volition said:
Yep, representation based on wealth, but don't forget that the "winners" from the stock market are effectively encouraged to keep investing and this is a good thing because them making money represents them having information that is of value to society. The "say" they get is increased to represent their better knowledge. On the other hand the "losers" from the stock market now have a reduced say in things, having less money to influence things. Consistent poor decision making will result in disciplining by the market (losing money).
This demand quantified in terms of money actually makes our markets more efficient.
But if we are working towards a certain set of 'ends' should efficiency be ranked number one? One what grounds?
I should point out that a society could be very
efficient at producing a product which is at once enjoyable, and hence subject to high demand, and harmful. A good example would be cigarettes. Suitable marketting and pleasureable features can even make a significantly harmful product appealing. Efficiency doesn't ensure wise or ethical decision making (controversial features of these notions aside), making me wonder why you hold it in such high regard.
volition said:
Compulsory acquisition of pharmaceutical patent rights is only shooting ourselves in the foot for later on. This is especially true given that the govt is relatively ineffective at developing medicines itself, and we're actually quite reliant upon private companies to do this for us.
I'm not suggesting that drug R&D be moved out of the private sector. However, I
am advocating some degree of external restriction (e.g. on prices) and direction (e.g. with regard to areas of research). That article you referenced ('
Ideology is a Health Risk') puts forward the common claim that to bypass intellectual property rights (i.e. the very rights which allow drug companies to fix prices without having to worry about competitors undercutting them) is to reduce drug company products, limit risk taking and innovation - leading, it is claimed, to a relative reduction in population health in response to the waning drug companies.
A few things should be noted in response to these claims:
- Drug companies make astronomical profits and, despite the high (and frequently cited!) R&D costs, are not at risk of loosing 'motivation'. According to
Fortune 1999 (old figures, I apologise), the pharmeceutical industry saw, on average, an 18.6% return on their revenues. Compare this to commercial banking at 15.8% and other industries ranging from 0.5-12.1%. The pharmaceutical industry, at least in 1999, stands towards the top of the pack (at the very top, in fact, in 1999) in terms of profits. If commerical banks and other less profitable companies can find motivation in their respective levels of profit then mightn't the pharmaceutical industry also find such motivation??
- Furthermore, drug companies are quick to remind us that 'for every drug that makes it to market there are many more, similarly costly ones, that do not'. Their pricing and patenting rights are then required, and hence justified they hold, due to the high risk nature of their investments. This reasoning holds sound for small companies which are relying on a handful of drug candidates to bear fruit. Large companies, however, have so many drugs 'on the back burner' at any given time that they can
reasonably expect to consitently produce marketable products. In other words, the R&D ventures of large drug companies are not as risky as they would have us believe.
- One final point (I apologise for the length of this post): intellectual property rights are often claimed to protect and motivate innovation, in such a way that they foster and create motivation for research, leading to more/better products. However, as current systems often reward fairly B.S. drug alterations which, to my mind at least, hardly qualify as design innovations. Before patents run out companies will regularly add a new chemical group (or similar) to a previously successful compound and re-release it with a brand-spankin'-new patent on it. In doing so companies exploit loop holes, preventing affordable, generic products form making onto the market. Another good trick is where you have two successful drugs (with complementary effects), each of which is owned by a different company and each of which has a patent which is close to expiry. If suitable, the companies may decide to make a new 'combined' drug, which combines the two, for which they can obtain a new patent, thus maintaining market monopoly and sharing the profits with one another. What if, for a given disease, it would be
more appropriate to give only
one of the drugs rather than the combination? This drug company tactic can hence prevent more efficient (familiar word?) treatment regimes.
In closing: a lot of bullshit, to my mind, goes down in drug company dealings.