The marginal cost curve for traditional corn production simply does not work the same way for pharma and tech as it does for corn. The R&D involved in corn now has more to do with all the bio-engineered agriculture stuff, but that's different. You can pretty much take any pick of stuff we do more of that doesn't act as subsidy -- whatever industry pays most of its overhead to production for a consumable good. The for-profit environment of this country is what has allowed us to "do more" of this particular kind of work, and has therefore made us incur the bulk of the cost when you're talking about a cradle-to-grave process from initial release of a drug to its relegation and replication as a generic. We're not talking about a good that's researched here and then later on mimicked by corporations somewhere else after the patent ran out. We're talking about foreign government, and we're talking about healthcare. For example: If Microsoft spends tons of R&D on something, and then a foreign software company mimics it later on by making a generic version, those foreign people won't stop buying Microsoft products. But healthcare provision does not cross borders. US healthcare doesn't compete with Taiwanese healthcare for customers. Thus, we're shoulder the R&D costs for generics in systems that can only be used by other people, despite footing the bill. They gain comparable profits for the same good, without the R&D. And the drug in its initial form may have been too expensive to be on the single-payer plan of their country immediately.However, there is R&D in corn production as well. I live in iowa, remember.
And once done, it is replicated if successful. Profit is usually made, if successful. There is a risk, and risk is often subzidized by someone. Here that risk is often subidized by more than one area. Government, business, charities, churches, depending on the interest. There is similar processes elsewhere.
That, to me, is indirect subsidy.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059552280 (Republican mainstream flirts with brief default)Didn't and don't see that. As the process works both ways, us doing more at the moment doesn't mean we're subsidizing them.
Okay. So they contribute. And people wouldn't like to see them just stop giving money altogether. So what? You told me to go look up university hospitals as an example of government run research with a winky face, as though you were directing me toward a clear and present example of government-sponsored innovation.It was never my intention to say sole driver, but only that they contribute. And not insignificantly. R&D wouldn't stop without government involvment, but providing the place and some of the funding helps a lot, and without it, I suspect it would hurt R&D a lot.
Congratulations. You've rendered your own argument useless.