[Thriptic]

That's a viable stance to take, but it's not without problems:

1. The time horizons involved don't work well with government. The US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon, and the highly delayed ROI means projects would always be first on the chopping block when it came to cost cutting. As a side note, currently we can't even agree to adequately fund basic research in the country, let alone drug development.

2. R&D would inevitably be politicized. Some senator would want disease X researched because their kid has it etc. Some tax payers won't want to fund disease Y.

3. It places R&D and regulatory in the same high level entity. That sets up all sorts of conflicts of interest.

4. It complicates international trade. What if the US develops most drugs. What should Europe be charged for them? Surely products can't be open sourced because one group of tax payers paid for them and would want ROI etc.

5. Similarly, who decides pricing for all the US buyers? Get ready for massively complicated procurement based on tons of different rules.

[JKCalhoun]

You mention problems, and to be sure there would be problems, but we're also awash in the problems of the current system as well.

I am ignorant of these things so I have to ask if it is assumed that your assertions are common knowledge. For example: "the US can't get anything done over a 20 year time horizon".

If international trade is a larger sticking point then I would suggest an international consortium? Like a WHO entity that collects dues from member states and member states in turn benefit from drugs produced?

Just spit balling here to be sure.

[ams6110]

Lately, with respect to the government, I think it's fair to shorten the statement to simply "the US can't get anything done."

[dnautics]

And maybe that's not such a bad thing. There's a ton of space between "things companies" should do and "things government should do".

In the US, the policy agenda is (still) broadly defined by tribalism along polarizing issues (e.g. abortion). In other countries, it's slightly less bad but the phenomenon is similar. If less social goods were coupled to politics the world might be a better place, but it also might take a paradigm shift where we don't dualize social activity into two bins: stuff you do because you make money doing and stuff you get done by taking from your neighbors because they "owe it to everyone".

[nicoburns]

I think the US needs a paradigm shift where it stops thinking of income taxation as taking something from someone. It's not, because under the rules of society, that person is never due that money in the first place. That money is the portion of the nominal sum that is "earned" that accrues to society for the support and conducive living environment that the provide to the individual.

It's true that it is coercive: that the individual may not want to live in a society where that is the rule. But this is also true of all laws, including private property laws. The idea that property laws are natural and obvious, whereas other laws are impositions is utterly unhelpful and the source of a lot of issues, especially in the US where it seems pretty much all non-military public programs are underfunded.

[dnautics]

who's suggesting that property laws are obvious? Property laws exist because property is rivalrous, and the commons are generally abused, for example how the #1 polluter in the US is the US government, how the soviet bloc and china were far worse per capita polluters than the US.

> But this is also true of all laws,

Yes, that's true for all laws. It's funny that no one says it's part of the "social contract" when someone gets choked out and killed by the police for selling bootleg cigarettes on the corner.

I'm also going to point out that the central problem with income tax is that we think it's great because it's "punishes" the wealthy, but the equilibrium state is that due to bracket creep, it winds up screwing over the poor and middle class while the wealthy find escapes. Of note: I remember a year when I paid more in income taxes (as a proportion of my income) having made 30k than Bernie Sanders did.

The general paradigm among the liberal left is that the poor are screwed over by the political power because they are poor. I think it might be worth rethinking that - the poor are and continue to be poor because they don't have political power. The problem is that political power is a zero-sum game, so any solution that gives those in power more power will only make matters worse.

[nicoburns]

> who's suggesting that property laws are obvious?

Anyone who says they believe in "small government". That small set of rules always happens to include property laws.

> when someone gets choked out and killed by the police

That's also illegal. I would also advocate enforcing the law against law enforcement officers. Stronger than against ordinary citizens if anything.

> we think it's great because it's "punishes" the wealthy

Actually, I think that (even assuming that it were enforced) it does little to no harm to the wealthy. They have sufficient wealth that having less has almost no impact on their well-being.

> The problem is that political power is a zero-sum game, so any solution that gives those in power more power will only make matters worse.

Giving money to the poor gives them political power. Or rather economic power, which is a good substitute, and often what the rich use to gain political power.

Ideally we'd have some kind of basic income which provides this function directly. But other socially funded initiatives such as healthcare and education are also helpful in this regard.

[toomuchtodo]

Disagree. We get daily weather reports from Mars [1]. SpaceX can still get approval to lift to ISS. Social Security checks still get cut and clear every month. I'm able to get into national parks daily.

Legislation is stuck in the mud, but government is very much still getting things done.

[1] https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/weather/

[BurningFrog]

In general, government policy does not plan beyond getting reelected for the next election.