NationStates Jolt Archive

How can totally free capitalism generate non-vaccine research to prevent diseases rather than vaccines and medicines? Aren't it essential, or at least time saving, to use governmental control?

I don't think it can...that's why we have to use government and private funding for basic research. Otherwise, cures for diseases would lag treatments for them and that's hardly a morally desirable situation. In fact, not curing a disease because of the potential for lost profits is downright evil.

well that depends - do you value having 90 treatments for baldness or a decent ability to deal with epidemics?

Are there truly any pure capitalisms left in the world?

well that depends - do you value having 90 treatments for baldness or a decent ability to deal with epidemics?

Actually, I'd say it's more along the lines of an excellent ability to deal with epidemics; the stuff that government and educational institutions develop are way more advanced and more powerful than what the big pharmaceutical companies develop.

Not that hair loss shouldn't be prevented, but that's what the private sector is for. Let the government and universities deal with the stuff that can kill us.

If you open your eyes, you will see that not all research into disease control or treatment is by governments. The real question is why there are so many people who think the government is the most innovative and efficient way to deal with problems?

There are countless charities and non-profit foundations throughout the world spending billions of dollars in research on disease prevention and treatment. Generally speaking, the government is one of the worst places to look for innovation and creativity.

As far as the research is a requirement for future drug development, big pharmaceutical concerns will be involved.

Plus, ultimately not everything in capitalism needs to earn money. All it has to do is make someone happy enough to have them pay for it. As Entropic Creation said: It's downfull that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is ever going to earn money. But there are plenty of people who believe that what this foundation does is worthwhile enough to get a few dollars from them.

Progress and helping people are generally quite popular, so it wouldn't disappear just because we don't have forced income redistribution anymore.

Plus, ultimately not everything in capitalism needs to earn money. All it has to do is make someone happy enough to have them pay for it.
...
Progress and helping people are generally quite popular, so it wouldn't disappear just because we don't have forced income redistribution anymore.

relying on the whims of the rich and powerful just seems like a bad idea on the freedom and autonomy front. and why should we be at their mercy anyway? fuck that.

relying on the whims of the rich and powerful just seems like a bad idea on the freedom and autonomy front. and why should we be at their mercy anyway? fuck that.
Wanting to help people is a "whim" now?

I would like to hear from you who argue for nearly total night watchman state, if there are any of you here I believe I seen some at least similar opinions about welfare and governmental intervention.

I would like to hear from you who argue for nearly total night watchman state...
That would be me.

Are there truly any pure capitalisms left in the world?

Iraq?

Somalia?

Wanting to help people is a "whim" now?

Sure.

For many it is a passing whim as it's in vogue now.

The bigger the epidemic, the greater the market for your future cures. The bigger the potential epidemic, the greater the market to scaremonger your preventions to.

Wanting to help people is a "whim" now?

not per se, but your idea of how to harness that sentiment is absolutely dependent on individual whims.

To put it simply, if something is worth doing, the market will demand it. However, somethings are hard to sell to the market for a profit in their design. Nevertheless, an endless stream of cunning entrepreneurs guarantees that there is alsways a way to sell anything, if people will conceivably pay for it.

The bigger the epidemic, the greater the market for your future cures. The bigger the potential epidemic, the greater the market to scaremonger your preventions to.

except for the little fact that there is much much much more money to be made in selling treatments for balding than there is in giving vaccines to poor people

I would like to hear from you who argue for nearly total night watchman state, if there are any of you here I believe I seen some at least similar opinions about welfare and governmental intervention.
That would be me, if by 'night watchamn' you mean the kind that intially rocks up to work, sleeps the whole night, then forgets to come the next day, and finally is told simply to go home indefinitely upon the next shift.

To put it simply, if something is worth doing, the market will demand it. However, somethings are hard to sell to the market for a profit in their design. Nevertheless, an endless stream of cunning entrepreneurs guarantees that there is alsways a way to sell anything, if people will conceivably pay for it.

To a degree, yes. But the really intensive theoretical and basic research that underpins the things that come to market may not have any kind of guaranteed return on investment, and some discoveries have no commercial application at all.

It's that kind of knowledge that has to be pursued by the public sector, since there are a lot of valuable and cutting edge ideas that would have never been brought to market were it not for the work of public-sector researchers.

To put it simply, if something is worth doing as determined by those with enough wealth to matter, "the market" will demand it.

fixed

except for the little fact that there is much much much more money to be made in selling treatments for balding than there is in giving vaccines to poor people
Mutually exclusive?

Anyhow, that is nonsense. Poor people is where the market is at. I ask you, would you rather own the company that found the cure to aids, or the one that had found the cure for hair loss. Do you want to sell a non-essential cure to a limited market of bald men, who may or may not want your cure, or do you want to sell an AIDs vaccine to millions worldwide who will die if they do not take the said vaccine?

You can have the baldness cures. Noob.

fixed
Who do you think has the biggest sway on market demand? The top 50% or the bottom 50%? Let me give you a clue. There are more people creating a demand for goods and services in the lower half.

To a degree, yes. But the really intensive theoretical and basic research that underpins the things that come to market may not have any kind of guaranteed return on investment, and some discoveries have no commercial application at all. If it is worthwhile, and has the potential to effect positive change, there is a commercial application with a reliable return on investment. All it takes is an appropriate business model (often, admittedly the tricky part).

It's that kind of knowledge that has to be pursued by the public sector, since there are a lot of valuable and cutting edge ideas that would have never been brought to market were it not for the work of public-sector researchers. Give me an example, I am skeptical.

Anyhow, that is nonsense. Poor people is where the market is at.

you can't be this stupid.


I ask you, would you rather own the company that found the cure to aids, or the one that had found the cure for hair loss. Do you want to sell a non-essential cure to a limited market of bald men, who may or may not want your cure, or do you want to sell an AIDs vaccine to millions worldwide who will die if they do not take the said vaccine?

You can have the baldness cures. Noob.

me, i'd rather cure aids. but since the vast majority of people who will be getting my cure will be utterly unable to pay for it, i'ma expropriating your wealth to give it to them regardless.

Who do you think has the biggest sway on market demand? The top 50% or the bottom 50%? Let me give you a clue. There are more people creating a demand for goods and services in the lower half.

this is some new usage of the word 'half' with which i am unfamiliar

If it is worthwhile, and has the potential to effect positive change, there is a commercial application with a reliable return on investment. [B]All it takes is an appropriate business model (often, admittedly the tricky part).[/b/]

Which is why the biotechs not only do better financially but produce more cures and innovations than the pharmaceutical companies.

The problem with Big Pharma is that it relies on existing products for its revenue rather than consistent innovation, with the result being that they are more likely to focus on developing treatments rather than cures.

Give me an example, I am skeptical.

The internet? Nuclear power? Quantum computing? Recall that the phone companies had their own system designed for data transfer, but when the internet was developed originally by researchers at DARPA and later various universities it displaced the other system because it was technologically superior.

It wasn't until after the internet was developed and html/hyperlinks were invented that it became a commercial success. All of the basic research was done by the public sector.

To put it simply, if something is worth doing, the market will demand it.
To put it simply, that's either circular reasoning or an unproven myth.
Funnily enough for some bizaare reason it often seems that rather than things arising because their worthwhileness causes the market to demand them, that consumers only begin to demand these things when convinced by marketing that they are worthwhile. Go figure huh.

you can't be this stupid. I see. Yet again, it seems you have not failed to disappoint. Why would I expect a communist to understand economics anyhow?

me, i'd rather cure aids. but since the vast majority of people who will be getting my cure will be utterly unable to pay for it, i'ma expropriating your wealth to give it to them regardless. Oh I'm sure they can pay. Especially since their demand will be capped by their means, which will affect the demand curve on the demand/supply graph, which in turn sets the price. Even provided this, I guarantee that it will be far above and beyond cost price. plus, I am sure there would be an endless well of organisations (primarily charities and governments) interested in purchasing for those that could not.

this is some new usage of the word 'half' with which i am unfamiliar
Half as in 50%. Half of total market wealth. The top sector of which is held by far fewer people than the bottom. Yet, demand will be ruled by the poorer half by an extremely higher margin.

Half as in 50%. Half of total market wealth. The top sector of which is held by far fewer people than the bottom. Yet, demand will be ruled by the poorer half by an extremely higher margin.

How can they force demand when they can't pay for the medicine?

Half as in 50%. Half of total market wealth.

That's a totally meaningless measure in the context of this discussion.

You would have to consider not the bottom 50% of wealth, but the bottom 50% of PEOPLE.

Oh I'm sure they can pay.

no. they can't. seriously, do you have the slightest grasp of the distribution of wealth and the relative rates of aids infection in the world?

How can totally free capitalism generate non-vaccine research to prevent diseases rather than vaccines and medicines? Aren't it essential, or at least time saving, to use governmental control?

For one thing, it takes one company who seeks a competitive advantage to develop a preventative measure. Not only does the competitor establish a huge market in which it is the only supplier, but it also immediately renders all of its competitor's products obsolete.

If there were but one provider of healthcare, this would be an issue, but sense there are multiple providers, there is ample motivation there.

It is the government funnelling of huge sums of money to big pharmaceutical that limits rival entrants and the bureaucratic lobby pleasers at the FDA that renders the process sluggish.

1.) Health insurance, in an effort to lower premiums and increase profits, will fund this type of research so as to reduce their costs.
2.) Private cities, in order to maintain and improve their property values, will help what might be called public health. Nothing damages property values like a plague.

what might be called public health.

A good title, because in many respects it qualifies as what might be called a "public good."

1.) Health insurance, in an effort to lower premiums and increase profits, will fund this type of research so as to reduce their costs.

No not really. Have any examples?


2.) Private cities, in order to maintain and improve their property values, will help what might be called public health. Nothing damages property values like a plague.


Only for a short time. A bunch of empty property could become a goldmine.

No not really. Have any examples?

http://www.aetna.com/news/1997/pr_19970123.htm

Only for a short time. A bunch of empty property could become a goldmine.

Maybe in Nonsensicalvania, where people don't mind the occasional outbreak of plague and where headlines like "OUTBREAK CLEANS OUT CITY QUARTER" have no impact on business.

No not really. Have any examples?

http://www.aetna.com/foundation/

Health insurers have probably the most vested interest of any company to keep their customers alive and healthy as much as possible; I mean, the fewer people getting sick or dying is that many more people making their payments each month, and that many people fewer drawing on their resources.

So, they do generally fund a lot of research in to these things. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if health insurers weren't the biggest source of corporate research funding in to cures for degenerative diseases, since a cure for cancer or Parkinson's would save them massive amounts of money and greatly increase their profits in the long term.

For one thing, it takes one company who seeks a competitive advantage to develop a preventative measure. Not only does the competitor establish a huge market in which it is the only supplier, but it also immediately renders all of its competitor's products obsolete.
Not necessarily. You see if I were to seek a competitive advantage and in so doing discover that a particular daily dosage of salt will cure cancer, where is my advantage? I cannot prevent other's from distributing salt or describing a dosage. If in fact I have a far less effective cancer treatment on the market, the most advantageous thing I can do about my salt discovery is keep it very, very, very quiet. That way, I can continue to sell the less effecitve cancer treatment I have a monopoloy on and which no one would want or buy if they knew what I knew about salt.
No one wants to compete to discover the next 'anyone may sell it' disprin. What is wanted is difficult to analyse, artificially produced, patentable compounds that one can achieve a monopoly. Given a choice between letting everyone know the weed in their back yard will cure cancer, and there goes all profits on current cancer medications as well as any perspective profit from research into unrealised medicines/dispensing methods/etc with not a thing to replace it, or continuing to sell their less effective, expensive medicines that they hold a patent and monopoly, which way do you think any business interested in staying in business is going to go?

If there were but one provider of healthcare, this would be an issue, but sense there are multiple providers, there is ample motivation there.
Yeah and that motivation is to create profit not to improve health or avoid illness/injury. If promoting the health and wellbeing of those they make their money from jeopardises profits, at the end of the day, commercial health providers are businesses - their primary purpose is to make money by providing health services, not to provide health services in preference to making money.

It is the government funnelling of huge sums of money to big pharmaceutical that limits rival entrants and the bureaucratic lobby pleasers at the FDA that renders the process sluggish.
Sounds like an administrative issue rather than an actual issue that speaks to the efficiency of various systems. You are going to get flashyness equating to nepotism in any system, be it nepotism of companies by government, or of particular employees within either government or companies. People and groups who dont deserve their position as much as some other people or group who are missing out, is pretty much a constant in human affairs. We've (the human race) got a bit of a thing for style over substance. Frankly I think it's at least a 'primate thing', and as likely as not a 'mammal thing' so good luck clearing that out of the works any time soon, regardless what system of resource management you employ.

Maybe in Nonsensicalvania, where people don't mind the occasional outbreak of plague and where headlines like "OUTBREAK CLEANS OUT CITY QUARTER" have no impact on business.

What about Outbreak cleans out Beverly Hills or Hawaii? Nobody would want to live there anymore? People would be scheming on the money possibilities.

You give people as a whole too much credit. We have people that are sueing to move back into the Love canal.

Are there truly any pure capitalisms left in the world?

Were there ever any ever?

The OP is correct, as any economics textbook will tell you.

There are some goods and services which have a value greater than that of their market price. Without government intervention (eg subsidies to consumers, or grants to producers and researchers) they will be under-produced.

Also, I believe Soheran is right - I doubt there has ever been a pure capitalist economy.

The OP is correct, as any economics textbook will tell you.
Any first-year textbook. ;)

But that's not important. A "night-watchman" state should very much be able to create markets where there are none and facilitate the trade in externalities, both positive and negative ones.

A "night-watchman" state should very much be able to create markets where there are none and facilitate the trade in externalities, both positive and negative ones.

Yes but, getting back to the OP, that is not a pure capitalist state.

What about Outbreak cleans out Beverly Hills or Hawaii? Nobody would want to live there anymore? People would be scheming on the money possibilities.

Well, assuming away that the property would be inherited by others, or that people may come back, etc., that the property truly and legitimately became cleaned out... would you want to live in a place that happened to have a huge outbreak that killed thousands of people, knowing that it could happen again? You yourself would be more reluctant to buy that property, ceteris paribus, because you don't particularly care to die from smallpox. It would be even worse if the city owner gave so much as an appearance of letting the plague go nuts- people don't want to trust their lives to someone who has a record of killing.

Now, apply that thought to an entire population of people, and you will see people unwilling to buy, thus causing a drop in property values, thus hurting the profit margins of the city which depends upon ever-increasing property values. It's very bad business for them to just let people die.

You give people as a whole too much credit. We have people that are sueing to move back into the Love canal.

But I have very serious misgivings that Love Canal land has any significant value. (Would you want to live in a chemical waste dump?) Sure, there might be the odd person who wants to go and live in a disaster area, but most people will not, and as a result property values will suffer. If your business was based upon increasing property values, you would avoid anything like this.

(As an interesting note, the whole problem with Love Canal is that a schoolboard expropriated this waste dump from Hooker Chemical despite the latter's warnings, and even a warning in the closing part of the deed to the property. Had it been an investor trying to find a nice place for people to live, as opposed to a bureaucratic school board, the investor would have placed his money in a place with a higher return than a waste dump, not to mention that he would not have been able to expropriate it away.)

Well, assuming away that the property would be inherited by others, or that people may come back, etc., that the property truly and legitimately became cleaned out... would you want to live in a place that happened to have a huge outbreak that killed thousands of people, knowing that it could happen again? You yourself would be more reluctant to buy that property, ceteris paribus, because you don't particularly care to die from smallpox.

and this explains why europe has the population density of wyoming...

Were there ever any ever?

Well, some would say Somalia...

*shrugs*

Not necessarily. You see if I were to seek a competitive advantage and in so doing discover that a particular daily dosage of salt will cure cancer, where is my advantage? I cannot prevent other's from distributing salt or describing a dosage. If in fact I have a far less effective cancer treatment on the market, the most advantageous thing I can do about my salt discovery is keep it very, very, very quiet. That way, I can continue to sell the less effecitve cancer treatment I have a monopoloy on and which no one would want or buy if they knew what I knew about salt.
No one wants to compete to discover the next 'anyone may sell it' disprin. What is wanted is difficult to analyse, artificially produced, patentable compounds that one can achieve a monopoly. Given a choice between letting everyone know the weed in their back yard will cure cancer, and there goes all profits on current cancer medications as well as any perspective profit from research into unrealised medicines/dispensing methods/etc with not a thing to replace it, or continuing to sell their less effective, expensive medicines that they hold a patent and monopoly, which way do you think any business interested in staying in business is going to go?

I don't put much weight into the prediction that major pharmaceutical companies with huge R&D investment would stumble upon a household cure while small independent researchers would not. Very common good or resource are exceedingly likely to have their chemical properties known and would therefore be very easily identified as a "miracle" cure.

Yeah and that motivation is to create profit not to improve health or avoid illness/injury. If promoting the health and wellbeing of those they make their money from jeopardises profits, at the end of the day, commercial health providers are businesses - their primary purpose is to make money by providing health services, not to provide health services in preference to making money.

You just repeated the argument that I refuted.

While a company with an established treatment or cure may be lethargic in continuing R&D it would be disastrous, as all of its competitors will be supremely interested in establishing a better treatment or more efficient cure.

At all times competition moves producers to provide higher utility to the consumer.

Sounds like an administrative issue rather than an actual issue that speaks to the efficiency of various systems. You are going to get flashyness equating to nepotism in any system, be it nepotism of companies by government, or of particular employees within either government or companies. People and groups who dont deserve their position as much as some other people or group who are missing out, is pretty much a constant in human affairs. We've (the human race) got a bit of a thing for style over substance. Frankly I think it's at least a 'primate thing', and as likely as not a 'mammal thing' so good luck clearing that out of the works any time soon, regardless what system of resource management you employ.

Government is a far greater practitioner of nepotism than business simply by virtue of their respective natures.

relying on the whims of the rich and powerful just seems like a bad idea on the freedom and autonomy front. and why should we be at their mercy anyway? fuck that.

As opposed to relying on those just out to make political gain? No thanks.

No government official has any vested interest in your health. Big pharma companies stand to lose profits if they screw up, but the FDA can and does screw up all the time and no one ever holds them accountable.

I don't put much weight into the prediction that major pharmaceutical companies with huge R&D investment would stumble upon a household cure while small independent researchers would not.
Why not? We regualarly hear of research that has uncovered a benefit or harm in a common food stuff.
As it happens plenty of anti-carciogenic substances have been found in very common foods (for instance many fruit and vegetables are high in anti-oxidants which are understood to be anti-carciogenic) over the last few decades - now we know about anti-oxidants, we find them all about the place, before we knew, we didnt know to look for them.

The medical solution for a boil other than one that is so severe and established it has to be lanced, is to apply a topical medicinal cream. The topical creams commercially available are very expensive. I can cure boils that dont require lancing (ie the kind treated by these expensive medicinal creams) with nothing more than a couple of tablespoons of sugar, some soap shavings and warm water. Do you think the companies selling their expensive and utterly unnecessary topical treatments for boils are counting on most people being ignorant of how easily they can cure boils using ingrediants just about everyone in the Western world has in their home?

Very common good or resource are exceedingly likely to have their chemical properties known and would therefore be very easily identified as a "miracle" cure.
Except scientists continue to make discoveries involving common resources.

You just repeated the argument that I refuted.
No I didnt, you failed to understand what was argued.

While a company with an established treatment or cure may be lethargic in continuing R&D it would be disastrous, as all of its competitors will be supremely interested in establishing a better treatment or more efficient cure.
I dont expect them to be lethargic at all. What I am stating is that if revealing a discovery is unprofitable and an entity exists for the purpose of making a profit, that entity is hardly going to tout discoveries that eliminate their profit. I'm not claiming they wont make the discovery, but until they can find a way to hide the significant ingrediant in a compound, they are not going to take it to market. Unless they can gain a monopoly though an exclusive patent they do not gain a single advantage because anyone can market and sell their 'cure'.


At all times competition moves producers to provide higher utility to the consumer.
No, the pursuit of profit motivates profitable behaviour. If X can cure cancer and there is no way that a company currently selling cancer cures can get a monopoly on X then that company doesnt want anyone else knowing about X.
Competition doesnt move producers to intentionally eliminate their own means of making a profit.

Government is a far greater practitioner of nepotism than business simply by virtue of their respective natures.
That's easy for you to say, just as it's easy for me to say "business is a far greater practitioner of nepotism than government simply by virtue of their respective natures.

Any first-year textbook. ;)

But that's not important. A "night-watchman" state should very much be able to create markets where there are none and facilitate the trade in externalities, both positive and negative ones.
I thought it's meant to limit itself to the provision of law, order, defense and perhaps roads, and no more than that. Otherwise it's merely a fiscally conservative state.

Why not? We regualarly hear of research that has uncovered a benefit or harm in a common food stuff.
As it happens plenty of anti-carciogenic substances have been found in very common foods (for instance many fruit and vegetables are high in anti-oxidants which are understood to be anti-carciogenic) over the last few decades - now we know about anti-oxidants, we find them all about the place, before we knew, we didnt know to look for them.

The medical solution for a boil other than one that is so severe and established it has to be lanced, is to apply a topical medicinal cream. The topical creams commercially available are very expensive. I can cure boils that dont require lancing (ie the kind treated by these expensive medicinal creams) with nothing more than a couple of tablespoons of sugar, some soap shavings and warm water. Do you think the companies selling their expensive and utterly unnecessary topical treatments for boils are counting on most people being ignorant of how easily they can cure boils using ingrediants just about everyone in the Western world has in their home?

Except scientists continue to make discoveries involving common resources.


Again, major companies are not going to research the medicinal properties of soap, sugar, and warm water, while small independent researchers might. The independent researchers are much more likely to earn their income from the immediate release of their findings (medical journals, etc.), and since they are not reliant on a huge return, low cost research would be their specialty.

As for the chemical properties of certain goods already in production, there is ample desire of those companies already producing these goods to uncover the added benefits of consumption. They will be the ones looking for this, and they will be very happy to release it.

Is it a possibility that a researcher for a company stumbles upon unknown benefits of another company's product? It is negligible, but yes, the possibility exists. Is it a possibility that the researcher will be hushed and that the info never reaches the rival company? It is negligible, but yes the possibility exists.

No, the pursuit of profit motivates profitable behaviour.

You can issue tautologies that repeat that evil concept of "profit" all you want. Profitable behavior, on the market, is behavior that satisfies the wants of the consumer.

If X can cure cancer and there is no way that a company currently selling cancer cures can get a monopoly on X then that company doesnt want anyone else knowing about X.
Competition doesnt move producers to intentionally eliminate their own means of making a profit.

It does not matter if a monopoly is held. Any company that has a share of a market for a product will be estatic to find out that the product they produce cures cancer.

Profit, no matter how you look at it, is what is left over of selling revenue when costs are taken out. If this great utility is found in a product, the market states that the revenue will increase, while there will be no increase in the cost of production. Therefore simply making the utility known is a means for profit.

That's easy for you to say, just as it's easy for me to say "business is a far greater practitioner of nepotism than government simply by virtue of their respective natures.

Business suffers from nepotism.

Again, major companies are not going to research the medicinal properties of soap, sugar, and warm water, while small independent researchers might. The independent researchers are much more likely to earn their income from the immediate release of their findings (medical journals, etc.), and since they are not reliant on a huge return, low cost research would be their specialty.
Hang on, are you now stating that the big companies might be lethargic in researching certain things? Wouldnt the desire for competive advantage make them research any and everything that appears at all promising?

The point is they dont have to be researching soap, they might be researching some compound and find it effective, they might tinker to find out what is the significant aspect of the compound in terms of its function and discover that it's some derivitive thereof that is commonly avaible and not patentable. That being the case, they are not going to tell all of us about it.

As for the chemical properties of certain goods already in production, there is ample desire of those companies already producing these goods to uncover the added benefits of consumption. They will be the ones looking for this, and they will be very happy to release it.
Oh please, a foodstuff manufacturer is going to have huge labs set up to test for potential medical benefits of their goods. Well that explains why it was farmers rather than medical scientists who revealed the properties of anti-oxidants and their presence in high levels in tomatoes....oh wait a moment.

Is it a possibility that a researcher for a company stumbles upon unknown benefits of another company's product? It is negligible, but yes, the possibility exists. Is it a possibility that the researcher will be hushed and that the info never reaches the rival company? It is negligible, but yes the possibility exists.
They are not working with 'products' when they do research, they are working with compounds. More likely than the unlikely scenarios you are positing is discovery of a compound that it turns out remains effective when reduced. They might be working on a complex string of amino acids and find that only a portion of them are needed and funnily that portion in isolotion happens to be the protein X found commonly in seaweed, or as a by-product of wheat fermintation, or some other thing.

You can issue tautologies that repeat that evil concept of "profit" all you want. Profitable behavior, on the market, is behavior that satisfies the wants of the consumer.
No need to get tiffy with faced with a factual statement that you feel has negative connotations. Nowhere have I said a single word about profit being an evil concept. You can have a rant at a strawman instead of addressing the plain facts of the situation or you can accept the less desirable elements of something you apparently view as generally positive. I dont live in a simple world and I have no need to take up an idealised black and white view in which to be good something can have no flaw. I happen to like capitalism and think it's probably the best solution currently applicable to our world in terms of distributing and managing our resources. So you can beat that strawman in your world of polemism, or you can take a more nuanced look at reality and realise that pointing out imperfection is not at all the same as calling something evil.

It does not matter if a monopoly is held. Any company that has a share of a market for a product will be estatic to find out that the product they produce cures cancer.
But the point you miss is that they probably wont find out. Even if you do, I find your notion factually wrong. I've been to Chelsea's website, I've read the lables on their sugar, I've seen their adverts. In all of this, not once have I ever encountered any advisement from Chealsea as to the boil healing uses of sugar. Neither has any soap company that I know of touted the boil healing value of their product. Actually you can make a similar poltice using wheatbread.....never seen a producer of wheatbread inform anyone of that fact though.

Profit, no matter how you look at it, is what is left over of selling revenue when costs are taken out. If this great utility is found in a product, the market states that the revenue will increase, while there will be no increase in the cost of production. Therefore simply making the utility known is a means for profit.
How absurd. If you dont manufacture that product but instead manufacture and market a much more expensive product with a larger margin than the alternative you have discovered, you are not going to make more money by letting everyone know that they can get the same or better utility for less cost from a product that you dont sell.

Business suffers from nepotism.
So does government. In my opinion the worst nepotites tend to have a finger in both pies, hence the bi-directional rot.

Vaccines are the current treatment for prevention of disease.

Getting a vaccine after you have tetanus is like getting double the tetanus!

Hang on, are you now stating that the big companies might be lethargic in researching certain things? Wouldnt the desire for competive advantage make them research any and everything that appears at all promising?

No business will at all times commit research to all markets.

The point is they dont have to be researching soap, they might be researching some compound and find it effective, they might tinker to find out what is the significant aspect of the compound in terms of its function and discover that it's some derivitive thereof that is commonly avaible and not patentable. That being the case, they are not going to tell all of us about it.

And the instances of a company stumbling upon this information and this information not making it to those who might stand to make a profit from it is very negligible.

So in extreme situations of independent research (so extreme that I doubt their existence) it is possible for a company to stumple upon chemical properties of a common good whose market they possess no part of, and in this event they are likely to bar this information from becoming known.

Oh please, a foodstuff manufacturer is going to have huge labs set up to test for potential medical benefits of their goods. Well that explains why it was farmers rather than medical scientists who revealed the properties of anti-oxidants and their presence in high levels in tomatoes....oh wait a moment.

Who do you think is funding the antioxidant research or pushing this antioxidant craze that is going on? It certainly isn't all (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/antioxidants) of the (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_45846.html) experts (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-12-12-antioxidants_x.htm).

But the point you miss is that they probably wont find out. Even if you do, I find your notion factually wrong. I've been to Chelsea's website, I've read the lables on their sugar, I've seen their adverts. In all of this, not once have I ever encountered any advisement from Chealsea as to the boil healing uses of sugar. Neither has any soap company that I know of touted the boil healing value of their product. Actually you can make a similar poltice using wheatbread.....never seen a producer of wheatbread inform anyone of that fact though.

So I guess you have some internal source that the entirety of big sugar does not?

No business will at all times commit research to all markets.
I know this, I wasnt sure if you did. After all you've claimed in response to my assertion that big companies might shy away from announcing certain discoveries that they wouldnt be lethargic in conducting the research, then that they wouldnt research it but product manufacturers will somehow stumble on uses for their products because apparently they do research every possible market for their product, even though you know that no business commits research to all markets......

And the instances of a company stumbling upon this information and this information not making it to those who might stand to make a profit from it is very negligible.
Because you say so? Oh well that's me convinced.....

So in extreme situations of independent research (so extreme that I doubt their existence) it is possible for a company to stumple upon chemical properties of a common good whose market they possess no part of, and in this event they are likely to bar this information from becoming known.
Of course it is possible.

Who do you think is funding the antioxidant research or pushing this antioxidant craze that is going on? It certainly isn't all (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/antioxidants) of the (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_45846.html) experts (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-12-12-antioxidants_x.htm).


Thank you for highlighting another concern. Where there is profit to be made some people are going to claim things that are not true if it will make them a profit. Now if everyone involved is tainted with the 'maybe they are saying it just to make money brush' who do we trust?


So I guess you have some internal source that the entirety of big sugar does not?
What are you on about? You stated that a company will pursue whatever advantage its product brings and then will market that advantage. Yet I know how to use sugar to get rid of a boil and Chelsea are not marketing this fact. Either they dont know so you are dead wrong to assume a producer will discover the uses for their products (after all it's no big secret, how do you think people dealt with boils before commerically available topical creams - wish them away perhaps?), or they know and dont market it so you're wrong on that count. Either way, you are wrong. My grandmother told me how to make a poultice using ingrediants around the home and I've encountered (and trialed) other recipes. The one's I have tried have in most cases been as effective as the topical treatments sold commercially and in the case of grandmother's recipe, apparently somewhat better (certainly faster working).

In short, I dont know if 'big sugar' knows how to make a poultice using their product, but I do know that if you were not wrong on one count or the other, they'd both know about it and market their product accordingly, and yet.....they dont.