[joeyrideout]

In scenario #1, there is no financial incentive (read: livable wages for researchers, manufacturers, etc.) to create medicine because your profit is $0, and we have 1000 deaths because nobody makes the medicine.

In theory if the amortized cost of a dose (including R&D salaries, equipment, drug trials, and manufacturing) is truly $1 per dose for such a tiny addressable market, competitors will pop up all over the place and undercut you on price.

From a game theory perspective, a firm choosing option #3 would lose ALL of their market share to another firm choosing option #2, and would have profit of -$1000 because they are unable to sell any of their doses.

[simion314]

>In scenario #1, there is no financial incentive...

FALSE, In scenario 1 there would be a profit but not the maximum possible profit. This means some dudes will have to use fancy cars and not giant yachts.

>In theory if the amortized cost of a dose (including R&D salaries, equipment, drug trials, and manufacturing) is truly $1 per dose for such a tiny addressable market, competitors will pop up all over the place and undercut you on price.

FALSE, competitors will not be allowed to make this for 10 or 20 years.

>From a game theory perspective, a firm choosing option #3 would lose ALL of their market share to another firm choosing option #2, and would have profit of -$1000 because they are unable to sell any of their doses.

FALSE, if there are 2 companies that sell same products there is an equilibrium where you split the market in half and have both more profits then one dominating the market but with small prices. This is the prisoner dilemma, if you cooperate you get better results for both.

[joeyrideout]

> I invent a medicine [...] It costs me 1$

> we sell it with 1$ [sic]

Your profit here is zero, in your own hypothetical scenario. Help me understand why the Math is different.

> competitors will not be allowed to make this for 10 or 20 years

You didn't mention your stance on patents and/or intellectual property. If a medicine is patented, would you be in favor of stealing the patented ideas from the inventor in order to lower costs for life-saving medicines through increased competition? This sounds nice, akin to stealing a loaf of bread when you are hungry, but I can't help but think a society that condones stealing inventions from inventors would breed many inventors. Then we are left with the "nobody made the medicine" problem.

EDIT: And by "inventors", realistically I mean "firms willing to sink hundreds of millions of dollars into R&D".

[simion314]

I don't think I have a solution, one idea I have but it probably won't work since billionaires would make sure it won't happen, have a more fair taxes, if you made an obscene profit we would tax it and invest in public research. The issue is big corporation hide their profits, are you wondering why is Google, Apple Store taxing me on the sales and not on my profit? they don't want you to hide your profits as they do.