> Yes, the government granting monopoly rights in 2015 to a naturally occurring chemical discovered in 1933 is "capitalism".
Nobody has been granted monopoly rights on anything. The GP's article (from 2012) is referring to a situation where there is only one FDA-approved supplier of a product (naturally-derived ACTH). Nothing except lack of motivation is stopping someone else from entering the market. The OP is discussing a particular brand of synthetic ACTH, which may or may not be in the same situation in Canada (sole approved drug).
>"Nothing except lack of motivation is stopping someone else from entering the market."
Have you ever looked at the cost of getting a new manufacturer of a drug approved by the FDA? FDA approval requires a lot more than motivation; if you disagree, I invite you to start manufacturing the drugs yourself (or even contracting it out).
"Motivation" in the business sense of "can make sufficient return on investment", not the trivially reductionist sense of "I feel like making a new drug today". So regulatory costs affect the motivation.
Nobody has been granted monopoly rights on anything. The GP's article (from 2012) is referring to a situation where there is only one FDA-approved supplier of a product (naturally-derived ACTH). Nothing except lack of motivation is stopping someone else from entering the market. The OP is discussing a particular brand of synthetic ACTH, which may or may not be in the same situation in Canada (sole approved drug).