Comment by jlarocco
3 years ago
> I'm all for cutting subsidies, but the problem is that if you want risky things then investors might decide it's better not to invest and the drugs never appear.
So? Nobody has a right to free money. If investors don't want to fund the research, and the researcher doesn't want to share the results with the public, then no money for them. They can go off and work on something else.
> There's no need to punish the creator by not letting them make money off of their creation just because the government was involved, the government is getting plenty out of their investment.
You're putting words in my mouth. I said the cost of government funded drugs should be the cost of manufacturing plus a percentage for the inventor.
Second, that's not how government funding works. If the public funds a thing, then the public has a right to use that thing. If the inventor doesn't like it, then they shouldn't take funding from the government.
Funny to see a pro-corporate welfare argument on HN.
> Funny to see a pro-corporate welfare argument on HN.
It's not so that's your mistake.
> > I'm all for cutting subsidies,
You see, I wrote that. However, as we can see when I continue I am able to see the benefits to a system I don't agree with. It's called being reasonable and not strawmanning your opponent.
> > but the problem is that if you want risky things then investors might decide it's better not to invest and the drugs never appear.
> So?
So… I gave that argument right there. "the problem is that if you want risky things then investors might decide it's better not to invest and the drugs never appear." If your response to this is "So?" then you've just said "So?" to "the drugs never appear". Strangely unappealing.
> Nobody has a right to free money.
Aside from having not made that argument and it not being relevant, you're arguing that people should get free drugs. Nobody has a right to free drugs. Now you're arguing against yourself.
> > There's no need to punish the creator by not letting them make money off of their creation just because the government was involved, the government is getting plenty out of their investment.
> You're putting words in my mouth.
Which words? Punishment? Ah, the percentage.
> I said the cost of government funded drugs should be the cost of manufacturing plus a percentage for the inventor.
How magnanimous of you. What would you set the percentage at? How would you get companies to manufacture things at cost for you? That's just not how a business survives, and the only people I've ever heard make this kind of argument are people who've never run a business and never will.
> Second, that's not how government funding works. If the public funds a thing, then the public has a right to use that thing.
No, that's not how government funding works, that's how you appear to think it should work in this fantasy you've constructed. Governments often provide funding to private companies that do not create some magical legal right to that company's products.
> If the inventor doesn't like it, then they shouldn't take funding from the government.
I'll repeat, that's not how government funding works. I'm against subsidies in general and in this case but I'd take this dysfunctional way over yours.