Epipens go from $20 to $500 in one year. DR Rand Paul absent on issue

[DevilsAdvocate]

Innovation is part of production, by way of entrepreneurship. Producers supply things people want, and in the process are challenged by competitors to find different ways to create more value for their customers. In order to create more value for their customer, they have to differentiate their products from their competitors. They have to be giving them something no one else is; whether or not it's an entirely different good or just a better version of a similar good. Problems people have create an opportunity to solve them and, in return, make a profit. These events are known as profit opportunities. Entrepreneurs are economic agents that provide the function of satisfying needs and wants that hadn't yet been addressed by the market.

The perpetual process of finding new ways of solving problems is fueled by the ability to profit off of these unsolved problems.

So they will innovate in order to differentiate their product? But if their product has features that are physically BETTER than their competition, their competitors won't be satisfied being different, they will copy whatever it is. Differentiation implies cosmetic differences linked to a marketing campaign, not huge differences in form and function. There are certain companies that really aren't that efficient production wise, but they're great innovators. If they don't get patents, they go belly up. (Keep in mind that usually the patents are sold)

Also, what's to stop a company from misrepresenting their product as their competitor? In China, there was a huge problem where cheap knockoff developers were using the Apple logo to trick people into buying garbage. Trademarks, licensing...etc are a huge deal in the marketplace that suppress fraud, and allow companies to differentiate without being outright imitated.

------------------------------------------

Ideas have real world value. They also have production time, experimentation expenses, opportunity cost....etc. They have a real world COST associated with them. If I dump all my time and energy into producing a physical thing, that thing is unique. No one else can have it unless they put in the same effort I did constructing it. Therefore I can sell this thing as a way of saving my customer that toil. However with an idea, you can just right click, copy and paste, and make a million more. This means that all of the production cost falls on the innovator, and everyone else gets the benefits for nothing. This actually punishes the innovator. Rather than an incentive to innovate, he actually has a huge disincentive.

Because ideas have cost associated with their manufacture, they belong to the one who produced them. He/she has property rights associated with it, it's his labor manifested. It's his idea; his and his alone. From his brian, from his sweat and toil, who can argue that it doesn't belong to him? Defending intellectual property is totally logical, virtuous and correct.

The only reason some people fight this concept, is because they are doing mental gymnastics to try to build a fantasy world in their mind where there isn't a government. It's not logical, it doesn't flow from principle. It's just this artificial nonsensical position crudely jammed in, duct taped onto the free market world view. It's a form of backwards reasoning. We can't have a state, therefore----patents are bad. You've got your conclusion before your hypothesis. It really should be an indication that these ideas are wrong, and need to be re-examined.

 

[erowe1]

I assume that abolishing Medicare and Medicaid is too radical for him to be willing to do right now, for purely political reasons if nothing else. I can't say I blame him.

 

[T.hill]

So they will innovate in order to differentiate their product? But if their product has features that are physically BETTER than their competition, their competitors won't be satisfied being different, they will copy whatever it is. Differentiation implies cosmetic differences linked to a marketing campaign, not huge differences in form and function. There are certain companies that really aren't that efficient production wise, but they're great innovators. If they don't get patents, they go belly up. (Keep in mind that usually the patents are sold)

Differentiation can imply cosmetic differences, and it is true that marketing helps to differentiate products as well. It can imply differences in form and function too; maybe drastic, maybe modest. It's open-ended, as is innovation, it just means to set your product a part from those you are directly competing with. Also, the product must be different in a way that people like. It's not just that profit opportunities are waiting to be discovered, they must also be sufficiently taken advantage of. It's one thing to identify or become aware of something people want: it's another thing entirely to be able to make it real, and to make it so that it satisfies consumer preferences.

A good is not a physical thing, but a function or quality given to a tangible thing within the mind of an economic actor. Put simply, a good is something in reality that someone subjectively values for an end or goal it can achieve, or the utility it can provide. In a similar way that a weapon does not characterize one single thing, but instead describes the function of a tangible thing, or how it is being used. Although, that's not exactly equivalent, because a weapon is indicating a specific kind of good with a specific kind of purpose.

The last part of that paragraph makes the mistake of focusing on the welfare of the business at the expense of the consumer. If a business isn't as a good at producing a good, even though they made it, then it will lose out to a copy-cat business who are just better at making the product. Yes, without patents there isn't much stopping people from just making the same good, but outside of hurting a particular business, there are no negative effects to that happening. The reference point of economic growth is the standard of living of the consumer, at bottom people are consumers, even those people working at that business that went bottom up. Everyone is working towards leisure, or to maximize their time as a consumer, because labor is always being done to achieve something else indirectly -- leisure. Sure, a business may have created a certain good, but what good does it do to give a business a monopoly on providing that thing, when it can be more efficiently provided by someone else? Meaning it can be supplied with similar quality at a lower cost, and more abundantly. Everyone, including the workers at the bankrupt business are better off, because the more efficient production methods have made the product cheaper and more abundant, which frees consumer's resources up for other things, making them richer.

 

[T.hill]

So they will innovate in order to differentiate their product? But if their product has features that are physically BETTER than their competition, their competitors won't be satisfied being different, they will copy whatever it is. Differentiation implies cosmetic differences linked to a marketing campaign, not huge differences in form and function. There are certain companies that really aren't that efficient production wise, but they're great innovators. If they don't get patents, they go belly up. (Keep in mind that usually the patents are sold)

Also, what's to stop a company from misrepresenting their product as their competitor? In China, there was a huge problem where cheap knockoff developers were using the Apple logo to trick people into buying garbage. Trademarks, licensing...etc are a huge deal in the marketplace that suppress fraud, and allow companies to differentiate without being outright imitated.

IP laws do provide a way to limit fraud and create more symmetrical information. However, just because a government can provide this doesn't mean the market can't, and do it just as well, if not better than the government. Online reviews and rating systems are an example of the market providing consumers with more symmetrical information. Business with the exclusive purpose of protecting consumers are formed to deal with this problem as well, such as the Better Business Bureau. Information asymmetry is problem that, like any other problem, creates a profit opportunity, because problems create a demand for something to solve said problem.

There are other ideas in development, such as using the blockchain to publicly record proof of authorship and brand ownership.

http://ledracapital.com/blog/2014/3/11/bitcoin-series-24-the-mega-master-blockchain-list

------------------------------------------

Ideas have real world value. They also have production time, experimentation expenses, opportunity cost....etc. They have a real world COST associated with them. If I dump all my time and energy into producing a physical thing, that thing is unique. No one else can have it unless they put in the same effort I did constructing it. Therefore I can sell this thing as a way of saving my customer that toil. However with an idea, you can just right click, copy and paste, and make a million more. This means that all of the production cost falls on the innovator, and everyone else gets the benefits for nothing. This actually punishes the innovator. Rather than an incentive to innovate, he actually has a huge disincentive.

If a person or entity is better at producing something than the innovating company that created it, then that implies that they are using different production methods, and thus independently formulated their own production plans that were different from the original creators of said product. Even if they are just copying another person, the demand will go to one of them and it is still likely differences in how they produce something will still exist. No one can have an absolute comparative advantage of doing everything just as well as another person or organization.

Because ideas have cost associated with their manufacture, they belong to the one who produced them. He/she has property rights associated with it, it's his labor manifested. It's his idea; his and his alone. From his brian, from his sweat and toil, who can argue that it doesn't belong to him? Defending intellectual property is totally logical, virtuous and correct.

You can physically own and transfer ownership of physical things, including the physical implementations and manifestations of an idea. However, the idea itself does not exist in reality as a tangible thing. Nothing is stopping another person from simultaneously coming up with the same idea. Ideas are not scarce the same way physical things are, thus you can't literally steal another persons idea. Also, regardless of the morality of taking another person's idea, tell me how you can protect your ownership of IP without the use of government, and with the purpose of IP considered, why it's even necessary?

The only reason some people fight this concept, is because they are doing mental gymnastics to try to build a fantasy world in their mind where there isn't a government. It's not logical, it doesn't flow from principle. It's just this artificial nonsensical position crudely jammed in, duct taped onto the free market world view. It's a form of backwards reasoning. We can't have a state, therefore----patents are bad. You've got your conclusion before your hypothesis. It really should be an indication that these ideas are wrong, and need to be re-examined.

I'm not saying we can't have a state, so therefore we cant have patents. I'm saying the purpose of IP laws can be provided through market processes, therefore IP laws are not really necessary. You missed the point of what I'm saying.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Differentiation can imply cosmetic differences, and it is true that marketing helps to differentiate products as well. It can imply differences in form and function too; maybe drastic, maybe modest. It's open-ended, as is innovation, it just means to set your product a part from those you are directly competing with. Also, the product must be different in a way that people like. It's not just that profit opportunities are waiting to be discovered, they must also be sufficiently taken advantage of. It's one thing to identify or become aware of something people want: it's another thing entirely to be able to make it real, and to make it so that it satisfies consumer preferences.

A good is not a physical thing, but a function or quality given to a tangible thing within the mind of an economic actor. Put simply, a good is something in reality that someone subjectively values for an end or goal it can achieve, or the utility it can provide. In a similar way that a weapon does not characterize one single thing, but instead describes the function of a tangible thing, or how it is being used. Although, that's not exactly equivalent, because a weapon is indicating a specific kind of good with a specific kind of purpose.

The last part of that paragraph makes the mistake of focusing on the welfare of the business at the expense of the consumer. If a business isn't as a good at producing a good, even though they made it, then it will lose out to a copy-cat business who are just better at making the product. Yes, without patents there isn't much stopping people from just making the same good, but outside of hurting a particular business, there are no negative effects to that happening. The reference point of economic growth is the standard of living of the consumer, at bottom people are consumers, even those people working at that business that went bottom up. Everyone is working towards leisure, or to maximize their time as a consumer, because labor is always being done to achieve something else indirectly -- leisure. Sure, a business may have created a certain good, but what good does it do to give a business a monopoly on providing that thing, when it can be more efficiently provided by someone else? Meaning it can be supplied with similar quality at a lower cost, and more abundantly. Everyone, including the workers at the bankrupt business are better off, because the more efficient production methods have made the product cheaper and more abundant, which frees consumer's resources up for other things, making them richer.

+ mega rep

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

If a person or entity is better at producing something than the innovating company that created it, then that implies that they are using different production methods, and thus independently formulated their own production plans that were different from the original creators of said product. Even if they are just copying another person, the demand will go to one of them and it is still likely differences in how they produce something will still exist. No one can have an absolute comparative advantage of doing everything just as well as another person or organization.

No one can have an absolute comparative advantage in everything. But if your competitor is saddled with R&D and you're not, that's a pretty huge comparative advantage wouldn't you say?

You can physically own and transfer ownership of physical things, including the physical implementations and manifestations of an idea. However, the idea itself does not exist in reality as a tangible thing. Nothing is stopping another person from simultaneously coming up with the same idea. Ideas are not scarce the same way physical things are, thus you can't literally steal another persons idea. Also, regardless of the morality of taking another person's idea, tell me how you can protect your ownership of IP without the use of government, and with the purpose of IP considered, why it's even necessary?

The reason property rights exist, the reason you can't just walk in and take someone else's house, or the food, or the money, is because all of these things represent a manifestation of their labor. I work, create value, and convert that value into the things I need. I produce 50 silicon diodes, and I convert those diodes into apples, oranges, furniture...whatever I desire. The reason my property is mine is because it represents my labor. This is the difference between being free, and being a slave. A slave does not own the sweat of their own brow.

This is why intellectual property is real. It's because it represents your labor, you worked to earn it. It doesn't matter if it's scarce or not. It's your labor manifested.

When you create an idea, in a perfect world you'd be the sole owner of that idea. You wouldn't tell anyone about it, it would be a total and complete secret known only to you. If anyone else wanted access to the idea, they would have to earn it the same way you did. After all, why would you tell everyone else. When you have an idea to yourself, you have a big competitive advantage? But as you can see, there are problems with this.

First of all, if everyone has their own little protected guilds where they guard the secrets of their craft, society can't advance very far. It's better to have ideas openly shared, where they can be combined, connected, and built upon later. For example, imagine if chemists discovered the periodic table, but didn't tell the physicists, how far would atomic theory have gotten? Imagine if Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect, but decided not to publish. Would we have television sets? A patent is designed to provide for the open sharing of information, this was it's original intention. You can feel free to tell your friends, your neighbors, your professors, your colleges, you are protected from the onus that someone will rip you off.

I suppose I could tell people about my idea, but make each and every one of them sign a contract of secrecy and terms of use first. But...again this is not practical. The government's deal is better. If you tell the public about your invention, you can have 20 years to develop it yourself. Afterwards, it's fair game for anyone. In the grand scheme of human existence, 20 years is a tick of the second hand of the clock. But in the lifetime of a human being, it's a very significant time period. Humanity gets inventions, the inventors get 20 years monopoly. It's a wonderful system. (For some fast moving industries, 20 years is too long. It's better to offer shorter patents, 2 years, 5 years...etc)

 

[T.hill]

No one can have an absolute comparative advantage in everything. But if your competitor is saddled with R&D and you're not, that's a pretty huge comparative advantage wouldn't you say?

As I said if some person or organization is better at producing things, despite not having invented it, then it follows that their production methods are different from that of the original innovating force. If both organizations are using the same production methods, then there isn't going to be a difference in output. Unless the laborers they employ are more productive, then the difference is simply having better or worse workers. In any event, does it matter? Someone is going to reap the benefits of producing something, and that is the company that satisfies consumer preferences better. This is good, because the entire purpose of a business is to serve other people, so allowing for a process that rewards the most effective businesses would further that goal.

The reason property rights exist, the reason you can't just walk in and take someone else's house, or the food, or the money, is because all of these things represent a manifestation of their labor. I work, create value, and convert that value into the things I need. I produce 50 silicon diodes, and I convert those diodes into apples, oranges, furniture...whatever I desire. The reason my property is mine is because it represents my labor. This is the difference between being free, and being a slave. A slave does not own the sweat of their own brow.

I'm not really interested in getting into the ethical foundations of property and rights. However, homesteading is a concept that attempts to describe how people end up owning things that's consistent with the NAP and the natural law framework. It wasn't intended to explain why people value things, or that value originates from labor. Value is subjective, meaning it originates within the mind of a person and a person values something because they personally like it.

When you create an idea, in a perfect world you'd be the sole owner of that idea. You wouldn't tell anyone about it, it would be a total and complete secret known only to you. If anyone else wanted access to the idea, they would have to earn it the same way you did. After all, why would you tell everyone else. When you have an idea to yourself, you have a big competitive advantage? But as you can see, there are problems with this.

First of all, if everyone has their own little protected guilds where they guard the secrets of their craft, society can't advance very far. It's better to have ideas openly shared, where they can be combined, connected, and built upon later. For example, imagine if chemists discovered the periodic table, but didn't tell the physicists, how far would atomic theory have gotten? Imagine if Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect, but decided not to publish. Would we have television sets? A patent is designed to provide for the open sharing of information, this was it's original intention. You can feel free to tell your friends, your neighbors, your professors, your colleges, you are protected from the onus that someone will rip you off.

I suppose I could tell people about my idea, but make each and every one of them sign a contract of secrecy and terms of use first. But...again this is not practical. The government's deal is better. If you tell the public about your invention, you can have 20 years to develop it yourself. Afterwards, it's fair game for anyone. In the grand scheme of human existence, 20 years is a tick of the second hand of the clock. But in the lifetime of a human being, it's a very significant time period. Humanity gets inventions, the inventors get 20 years monopoly. It's a wonderful system. (For some fast moving industries, 20 years is too long. It's better to offer shorter patents, 2 years, 5 years...etc)

I'm not sure why you think the absence of IP laws would restrict information. I might be mistaken, but you initially said that IP laws were necessary to protect from theft of those ideas. Implying that you think the ideas could be easily stolen in a condition without IP laws, and thus ideas and information provided from those ideas would be easily available. If secret guilds would arise without patents and IP that could conceal information, and therefore better protect ideas than IP laws, then I ask again; what is the need for IP laws?

 

[presence]

You are right. I didn't even read it. Though I have watched his talks and seen him interviewed on Stossel.

Okay. So I just opened up your link. It doesn't give a number for the cost to get drugs through FDA approval. It doesn't mention the word drugs once. And it is 70 pages. I don't know what I am supposed to be looking at.

It should be digested in whole.