|
I think the economic cost/benefit for the US is probably a net zero, all things considered. I think the only real benefit would be improving relations with countries like Vietnam and Malaysia.
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
I'm not sure "This agreement helps some corporations" is a sufficient reason to oppose it, since that argument applies to every free trade agreement ever made.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Maybe if drug companies could make a profit researching and producing drugs which primarily affect poor third world people instead of only drugs which primarily benefit rich first world people, we'd have a cure for malaria.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And drug companies will continue to make drugs whether we sign the treaty or not, so all this "but HIV+ Botswanans will steal their profits Why would drug companies attempt to cure malaria, for instance, if all the countries with significant malaria infection will not protect their intellectual property?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 00:18
|
|
" pearl-clutching is irrelevant.
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm sorry, how are people too poor to pay for drugs going to provide a profit motive to develop them in any case? Malaysian GDP/capita is around 11k / year which while poor by US standards still represents a substantial market for a Pharma company. Pharma companies might start attempting to treat diseases endemic to that population if they reasonably expect to recoup their research costs, and patent protections allow them to do so. Your position seems to be "don't worry, Malaysia can keep free riding off medicines developed for the first world" which isn't terrible, as far as defenses of the status who go, but will never produce a malaria cure because malaria doesnt infect many in the first world. The only way to produce that cure is to incentivize drug companies to make one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 02:01
|
|