Richard Dawkins and the biological attack on the free market

[DCLugi]

http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/how-free-competition-can-create-dumb-costs?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1458502240

[Wuzzums]

Written by another person with no experience whatsoever in the medical industry but with a lot of certainty that he does.

 

If big pharma were to spend 90% on r&d and 1% on marketing, will that be ideal for him? Whose to say r&d requires so much funding. Surely if a product works it's pointless to research it further and more essential to get it out in the market. Furthermore, how is marketing not part of research? More people using a product is indicative of the product's efficiency.

[Cuffy_Meigs]

Without trunks "the forest as a whole would be more efficient". What on earth does that mean? Not a view that any bird, insect, monkey or squirrel is likely to share. Nor the trees themselves once they were trampled or eaten.

[st434u]

It's funny that they chose the drug industry as an example of the market in function, when in reality the drugs and health care industry is one of the areas that is the most controlled and influenced by the State.

 

I personally believe that the drug companies are being efficient when they devote most of their expenses to advertising rather than R&D... Because at the end of the day they're just pushing drugs. And the people who buy the drugs buy them because they've been told to, not because the drugs are actually going to improve their health. So the drug companies are actually responding to market incentives, and being efficient by investing primarily in their main business model which is to push drugs, and the R&D is more of a secondary concern, the primary focus of which is to come up with new drugs that they can push on people who've already tried the existing drugs and didn't like them.