Antibiotics

[Tero]

This new product
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalbavancin
demonstrates the hurdles in getting new drugs of this sort approved. The world patents will have expired by the time you market the drug. It was found in 1996. In the US the FDA and patent office may give you some years of exclusivity for a drug with an unmet need patient population but in the world, you do not get that.

The innovator gets the drug out and the generics can have it made a couple of years later, with no clinical study investment.

The article I'm reading mentions monoclonal antibodies as a new route of treatment. Like humira, they are given by injection.

[Seth]

Very nice. You show exactly why "big pharma" is not keen on spending billions developing new antibiotics.

You also show why big pharma is the only thing that can do so.

So what can we conclude from this information?

That modern medicine and pharmacology depends for its very existence on the capitalist profit motive and profitability of the free market, and without that impetus for research and development of medicine and equipment we'd still be living in the 18th century as far as health care is concerned.

Socialism therefore sucks.

[Tero]

This example is actually one that will make some money. It is made by an isolated strain of a particular bacterium. You do not have to give that strain out to the world. By trial and error some day someone else may get the bacterium in hand.

[Hermit]

Very nice. You show exactly why "big pharma" is not keen on spending billions developing new antibiotics.

You also show why big pharma is the only thing that can do so.

So what can we conclude from this information?

That modern medicine and pharmacology depends for its very existence on the capitalist profit motive and profitability of the free market, and without that impetus for research and development of medicine and equipment we'd still be living in the 18th century as far as health care is concerned.

Socialism therefore sucks.

Strange conclusion, that. The fact that "big pharma" is not going through with spending the money it takes to bring a new antibiotic to market because there's no profit in doing so leads me to conclude that this is a failure of capitalism.

[Seth]

Very nice. You show exactly why "big pharma" is not keen on spending billions developing new antibiotics.

You also show why big pharma is the only thing that can do so.

So what can we conclude from this information?

That modern medicine and pharmacology depends for its very existence on the capitalist profit motive and profitability of the free market, and without that impetus for research and development of medicine and equipment we'd still be living in the 18th century as far as health care is concerned.

Socialism therefore sucks.

Strange conclusion, that. The fact that "big pharma" is not going through with spending the money it takes to bring a new antibiotic to market because there's no profit in doing so leads me to conclude that this is a failure of capitalism.

It's not a failure of capitalism, it's a success of capitalism. It demonstrates the power of the free market and capitalism, which do not waste resources and money on things the public doesn't want to buy.

[Hermit]

Very nice. You show exactly why "big pharma" is not keen on spending billions developing new antibiotics.

You also show why big pharma is the only thing that can do so.

So what can we conclude from this information?

That modern medicine and pharmacology depends for its very existence on the capitalist profit motive and profitability of the free market, and without that impetus for research and development of medicine and equipment we'd still be living in the 18th century as far as health care is concerned.

Socialism therefore sucks.

Strange conclusion, that. The fact that "big pharma" is not going through with spending the money it takes to bring a new antibiotic to market because there's no profit in doing so leads me to conclude that this is a failure of capitalism.

It's not a failure of capitalism, it's a success of capitalism. It demonstrates the power of the free market and capitalism, which do not waste resources and money on things the public doesn't want to buy.

It demonstrates that capitalism will not produce a product that is manifestly needed unless it can make a profit. That looks like a failure to me. In this case it's also an example of the predatory nature of capitalism. The manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals are basically robbing the research of other companies when they come up with copies that are cheaper because the necessary testing, and the expense of doing those tests, has already been done by companies that developed them in the first place.

[Seth]

It demonstrates that capitalism will not produce a product that is manifestly needed unless it can make a profit.

Is it manifestly needed, or is it that it is merely your personal opinion that it is?

That looks like a failure to me. In this case it's also an example of the predatory nature of capitalism.

Capitalism isn't predatory by design, but free markets are. Free markets are like evolutionary forces, they weed out the weak and unsuitable and reward the strong and useful. And in doing so they create the greatest degree of economic economy and balance possible based on the billions of individual decisions made by consumers every day, which mimic the billions of successful and failed genetic changes that occur in evolution.

The manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals are basically robbing the research of other companies when they come up with copies that are cheaper because the necessary testing, and the expense of doing those tests, has already been done by companies that developed them in the first place.

Correct. They act like an infection or cancer, and what's needed is a control mechanism to prevent the spread of this behavior so that the drugs we need are made available on the free market. And that control mechanism is the police power of the state that prohibits and punishes the initiation of fraud that occurs when a generic manufacturer steals another company's product.

The law and the courts are the antibodies of economic system that protects against force and fraud in the marketplace.

Government interference in the markets by regulating to pick winners and losers is like genetic engineering being performed by a third grader. Horrible things happen when idiots, children and amateurs meddle with things they don't understand, which is all that government ever does when it comes to regulating markets to achieve social goals.

[Hermit]

It demonstrates that capitalism will not produce a product that is manifestly needed unless it can make a profit.

Is it manifestly needed, or is it that it is merely your personal opinion that it is?

When diseases are on the increase because the effectiveness of existing antibiotics is decreasing, there manifestly is a need for the development and availability of new antibiotics. We're not talking about the lack of yoyos here.

That looks like a failure to me. In this case it's also an example of the predatory nature of capitalism.

Capitalism isn't predatory by design, but free markets are.

As far as predation is concerned, you're making a distinction without a difference. There are three indispensable components to the type of capitalism you advocate, and one of them is a free market. It's intrinsic to it. That is why it is valid to regard capitalism as predatory.

[FBM]

...That is why it is valid to regard capitalism as predatory.

Yep. Although there is also cooperation, the parties that cooperate do so in order to enhance their predation.

[Hermit]

...That is why it is valid to regard capitalism as predatory.

Yep. Although there is also cooperation, the parties that cooperate do so in order to enhance their predation.

Cartels spring to mind.

[Blind groper]

Capitalism/free markets of the sort Seth mentions do not exist anywhere today. The closest we saw to that was the coal mining industry in Britain in the early years of the industrial revolution. A small number of very wealthy men became obscenely rich by screwing their workers, requiring them to work under terrible, dangerous, and unhealthy conditions (black miners lung disease), and paying them a pittance. The miners had no choice, since they had to feed their families, even on a pittance. But the rich became massively richer.

Since then, society has learned a few lessons, and that unbridled capitalism is now reined in through laws, and the policing of those laws. This is no longer pure capitalism, and thank Finagle for that!

[Seth]

It demonstrates that capitalism will not produce a product that is manifestly needed unless it can make a profit.

Is it manifestly needed, or is it that it is merely your personal opinion that it is?

When diseases are on the increase because the effectiveness of existing antibiotics is decreasing, there manifestly is a need for the development and availability of new antibiotics. We're not talking about the lack of yoyos here.

When the demand for new antibiotics occurs, the market will supply them. The problem here is that there is a natural lag between the onset of the demand (or the predicted onset) and the production and distribution. What you are saying, and you are correct in saying it, is that the market is not responding to a predicted or anticipated demand fast enough to suit you. You're quite right, but that's not a failure in the market, it's a function of the market. Free markets do not operate on anticipated demand, they operate on actual demand to drive supply of goods. You're expecting the market to do something it is functionally unable to do, and which defies the very processes that free markets operate upon.

What you are discussing is central planning. In doing so you are demonstrating exactly why central planning cannot and does not work as an economic system. This is because no central planner can possibly accurately predict or anticipate the needs and desires of consumers, and when they try what you end up with is a gross misallocation of resources and production that wastes capital and resources while leaving the true needs and desires of consumers unfulfilled.

However, you also make a valid point that in this particular case the anticipated need is indeed serious, the time lag harmful, and the type and degree of central planning required is not necessarily harmful.

As I said before, this is a case where the government can and probably should react to the clear future need for new antibiotics by imposing taxes to fund research and development of those drugs at public expense. Hopefully the government will not then sell the patents to any company but will make them public domain so anyone can produce them. And if it is not profitable for companies to produce them, then it's appropriate for the government (the one we have now of course) to subsidize the production of those drugs in the public interest.

But don't mistake one instance of government involvement in the production and procurement of a single or a few public health related products as support for the general idea that government can do things better and cheaper than the free market. It can't. It's always going to be more expensive and cumbersome in the end to have government involved in such things because of the nature of bureaucracy, but like raising armies and other appropriate government actions, they are sometimes necessary evils that we pay extra for because there are valid reasons for central planning of particular aspects of governance.

As far as predation is concerned, you're making a distinction without a difference. There are three indispensable components to the type of capitalism you advocate, and one of them is a free market. It's intrinsic to it. That is why it is valid to regard capitalism as predatory.

Competition is not "predation" in the sense that it's a bad thing. If we consider the term "predation" in the context of nature, it is a necessary and useful element of the natural world that there are predators and prey. It helps keep balance in the ecosystem. A free market is no different in the economic ecosystem. "Predation" in the free market keeps society clear of useless drains on the economy by driving them out of business and allowing better competitors to emerge.

The Soviet Union's lack of free market predation is one of the things that drove it to bankruptcy.

So what's wrong with predation? It's a natural and necessary component of life and economics.

This ain't a fairy pony and unicorn fart universe. Adapt or die.

[Blind groper]

Seth

I do not think anyone is arguing to abolish capitalism or the free market. What we are saying is that we need to balance the extremes. Total capitalism and a total free market (or total Libertarianism) do not work, and people end up getting hurt.

The free market is fine and good, but must be balanced by regulation, and by other factors when those other factors are required. I am not normally in favor of subsidies, but in this case they would seem to be appropriate. A subsidy towards researching new antibiotics might be the thing to get Big Pharma back onto the track of developing what society desperately needs.

[Jason]

I heard if you mix probiotic yogurt and penicillin it explodes.

[laklak]

The FDA makes it prohibitively expensive and time consuming to bring any new drug to market, making it impossible for any company other than "Big Pharma" to get a foot in, and that's the fault of "capitalism"?