EpiPen Protest Should Be Directed @ FDA & Patent Protectionism

Business, Capitalism, Free Markets, Government, Intellectual Property Rights, Regulation

And it’s the people’s fault, too.

Most Americans have zero understanding of free-market capitalism, and are interested only in government “protections,” namely the regulation of production, in the belief that government interference can reduce costs and get Big Bad Business to behave.

If only Americans, brainwashed in the nation’s government-controlled schools, understood the less intuitive truth and aimed the arrows in their quiver at Big Bad Government, the real bad actors.

In the case of the “EpiPen sticker shock,” bureaucrats at the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration)—beholden to keeping the bureaucracy alive, not getting innovation to market—practically gum-up the process whereby other makers of the product can enter the allergy antidote market and trigger competitive forces.

Then there are the patent grants of government privilege. By granting EpiPen makers patents for posterity—yes, this is government’s fault—these lengthy grants of patent privileges prohibit manufactures of generic drugs from entering the market to make comparable products.

Via Slate Star Codex:

… when was the last time that America’s chair industry hiked the price of chairs 400% and suddenly nobody in the country could afford to sit down? When was the last time that the mug industry decided to charge $300 per cup, and everyone had to drink coffee straight from the pot or face bankruptcy? When was the last time greedy shoe executives forced most Americans to go barefoot? And why do you think that is?

The problem with the pharmaceutical industry isn’t that they’re unregulated just like chairs and mugs. The problem with the pharmaceutical industry is that they’re part of a highly-regulated cronyist system that works completely differently from chairs and mugs.

If a chair company decided to charge $300 for their chairs, somebody else would set up a woodshop, sell their chairs for $250, and make a killing – and so on until chairs cost normal-chair-prices again. When Mylan decided to sell EpiPens for $300, in any normal system somebody would have made their own EpiPens and sold them for less. It wouldn’t have been hard. Its active ingredient, epinephrine, is off-patent, was being synthesized as early as 1906, and costs about ten cents per EpiPen-load. …

Golden oldies:

* “Should Policymakers Trust The Free Market To Meet Urgent Demand For Prescription Drugs?”
* “Patent Wrongs”

To further explore the topic from a libertarian propertarian perspective, click the “Intellectual Property Rights” search category.

EU Commissars Move To Control Ireland-Apple Tax Transactions

Business, EU, Europe, States' Rights, Taxation

And EU countries, most of which bitched about Brexit, wonder why they’re a morass of joblessness and welfare. The EU’s Great Centralizers in Brussels are looking to override Ireland’s tax arrangement with Apple, arrangements Ireland ought to be free to make as an ostensibly sovereign country. EU tax collectors don’t want Ireland to be free to grant Apple certain tax provisions that would enhance prosperity—jobs and investment—in Ireland.

Wait a second, wasn’t Ireland overwhelmingly against Brexit and for Britain remaining in the EU?

Don’t the Irish get that this is what union with EU commissars looks like?

The Libertarian Book Of TRUMP Doesn’t Depend On Trump Behaving

Donald Trump, Ilana Mercer, Paleolibertarianism

On the other hand, fellow Trumpsters, this writer’s Trump book does not depend on Donald Trump behaving, being the leader his supporters so crave, because “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” doesn’t crave leadership; it asks only that Trump continue to BREAK STUFF that needs breaking—RNC, GOP, NATO, NRO—that he flout political correctness and cultural Marxism, and counter Obama and Bush laws by nullifying tons of them. For this reason, TTR won’t date; it’s why libertarianism conceived properly doesn’t date.

MORE.

My Family Would’ve Been Barred From The US Without Mega Skills

Donald Trump, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Labor, South-Africa, Welfare

My Family would’ve not been allowed to immigrate to the US had we met Donald Trump’s new immigration criteria. These are:

* Establish reality on the ground (gritty, man!), illegally until amnestied.
* Obey all the other laws, except immigration and labor laws.
* Get a low-skills job, commensurate with meager abilities.
* Receive more in government reimbursements than you contribute to the economy over a lifetime—someone with few skills might work hard, but overall, his existence is subsidized by taxpayers throughout his lifetime.

No! If the principal in our family had been without that Extraordinary Abilities 0-1 Visa and had been unable to prove—via patents, work record and testimonials vetted à la the First World—that he had skills unique and needed in the US—we would not be here. We left so many good people behind, in South Africa, who’ll never be allowed to so much as farm (for example) in the US, because white, poor, Christian and without desirable college degrees. I know South Africans who’d gladly sell their farms in SA and come and work on farms in the US. They’re far more culturally compatible, but they’re not as politically cuddly as the cohort Trump is told to court. You know why.

Media are referencing a townhall with Sean Hannity to accuse Mr. Trump of pivoting in a new direction on immigration. Media might have a case. Via TIME:

… asked whether Trump would support changing the law to “accommodate those people that contribute to society, have been law-abiding, have kids here,” Trump replied in the affirmative.

“There certainly can be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people,” Trump said. “We want people—we have some great people in this country.”

Trump, who has previously called for a “deportation force,” suggested he would not try to toughen the existing immigration statutes, calling the lawmaking process “brutal.”

“We want to follow the laws, you know, we have very strong laws in this country,” Trump said. “And you know Bush, and even Obama, sends people back. Now we can be more aggressive on that but we want to follow the laws. If you start going around trying to make new laws in this country it’s a process that’s brutal. We want to follow the laws of this country, and if we follow the laws we can do what we have to do.”

Trump’s new position appears to be an embrace of the status quo, in which those in the U.S. illegally with criminal histories are prioritized for deportation, but no action is taken to push forward with comprehensive reform. …