Posted on 06/06/2009 7:23:17 AM PDT by Publius
Apropos of nothing...
Recently, I got in a discussion with a good friend of mine over the cost of drugs. The end of the conversation reminded me of Francisco’s speech and the woman who “felt that Francisco was wrong.”
The friend of mine, who is a staunch Republican, got one of those emails detailing the cost of ingredients in prescription drugs. It was one of those emails slamming big pharmacy for charging hundreds of dollars for a drug that cost pennies to manufacture.
I pointed out the drug in question very likely cost the upward of a billion dollars to bring to market. That cost has to be made up at somehow. I also pointed out the limited window that drug companies have in order to recoup R&D costs.
Anyway, bottom line is that she let her “feelings” get in the way of facts and couldn’t agree with the points I made.
I’ve come to the conclusion that “I think, therefore I am” has been supplanted by “I feel, therefore you are wrong.”
Several chapters back, Hank gave Eddie Willers a delay in paying for Rearden Metal because the railroad was in trouble financially. (Dagny was off building the John Galt Line at the time.) Eddie felt badly about accepting the delay because it would help Jim Taggart, but he appreciated it anyway. Hank simply thought it was good business for his company.
So I think you're right.
I also loved this chapter. All but one of the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and that last piece falls into place in a few more chapters. It's satisfying to see the mysteries solved and almost everything explained.
And those compromises defined the loose construction versus strict construction debate that ended with the War Between the States -- but has been revived of late with the return of a movement toward genuine federalism.
The names of Marshall, Jefferson, Webster, Clay, Hayne, Jackson, Calhoun, Crawford -- and the very elderly Madison -- figure in here.
I would strongly suggest a reading of Forrest McDonald's States' Rights and the Union to examine what you've brought up in deep detail.
That one's a keeper!
Unfortunately, I see the government removing the ownership of property and distributing it on a temporary and arbitrary basis to favored constituencies. The government will assume the debt and convert it to an asset it bestows, removing the ballast from the people, leaving them to flounder at the whim of government.
Very, very perceptive. The asset then gets packaged with derivatives (insurance) that cannot be priced accurately, which compounds the problem. It's recipe for collapse.
At the beginning of the chapter titled “Anti-Life” there is an incident that corresponds directly to the points you are making. In a few weeks, I’ll expect you to work on the discussion topic I’m building around that incident.
Actually, the word penis is 3rd Declension Masculine, which means the plural would be penes. (Not to be picky, but I had three years of Latin.)
Well, it needs some editing.
Perhaps:
“However, greed and envy is used by our political class to justify taking from those who produce, and giving to those who envy, through greedy redistribution policies.”
Without the comma, it looks like I’m saying those who envy, envy because of the greedy redistribution policies.
Polish it until it’s ready to be used as a tag line.
Actually, I was kidding, and didn’t actually think penii was correct. Even so, I didn’t know penes was correct and appreciate the education. Thanks, Pub, your varied background never ceases to amaze!
Aw, shucks. (blush blush)
"Greed and envy: From mortal sin to political paradigm in under 100 years!"
Very good. As they say in the movie business” “Cut! Print it!”
“Greed and envy allows our political class to exploit the rich and poor.”
I like it!
Or:
“Greed and envy is used by our political class to exploit the rich and poor.”
Political hucksters mine greed and envy to make citizens into serfs.
That's a keeper right there. You just conjured up the memory of a conversation I had with a neighbor a few years ago that convinced me that Rand's villains are real. In my Seattle days I used to work for a biopharmaceutical firm - Publius may even recall which one - that made the Big Strike and came up with a very effective and successful drug. That one cost between $350-500 million in R&D - the amount is indeterminate because your R&D doesn't stop once the drug hits the market, you have to keep researching to unearth unexpected effects. (This particular drug turned out to be harmful to active tuberculosis patients, for example - best of luck figuring that one out in a test population).
So this neighbor of mine confronted me one day about how much the drug cost and I explained that it was really expensive to produce due to the process being sort of exotic and she says, "Well, you should find a way to make it cheaper." Yeah, I said, that's what process science is all about, but in the meantime there are patients who need the stuff, and anyway the R&D for that new process would cost us money...she wasn't listening. She was absolutely convinced that the whole thing was a plot to squeeze money out of sick people.
My mistake was mentioning our next drug, one that looked promising and (worst case) didn't fail until very late in the process, costing us maybe another half a billion, and she was outraged that patients using one drug should have to pay money to develop other ones. I told her we had to do that or the company would fold and there wouldn't be any new drugs for anyone, and her reply was, "Well, that's what you get for soaking your patients."
She participated in a drive somewhat later to turn the successful one into a generic so the prices would go down. Remember what Orren Boyle did to Rearden Metal? That's exactly what she wanted to do. What was scary was that this woman actually wanted to hurt people - I'm not kidding, "the government" seizing the company, the bank accounts (that's where the filthy profits were), making the researchers and manufacturers work for free (yes, slave labor) in order to make up for the exploitation we'd committed - I got to thinking that if this woman were ever in the position to do that stuff, she would, and would feel perfectly justified about it.
Atlas Shrugged didn't come to mind at the time but it probably should have because she's in there. The psychological mechanism was very simple - she thought she'd found "injustice" and therefore anyone having anything to do with it needed to be punished. You read AS and you think hey, it's a novel, people like these are caricatures, but they're not, they're all around us. You can never be disarmed in the presence of these people, they will kill you, or order someone else to kill you. And feel great about it.
There's cognitive dissonance for ya. You tell her the consequences of NOT doing the way it is today, and she equates that with the consequences FOR doing it that way. Moron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.