We are faced with a serious problem, one requiring the full faith and credit of the free market. We need to unleash resources and creativity. That’s what markets do best, right?
The problem is drug-resistant bacteria and diseases that cannot be cured with existing strains of antibiotics. Yet market incentives are perverse. The marketplace is just as often our enemy as our friend.
This is from an article by Jerome Groopman in the New Yorker, Superbugs, August 11/18 issue:
In the past, large pharmaceutical companies were the primary sources of antibiotic research. But many of these companies have abandoned the field. “Eli Lilly and Company developed the first cephalosporins,” Moellering told me, referring to familiar drugs like Keflex. “They developed a huge number of important anti-microbial agents. They had incredible chemistry and incredible research facilities, and, unfortunately, they have completely pulled out of it now. After Squibb merged with Bristol-Myers, they closed their antibacterial program,” he said, as did Abbott, which developed key agents in the past treatment of gram-negative bacteria. A recent assessment of progress in the field, from U.C.L.A., concluded, “FDA approval of new antibacterial agents decreased by 56 per cent over the past 20 years (1998-2002 vs. 1983-1987),” noting that, in the researchers’ projection of future development only six of the five hundred and six drugs currently being developed were new antibacterial agents. Drug companies are looking for blockbuster therapies that must be taken daily for decades, drugs like Lipitor, for high cholesterol, or Zyprexa, for psychiatric disorders, used by millions of people and generating many billions of dollars each year. Antibiotics are used to treat infections, and are therefore prescribed only for days or weeks. (The exception is the use of antibiotics in livestock, which is both a profit-driver and a potential cause of antibiotic resistance.)
If there is a solution to this problem, it will come from the college campuses and the National Institute of Health – government sources. The market is not helping – in fact – is structurally unable to help. This phenomenon is known as “market failure” – the public is disserved by the profit motive. In such situations, government has to intervene to provide for the greater good.
It’s interesting – I realized as I wrote those words that in the past in my exchanges with Dave Budge (a libertarian conservative Republican who at any given time denies affiliation to any of those three schools), he claimed not to grasp the concepts of “market failure” and “greater good”. Ayn Rand herself did not believe in individuals sacrificing to a greater good – that is, she did not think there was any point in people serving anything but their own self-interest. Perhaps libertarianism, a sideshow that has much greater currency in leadership circles than among the general population, is a failed philosophy.
Superbugs are a common problem affecting all of us. Those institutions that profit from the public’s need for drugs have an obligation to step in and help us solve the problem. But they’re not – they’re busy doing the self-interest thing. Rand would be proud.
Piece of Mindful 
If you’re going to talk about me you could at least tell the facts.
A) I am a libertarian (not a Libertarian.)
B) I am both “liberal” and “conservative.” Depends on the issue.
C) I am not a Republican.
D) I am not an objectivist (as you try to link me to Rand.)
E) I have never been in doubt about market failures – never, not once. Although I’m often skeptical about Market Cures.
F) I have an deep understanding of the “greater good.” It simply is much different than yours.
What I am technically is a libertarian minarchist.
I know you don;t like to clutter your mind with such things.
As for the point about the drug companies, well, I would say that 1% of all research devoted to antibiotics likely reflects the size of the problem.
LikeLike
Didn’t think you came here anymore.
I distinctly remember you saying, at your site, that you did not know what on earth I meant by market failure. Your attitude was, as you stated with your inane “1%” statement, that when the market doesn’t address a problem, that the problem need not be addressed.
Secondly, I ought to keep a file on you, as you have also said that you don’t know what I mean by greater good. I took that to mean that you were in agreement with Rand’s hypothesis that people acting for the good of other people were fools.
This is the first time you have ever used the word “minarchist” though the concept is certainly not new. That concept is, as I say, a minority view. Most people want government to address greater good, and have installed programs to do so all over the globe. Those who hold your viewpoint have been hard at work tearing down those programs by force. Your’s is a view that depends on violence against the public and suppression of the public will to exist.
LikeLike
“Violence”? What can you possibly mean? Tearing down these programs by force? Show me an example. Where have libertarians ever used violence to tear down the state?
And, BTW, simply because I don’t know what may have meant by “greater good” doesn’t mean that I don’t have my own definition.
LikeLike
Chile, 1973, Argentina, 1970’s, Russia 1990’s, Chicago boys, Indonesia, 1960’s, Berekeley boys. Violence, death, disappearances, blood in the street.
Now distance yourself.
LikeLike
You haven’t shown a single relationship to libertarian ideology with those. Not one. You have no grounding to put me at the feet of those who you blame. They weren’t libertarians.
The primary tenet of libertarianism is non-violence and non-coercion. Better study up on your ideologies. Why do you think Ron Paul is against war (and not just the current one/two?)Of course I can’t name any names or I’ll be accused of some (non-existent) fallacy. But if you actually studied political ideology you’d know how wrong you are.
Reference here
LikeLike
This is where you lose me – the neocons and neolibs are as anti-government as anyone, demanding selloff of public enterprises ans shutdown of government programs in exchange for IMF loans. When things have not gone their way, as with Serbia, they have attacked. These are people who share your less government is good government philosophy.
You distance yourself from them as kind of an ideological purist representing a philosophy that is supported by what – 1-2% of the population? If that? If that’s the case, if you are unwilling to associate with the people who are doing your heavy lifting, if you cannot see that your philosophy;hy will never be voluntarily adopted by any country, that your only chance of seeing it implemented is by violence and intrigue, then you are just a sideshow.
LikeLike
Neocons aren’t the least anti-government (look at the growth of government under Bush.) And I don’t know what a neo-lib is. Exchanging one government program (selloff of public enterprises) for another pseudo-government program (the IMF) isn’t minimalist government in any sense.
Bill Crystol and David Brooks (neocons both) consider themselves to be “Hamiltonian Republicans”, which is to say that they think government should be used to advance conservative causes. I disagree with them outright.
And I challenge you further to show me where I have ever advocated war at any time. The closest I’ve ever come to it was to ponder the question of the morality of us pulling out of Iraq after we fucked it up so badly. But I have, in fact, remained agnostic on that issue. And for the record, I was against our enterprise in the Balkans. – both times.
Call me a “sideshow” if you want. And yes, I understand my uber-minority status. That, however, doesn’t invalidate the ideology. As a libertarian I know that “the ideal” is unattainable – a least in my lifetime. I don’t delude myself. But pushing toward an ideal seems to be something of value. Does it not? Is it valuable to you to push for the ideal of government intervention to solve human suffering?
Who, then, would be more unrealistic?
LikeLike
The impetus behind the neocons is the Chicago School, and I assure you they all read Atlas. This is where the real work of the no-government movement is going on … that you are off to the side theorizing about how it should work? Quaint! I’m talking about how it really works, how it is really implemented.
Anyway, I thought I was bad with the idealistic stuff – maybe I’ve outgrown it? And maybe you tough-minded characters get soft as you get older?
Neolibs are neoliberals – Clintonites and the like. There’s really no difference between neolibs and neocons – they are not new, they are neither conservative or liberal, and they are very much alike.
I’ve never advocated a war either. I thought Iraq was a big lie. Turned out I was right.
LikeLike
If you’re referring to the Chicago School as the U of Chicago Econ program then you’re quite wrong about their impact on neoconservatives. Neocons are more likely to support corporate subsidies and social engineering (like faith-based initiatives) which libertarians detest.
Perhaps your confusing this with a U of C professor of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, who is often cited at the father of the neo-conservative movement. I think you’re confusing the influences. Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss as was Irving Crystol.
LikeLike
Perhaps I lump all the Chicago boys together. We are talking apples and oranges, as libertarians have nothing to do with any of this, having no real power.
But the anti-government philosophy, privatization, ending of government support programs, contracting out of government services to private companies – I see it coming from the “liberal” side, and the “neocon” side in equal doses and wonder why people think people who seek the same goals have differing philosophies. Ask any Latin American government whether there was any difference in the World Bank under Wolfowitz as anyone before him. Strauss or Freidman – same difference.
Honestly, I don’t take philosophy seriously when people are feeding at the public trough – no matter the window dressing, the product is always the same – access to tax revenues, the commons, and freedom from regulation. It’s universal.
LikeLike
I think you’re wrong about the anti-government philosophy of both camps. There is nothing anti-government about allowing rent seeking. It’s simply the direction in which taxpayer money is funneled. That, which separates the philosophy.
I’m against all corporate subsidies but there are even individual subsidies that support corporations – like the tax credit for buying a hybrid car. Also, the issue of fairness needs to be addressed. Is the mortgage deduction fair to the working poor?
But Strauss and Friedman are not cut of the same cloth and, just a suggestion, if you’re going to fight an enemy it serves you to understand their weapons. Lumping them both together seems intellectually lazy to me.
LikeLike
That’s why we call it corporate socialism. These folks are against any subsidy that benefits the working and poor, that’s all. That’s been their thrust.
You and Chomsky are in the same camp regarding the mortgage interest deduction. He says it’s no different than sending middle and upper class people a check every month – a disguised subsidy. Nothing equivalent available to renters.
Intellectually lazy? Guilty. Don’t spend enough time reading the other side. Do you?
LikeLike
Actually, I try to read the other side and since I was a card carry member of the Socialist Party in the ’70’s I’m pretty well versed in leftist political theory, its history, its leaders and its outcomes.
But there has been almost nothing “new” in the left-o-sphere for quite some time. The right seems to have an ongoing argument that show some evolution – like the ideas or not. For example, neocons used to be just about the Cold War and have morphed into the Project for the New American Century. The libertarians (and I losely refer to them as “right”) have fractured along lines of econo-anarchists and minarchist. Conservatives are now battling between classical liberalism and Burkian moralism. I just think the conversation is more robust.
LikeLike
Perhaps. I find leftist chanting tiresome. I think people ought to look to themselves for help more than they do in this country. Change is not happening here, and the left is moribund. But in Latin America there are new dynamics afoot- the IMF and World Bank are practically irrelevant, social programs are being reinstated, essential enterprises taken out of private hands. There is even talk of uniting like factions across the arbitrary political boundaries. It’s all good.
I don’t see anything on the right that encourages me – privatization and shutting down of public programs for health and education and subsidy of essentials all leads to the exacerbation of wealth disparity and cementing in place of the accumulated advantage that comes from control of wealth. There’s not enough upward mobility, too many people frozen in low wages jobs and at risk of losing everything due to medical costs, unable to afford education – I don’t see anything coming from your side that really helps people. There may be lively discussion, but to those frozen out, it’s not helpful.
About the only useful thing I’ve seen, and I’m skeptical, are microloans.
LikeLike