-
Psst Hey Wanna make fun of the CATO Institute with me?Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood +4 🙂
-
Essentially: poor countries want the ability to produce and import generic versions of coronavirus vaccines and drugs developed in rich nations, instead of having to enforce IP rights and being unable to acquire life saving medicine quickly enough due to costPermalink On twitter.com
-
They cite the 80s and 90s HIV/AIDS epidemic, where African countries in particular could not contain the spread of the virus because treatments were kept price-locked by patents and they were forced by the WTO to respect Western IP rightsOn twitter.com
-
Actually, if you've ever heard the stereotype that Africans have AIDS, it comes from Africans being denied for years HIV/AIDS treatments for Western profits.Permalink On twitter.com
-
Anyway the CATO Institute doesn't even argue that they're wrong. It actually argues (rather condescendingly) that even bringing it up does more harm than goodPermalink On twitter.com
-
It goes on to argue that no one would even bother making vaccines for the poors if they couldn't profit off of it with IP rights so who are the poors to start complaining????Permalink On twitter.com
-
Unrelated but did you know the people who invented insulin sold their patent for $1 because they wanted everyone who needed it to have it? One of the inventors didn't even want credit. But sure no one would make medicine just to help people. There needs to be profit, I promise!Permalink On twitter.com
-
The CATO Institute normally argues for free trade and minimal government interference. So they're forced to admit that enforcing IP rights for life saving drugs actually cuts against their ideological position.Permalink On twitter.com
-
You'd expect a free market advocate to claim that the market and competition would drive prices down without regulation, but CATO trips over itself arguing against the free market. Because IP = profit (for the West) = "economic growth" = a better life for everyonePermalink On twitter.com
-
The response is even forced to admit that in the short term poorer countries would indeed have greater access to life saving medicine, but that long term profit is simply more important (because innovation, you see)Permalink On twitter.com
-
The article jumps all over the place providing no actual arguments against the proposal. In reality it's sorta just... offended? Particularly at the idea that profit shouldn't factor in to whether or not people get to live or diePermalink On twitter.com
