

He is acting like a communist.

Theoretically it is the best economical goverment structure. In which government is no where involved and everyone does everything for everyone with no need of compensation and everyone is happy about it. Theoretically it works. But in practically, since we as a human species have drives and ambitions, this can never happen.

Also with no competition driven with ambition the innovations and technological advances would be much less invoking and much slower.

This is the strength of businesses and capitialism. It forces companies to consistantly fund and work for the "next" thing in innovation. Either a cheaper product, a better product or both. However, its strength is its weakness, in which the populace can suffer if too much competition happens hurting the prices of stuff.

 

[Phokus]

Sure thing... and where is this money going to come from? Who's paying for this? Someone has to pay for this stuff.

Uni's do a lot of research, but ultimately they partner up with big pharma... why? Because there's a big difference between researching something in lab and actually developing it and bringing it to market.

"Bringing it to market" as in "marketing" is actually part of the problem.

Either a drug is efficacious or not. We don't need drug companies bombarding us with commercials when cheaper generics are just as effective. We don't need them basically bribing doctors and their employees with food and trips to 'conferences' at posh resorts so they can push more expensive drugs on their patients.

 

[spacejamz]

Because I can afford to buy my food, and still give that homeless guy $10.

There is a homeless man that stands outside the local super walmart. I give him money from time to time.

On the same note, could you not sell your TV's, laptops, cars, etc so you could provide more assistance to the homeless? Or even just buy a basic $200 laptop top and $1000 used car and give difference from what you have now to charity? or is giving $10 enough?

At what point do you determine that you have what you need so that you can start helping others? should this point be what you basically need to survive and everything else goes to charity?

 

[nehalem256]

He is acting like a communist.

Theoretically it is the best economical goverment structure. In which government is no where involved and everyone does everything for everyone with no need of compensation and everyone is happy about it. Theoretically it works. But in practically, since we as a human species have drives and ambitions, this can never happen.

Communism works in theory the same way flying by jumping off a cliff works in theory; damn gravity getting in the way

Normally when you say something works "in theory" it means that it actually makes sense that it should work. Saying the something will work assuming you ignore reality means it will work "in fantasy", not "in theory".

 

[PrinceofWands]

How many of these drugs are produced compared to the private sector?

How many private sector drugs are largely useless, or even counter-productive, compared to the world-impacting necessity of a polio vaccine, or penicillin, or similar?