Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (39752)	12/18/2009 4:52:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Maybe, maybe not. (Remember: governments ALL OVER the world have very different laws on their books with regard to Patents. And who is to say that a 28 year patent grant is "supportive of free markets" but that an 18 year patent grant, or a 12 year patent grant is not?) Irrelevant. The price controls and monopsony buying apply even to freshly invented drugs. I suppose you could counter with "who's to say 1 day patents, or no patents are not appropriate", but even then its not particularly relevant because the countries are NOT pushing a policy of no patents or ultra-short patents, but of price controls, monopsony buying, and/or political pressure and threats to lower prices. As far as certain governments around the world (because they consider access to health care to be a citizen's BASIC RIGHT, Someone can consider any nonsense to be a basic right. If they decide that not having American products withing 5 miles is a basic right does that mean that banning American products ceases to be a restraint of trade, and is instead just protecting rights? "Access to basic health care" as a basic human/natural right, is utter nonsense, along with all other positive rights. Natural rights don't extent to the right to force others to do things for you. Freedom of speech/the press doesn't mean your rights are violated if you are not provided with a microphone or a printing press by the government. But is that anything more then ANY big purchaser does? Use the power of your position as a big customer to negotiate for the best possible price you can get? Yes it is different. The government controls the regulatory environment the market operates in. If the seller doesn't want to sell the drug to the government monopsony buyer at a price that buyer will accept, but will sell to individuals and individual doctors, the government can tell them to take a hike. You where just decrying the power of monopolies, and even just oligopolies. Why are monopsonies and near monopsonies (oligopolies of buyers) so much better?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (39752)	12/18/2009 7:44:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

...Some free-market economists, including some at Cato, think the current ban on reimportation is not justifiable. That is no surprise: Free-market economists usually dislike governmental restrictions on free trade. Usually, I line up with the free-traders without reservation. But the free-market perspective does not yield an easy answer here. Free-market economists believe the government should enforce private contracts. Imagine that drug companies sold inexpensive drugs to Canada with the contract provision that they not be resold to the United States. One could then argue that the government should help the drug companies enforce that contract. But isn't that in effect what the ban on reimportation does? So perhaps one can justify it as a part of the governmental job of enforcing private contracts. (That is the essentially the argument made by legal scholar Richard Epstein.) Suppose we weren't talking about Canada (which has low drug prices largely because of price controls) but instead we were talking about Africa. Suppose a drug company offered an AIDS drug to a poor African country at slightly above marginal cost. (This is much below the US price, which includes a markup due to the monopoly power granted by the patent). Should American AIDS patients be allowed to buy the drug in Africa and bring it back to the United States? If policymakers allowed this reimportation, arbitrage would prevent the drug company from price discriminating. A single price, or approximately so, would have to prevail worldwide. The likely result: The drug company wouldn't offer the low-cost drug to the poor African country. Remember a lesson of basic microeconomics: Price discrimination can sometimes make goods available to more consumers and increase the efficiency of market allocations. Nonetheless, those consumers who end up paying more than average can easily see the situation as unfair. This perception is what's driving the issue of drug reimportation. The situation is complicated by the Canadian government's influence on prices. In some sense, when the Canadian government controls the prices of US-made drugs, it is infringing on US intellectual property rights. Perhaps we should view the Canadian drug price controls like we view the Chinese failure to crack down on bootleg copies of software and other examples of intellectual property theft. Unfortunately, we don't have the policy levers to get other countries to stop controlling prices. A big risk with reimportation is that the United States will in effect end up importing Canadian price controls, reducing the incentive for drug companies to put resources into drug research. gregmankiw.blogspot.com gregmankiw.blogspot.com