0 votes
asked ago in General Economics Questions by (140 points)
I throw this question up after reading Sampat and Williams in the January 2019 AER.  I must say I doubt economics - or should be - is the last word on this question.  One could probably run a regression analysis to show slavery was productivity enhancing but it was abolished.  One could also prima facie argue that if abortion is legal, sale of the living or dead products of conception should be legal and would be "welfare enhancing" as buyer and seller would be happy by definition.  Thank God, the law is a little smarter and such things are still illegal.

Dear Sirs

I note your article in the January 2019 AER.  I believe there is a compelling abolitionist case and the common law was right.

Having been cured of cancer years ago by a non-chemo route, after surgery had failed, I became interested in the law and economics of the legal drug cartels.

These may be of interest.  They certainly were not answered.



Kind regards

Terry Dwyer

Terry Dwyer  B.A. (Hons) B.Ec. (Hons) (Syd.) M.A. Ph.D. (Harvard), Dip. Law (Syd.), CTA

1 Answer

0 votes
answered ago by (950 points)
My answer will be short.

Without patents there is not motive to investigate or develope new techniques in the private sector, the lucrative motive is huge and there is always necessary a way of living. I think the question should be formulated as "Should the health care be a public service and medical investigation focus on the population with just the moral motive?"