FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

The issue is establishing a accepted and agreed upon baseline first, which doesn't exist globally. I'm all for advancements and research and it being worth the investment via the potential for profit, but there are rules against price gouging and monopolizing in some industries, why not all industries? The dilemma shows a health care decision because it's guttural and emotional and will force action in desperation but the morality isn't limited to that.

The other aspect of it that inst accounted for it to be an ideal, the collective as a whole would be able to pass judgment on the need of the individual on a per basis/need. What if there is a generous donation from a wealthy individual so that the drug doesn't have to be stolen? What if there's a perceived backlash for the drug company and their PR department says it's better to sell the drug at a reduced price in order to not incur the backlash.

There are enough folks in each of the stages to counter balance the others so I wouldn't be surprised if it was an evolutionary development of societal life.

[vaptin]

The issue is establishing a accepted and agreed upon baseline first, which doesn't exist globally. I'm all for advancements and research and it being worth the investment via the potential for profit, but there are rules against price gouging and monopolizing in some industries, why not all industries? The dilemma shows a health care decision because it's guttural and emotional and will force action in desperation but the morality isn't limited to that.

Yes, I agree. I don't see any government individually attempting to regulate it, they'll be too worried it'd backfire, but some wide spread international pressure or strategy could do it. I suppose a (fairly) extreme option is simply to buy out censored research companies, or at least set-up government run competitors. I don't know how regulation itself would work out with regards to monopoly/patent control whilst still maintaining a strong incentive. That's why I brought up public ownership, remove the need for profit. Obviously that'd be expensive.

The other aspect of it that inst accounted for it to be an ideal, the collective as a whole would be able to pass judgment on the need of the individual on a per basis/need. What if there is a generous donation from a wealthy individual so that the drug doesn't have to be stolen? What if there's a perceived backlash for the drug company and their PR department says it's better to sell the drug at a reduced price in order to not incur the backlash.

There are enough folks in each of the stages to counter balance the others so I wouldn't be surprised if it was an evolutionary development of societal life.

Yeah, this is the ideal I think. Consumer lead capitalism, where companies must trade in accordance to the demands of the customer. Marketing generally pushes the advantage back in companies favour though, brand identification seems to take over from genuine rational decision making, and even ethical ones. That's just my opinion though, but look at sweat shop labour for example, that could easily be cut down on massively by the public persistently demanding good conditions for workers, but people forget as they go about their day to day lives. Need a big picture shoved in their face to act, i.e acting on emotion.

I've noticed more products being advertised as "made in Britain", or referring to a long life as a company, appealing to nationalism and conservatism, neither of these things makes their product innately superior of course. Again just my opinion, that people make their choices or decisions based more on emotion, so a visual wide-spread media campaign might work, a report not so much. But a free market generally assumes people will make rational choices and not be so easily manipulated.

Finally, what people say isn't always what they want (Simpson episode "Bear tax", I'm thinking off here). A flash in the pan campaign for donations for the guy's son might raise enough money, an increase in national insurance to ensure the drug is available as standard public healthcare might not go down so well. Which brings as back to a regulatory government, there to make decisions and policies that ordinary people would like as a general rule, but don't have the time or expertise to make? But I think a government will only be as smart or capable as the electorate below it.