I am curious about why others downvoted my original post; do people here really think this sort of protectionist price discrimination is OK?
It is undesirable for technology to advance at a slower pace than would be possible if people were expected to pay market prices for the products the technology would help to improve or create. If you value future advances in technology, you should want your government to minimize manipulation of the markets for such technologies. If, on the other hand, you'd like as many people to benefit from current technology as cheaply as possible, you should want your government to force prices down as much as possible.
It is horribly unjust for Americans, many of whom have no or poor health insurance, to be forced to pay more money than anyone else on earth for prescription drugs. If Big Pharma, which spends disproportionate amounts of money on direct marketing to consumers, can't produce the medications we need cheaply and efficiently, that represents a market failure, and the government should step in and take the lead role in drug development. Research could be done through the NIH grant system and the results could be given away, unpatented, to the entire world. We could get the same results for less money, as the NIH doesn't need to make a profit and has no stock holders to answer to. It could even serve to improve our global reputation, showing the US to be a force for good in the world.
As I mentioned, both of those options would make drugs less profitable, which would lead to fewer advances in technology. Prohibiting the reimportation of drugs can be a sensible policy.
> It is horribly unjust for Americans, many of whom have no or poor health insurance, to be forced to pay more money than anyone else on earth for prescription drugs.
Unfair, perhaps, but unjust? Fixing this problem would either require selling to everyone at American prices (which could also be described as unjust), or selling to everyone at the lowest prices available. Both options would be less profitable that the current system, which would slow the rate of advancement in drug development.
> [Maybe] the government should step in and take the lead role in drug development.
That can also be a sensible policy, and the American government already does fund a considerable amount of drug development.
They do, however, have free health care. You do understand the difference, right?
No, it isn't as good as most paid care. So what?
> Pharma, which spends disproportionate amounts of money on direct marketing to consumers,
What's "disproportionate"? You do know that marketing includes free drugs for poor people, MD education, and the ads that tell people that there are treatments for their illnesses/conditions, right? Which of those do you find objectionable?
> can't produce the medications we need cheaply and efficiently, that represents a market failure,
Does it? I'd like a pony, but the fact there isn't one in my front yard isn't actually a market failure.
If you think that you can develop anti-biotics for less, go for it. You'll get rich, you'll save people's lives, and you'll drive those evil drug companies out of biz.
You were planning to go through the FDA right? (Of course, if you can fix the FDA, then all new drugs become cheaper.)
> and the government should step in and take the lead role in drug development.
What rational govt that has pension/retirement obligations would spend money on a drug that significantly increased lifespan?
> the NIH doesn't need to make a profit
The NIH has no skin in the game. If it screws up, no big deal. In the rare cases where someone finds out, NIH defenders will swing into action. If Merck screws up, folks lose their jobs, stock value goes down, etc.
The NIH is driven by interest groups. Pharma is driven by what folks will actually spend money on. I know which one I think accurately represents what people value....
Insurance companies are somewhat driven by what their customers want. If 20% want something, it tends to happen. Govt bureaucrats, not so much, and Congress rarely passes laws for 20% of the population.
Thiel isn't arguing that globalization is a done deal. If anything, he agrees that what we have is astonishingly incomplete: "we stand at a level of globalization that compares with the previous peak year of 1913". Rather, he's asking whether the economic world as we know it could withstand true globalization.
But to answer your question: yes, I think it's only to be expected that corporations will seek to maximize their profits through price discrimination. And also to be expected that true globalization will make this more difficult to do. But while it's clear that those paying the higher price would benefit in the short-term from paying a lower price, it's not clear to me who would benefit in the long-term from forcing companies to choose a single set price somewhere in the middle. It probably depends on how this would be enforced.