SCARY: A Flaw in the Free Market?

[KevinWestern]

Not true.

1. All it takes to develop an antibiotic is to drop various chemicals into cultures of bacteria and watch the results.
2. The livestock industry is highly regulated. The regulations actually encourage the use of antibiotics in order to promote disease free meat. That is not a free market problem.

So it's just that easy to develop a new antibiotic? Lol. I think there's a little more to it than that, Quant.

Only if you factor in government regulation, which you insist is not the problem.

Earlier I mentioned that "I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation". Later, I agreed with Kevin Kennedy and said that the gov't was restricting competition to Viagra, thus driving the price of that drug up and ultimately making antibiotics a less lucrative endeavor. So two direct examples of me admitting that gov't regulation is part of the problem. Are you even paying attention Quantum? Usually you're a bit sharper than this..

Also, still curious for your explanation regarding why I "hate" the free market (ie backup/examples of things I said that would lead you to this conclusion, etc).

 

[Sunshine]

So it's just that easy to develop a new antibiotic? Lol. I think there's a little more to it than that, Quant.

Only if you factor in government regulation, which you insist is not the problem.

Earlier I mentioned that "I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation". Later, I agreed with Kevin Kennedy and said that the gov't was restricting competition to Viagra, thus driving the price of that drug up and ultimately making antibiotics a less lucrative endeavor. So two direct examples of me admitting that gov't regulation is part of the problem. Are you even paying attention Quantum? Usually you're a bit sharper than this..

Also, still curious for your explanation regarding why I "hate" the free market (ie backup/examples of things I said that would lead you to this conclusion, etc).

The NIH funds only about 10% of medical research in the US. Pharmaceutical companies fund the other 90%. In the world that clueless people like you would live the lack of profit would strip them of all profit and they would be doing NO research at all.

Funding Facts -NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT)

How Much Does Pharmaceutical Innovation Cost? A Look At 100 Companies - Forbes

Cheers. When you have it like you want it I hope you are the first with the superbug.

 

[KevinWestern]

Only if you factor in government regulation, which you insist is not the problem.

Earlier I mentioned that "I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation". Later, I agreed with Kevin Kennedy and said that the gov't was restricting competition to Viagra, thus driving the price of that drug up and ultimately making antibiotics a less lucrative endeavor. So two direct examples of me admitting that gov't regulation is part of the problem. Are you even paying attention Quantum? Usually you're a bit sharper than this..

Also, still curious for your explanation regarding why I "hate" the free market (ie backup/examples of things I said that would lead you to this conclusion, etc).

The NIH funds only about 10% of medical research in the US. Pharmaceutical companies fund the other 90%. In the world that clueless people like you would live the lack of profit would strip them of all profit and they would be doing NO research at all.

Funding Facts -NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT)

How Much Does Pharmaceutical Innovation Cost? A Look At 100 Companies - Forbes

Cheers. When you have it like you want it I hope you are the first with the superbug.

What in God's name are you rambling about? When did I say that we should strip the free market from the equation entirely? When did I say that we should remove the element of profit from the equation? Another generalizer..

Please, (and this goes for Quantum too) if you're going to over-generalize and make baseless assumptions, please at least attempt to provide some backup of something I said to support your assertion (as a courtesy).

So far, I hate the free market, I want to strip the medical industry of the profit incentive, and I believe that gov't regulation is in a perfected state and not part of the problem, lol. Good job, folks.

 

[KevinWestern]

Sunshine - Remember, a response is always much more productive than a negative rep.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So it's just that easy to develop a new antibiotic? Lol. I think there's a little more to it than that, Quant.

Only if you factor in government regulation, which you insist is not the problem.

Earlier I mentioned that "I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation". Later, I agreed with Kevin Kennedy and said that the gov't was restricting competition to Viagra, thus driving the price of that drug up and ultimately making antibiotics a less lucrative endeavor. So two direct examples of me admitting that gov't regulation is part of the problem. Are you even paying attention Quantum? Usually you're a bit sharper than this..

Also, still curious for your explanation regarding why I "hate" the free market (ie backup/examples of things I said that would lead you to this conclusion, etc).

Question then, given the undeniable fact that there is no free market when it comes to any form of legal drugs, how the fuck can there be a flaw in the free market that is making the problem worse?

The reason you hate the free market is you are blaming it for something the government caused, and refusing to admit that it is the government that caused the flaw in the market.

 

[KevinWestern]

Only if you factor in government regulation, which you insist is not the problem.

Earlier I mentioned that "I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation". Later, I agreed with Kevin Kennedy and said that the gov't was restricting competition to Viagra, thus driving the price of that drug up and ultimately making antibiotics a less lucrative endeavor. So two direct examples of me admitting that gov't regulation is part of the problem. Are you even paying attention Quantum? Usually you're a bit sharper than this..

Also, still curious for your explanation regarding why I "hate" the free market (ie backup/examples of things I said that would lead you to this conclusion, etc).

Question then, given the undeniable fact that there is no free market when it comes to any form of legal drugs, how the fuck can there be a flaw in the free market that is making the problem worse?

The reason you hate the free market is you are blaming it for something the government caused, and refusing to admit that it is the government that caused the flaw in the market.

Quantum, I have no problem admitting that the OP might have been flawed; that's why I opened up the discussion. It was interesting talking to Kevin Kennedy.

However, I'm going to be frank here and say that you sound like a run of the mill hack who would go to bed happier after insulting someone vs. changing someone's mind/learning something new. It's sort of sad, and unfortunately pretty characteristic of many "political" conversations I hear or partake in today. It's bizarre that you keep accusing me of "hating the free market" when you have no grounds to make such an accusation. It's almost like you have an agenda and are unable to part with it (this guy is X so I must keep accusing him of X, blah blah blah).

When did I refuse "to admit that the government caused the flaw in the market"? As mentioned earlier, directly to you, I clearly admitted that the government was actually a major part of the problem. So since this is the second time I had to tell you this, will you be able to comprehend the information?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Earlier I mentioned that "I agree that the FDA certainly isn't helping the situation". Later, I agreed with Kevin Kennedy and said that the gov't was restricting competition to Viagra, thus driving the price of that drug up and ultimately making antibiotics a less lucrative endeavor. So two direct examples of me admitting that gov't regulation is part of the problem. Are you even paying attention Quantum? Usually you're a bit sharper than this..

Also, still curious for your explanation regarding why I "hate" the free market (ie backup/examples of things I said that would lead you to this conclusion, etc).

Question then, given the undeniable fact that there is no free market when it comes to any form of legal drugs, how the fuck can there be a flaw in the free market that is making the problem worse?

The reason you hate the free market is you are blaming it for something the government caused, and refusing to admit that it is the government that caused the flaw in the market.

Quantum, I have no problem admitting that the OP might have been flawed; that's why I opened up the discussion. It was interesting talking to Kevin Kennedy.

However, I'm going to be frank here and say that you sound like a run of the mill hack who would go to bed happier after insulting someone vs. changing someone's mind/learning something new. It's sort of sad, and unfortunately pretty characteristic of many "political" conversations I hear or partake in today. It's bizarre that you keep accusing me of "hating the free market" when you have no grounds to make such an accusation. It's almost like you have an agenda and are unable to part with it (this guy is X so I must keep accusing him of X, blah blah blah).

When did I refuse "to admit that the government caused the flaw in the market"? As mentioned earlier, directly to you, I clearly admitted that the government was actually a major part of the problem. So since this is the second time I had to tell you this, will you be able to comprehend the information?

Your OP was based on the premise that the problem is a flaw in the market. When I pointed out that there is no free market you argued with me that the market is free because other countries are not controlled by the FDA. Unless you somehow forgot that other countries also regulate their drug markets, which I doubt, that put you solidly into the hack category in my book.

If you admitted you were wrong I missed it. That does not make me a hack, it just makes me human. You kept replying to me like you believed your OP was 100% right, I kept treating you like a hack.


Even now, when you claim your OP was flawed, you are still demanding I prove you wrong.

Fuck off.

 

[KevinWestern]

Your OP was based on the premise that the problem is a flaw in the market. When I pointed out that there is no free market you argued with me that the market is free because other countries are not controlled by the FDA.

Unless you somehow forgot that other countries also regulate their drug markets, which I doubt, that put you solidly into the hack category in my book.

Perhaps I could have been clearer, but my point was that although there are drug regulations in other countries, not all are as strict and as overreaching as our FDA. If antibiotics were as profitable as alleged, I argued that somebody would have setup shop and made a killing elsewhere (where the laws were a bit more laxed). I don't think I ever said that "there are no regulations in other countries", I simply said the FDA has no jurisdiction in other countries.

If you admitted you were wrong I missed it. That does not make me a hack, it just makes me human.

Touching, lol.

You kept replying to me like you believed your OP was 100% right, I kept treating you like a hack.

No, I was replying mostly to your (what I thought were) unfair accusations. I posed a question about how money wasn't funneling to the less profitable, but more important drugs (pointing out a potential flaw in the market) and you came out with some pretty silly accusations such as "I hate the free market", blah, blah, blah. This is why I labeled you a hack.

Even now, when you claim your OP was flawed, you are still demanding I prove you wrong.

I was demanding you explain how you came to the conclusion that "I hate the free market".

Fuck off.

Come on lets hug and make up

 

[whitehall]

You can look at a glass as half full or half empty and likewise you can fault the "free market" or the government depending on your political affiliation and your dreams of a socialist utopia. In my opinion it is foolish to fault the "free market" for criminal negligence or stupidity by government agencies.

 

[KevinWestern]

You can look at a glass as half full or half empty and likewise you can fault the "free market" or the government depending on your political affiliation and your dreams of a socialist utopia. In my opinion it is foolish to fault the "free market" for criminal negligence or stupidity by government agencies.

I guess at the end of the day my original question was, "is it possible that the free market (driven by shortsighted humans) sometimes will direct money/research away from critical items (stuff that will ensure our survival) in favor of non-critical items that will make a quicker short-term profit", and is there a place here for the gov't to step in and provide funding to close that gap caused by short-term thinking?

I don't doubt the free market would provide funding to critical items when they are needed, however could we benefit from proactively researching/publicly funding those areas so that we don't get caught with our pants down when it's too late?

As we've seen through discussion this example may not apply to antibiotics (given the highly regulated & distorted nature of the market), however perhaps could we see it elsewhere?

This isn't a post bashing the free market. I'm a free market proponent and are far, far from a Democrat. I'm just starting a discussion on potential flaws, which I don't think is that unreasonable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps I could have been clearer, but my point was that although there are drug regulations in other countries, not all are as strict and as overreaching as our FDA. If antibiotics were as profitable as alleged, I argued that somebody would have setup shop and made a killing elsewhere (where the laws were a bit more laxed). I don't think I ever said that "there are no regulations in other countries", I simply said the FDA has no jurisdiction in other countries.

How is that a flaw in the market?

Antibiotics are short term drugs, which is why the profit margin is smaller than those used to treat chronic conditions. Unless you want infections to last longer, that proves that they work, despite the article you quoted in the OP.

The FDA has more power in other countries that you think. You should look up the various requirements in other countries for export certificates issued by the FDA.

Touching, lol.



No, I was replying mostly to your (what I thought were) unfair accusations. I posed a question about how money wasn't funneling to the less profitable, but more important drugs (pointing out a potential flaw in the market) and you came out with some pretty silly accusations such as "I hate the free market", blah, blah, blah. This is why I labeled you a hack.

The only free market in the world right now is the illegal drug trade. Since the US has declared its war on drugs, and dragooned every nation on Earth into it, the price of illegal drugs has gone down, they are more readily available, and the quality is better. Feel free to blame the free market for doing something that no government regulation has ever accomplished, but I don't really think you can argue that is a flaw.

I was demanding you explain how you came to the conclusion that "I hate the free market".

You, quite obviously, didn't know that the market you were complaining about is not free, and blamed flaws that are a direct result of government regulations on the non existent free market. The only logical conclusion for that is you are a hack that blames, and hates, the mythical free market for every evil in the world.

Come on lets hug and make up

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can look at a glass as half full or half empty and likewise you can fault the "free market" or the government depending on your political affiliation and your dreams of a socialist utopia. In my opinion it is foolish to fault the "free market" for criminal negligence or stupidity by government agencies.

I guess at the end of the day my original question was, "is it possible that the free market (driven by shortsighted humans) sometimes will direct money/research away from critical items (stuff that will ensure our survival) in favor of non-critical items that will make a quicker short-term profit", and is there a place here for the gov't to step in and provide funding to close that gap caused by short-term thinking?

I don't doubt the free market would provide funding to critical items when they are needed, however could we benefit from proactively researching/publicly funding those areas so that we don't get caught with our pants down when it's too late?

As we've seen through discussion this example may not apply to antibiotics (given the highly regulated & distorted nature of the market), however perhaps could we see it elsewhere?

This isn't a post bashing the free market. I'm a free market proponent and are far, far from a Democrat. I'm just starting a discussion on potential flaws, which I don't think is that unreasonable.

The market does not direct money, it reacts to demand. It, obviously, takes time to develop new drugs, but drug companies make their money by predicting future demand. I am pretty sure they can see the value of developing new antibiotics, the problem is getting them past the FDA.

Think about this, antibiotics kill bacteria. They kill all bacteria, even the stuff that is essential to human life. Also, they are actually poison, which is why they also kill humans if you take enough. The stronger the antibiotic, the more dangerous it is.