If they dislike the price controls and monopsonies that exist in other countries, they can avoid those markets entirely. Once they agree to participate and begin exporting their drugs, we should have every right to import them back at a discount. As large corporations have shown in the past, they have no issue with planned economies, as long as the planning is done in their favor (China, Dubai).
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.
I don't think it's the only problem with globalization, but having recently paid out-of-pocket for an expensive, patented prescription drug, I think it's one of the biggest, and much of the hollow pro-globalization, pro-free trade rhetoric I hear from government and big business never addresses it.
I am curious about why others downvoted my original post; do people here really think this sort of protectionist price discrimination is OK?
Wonderful! So this means I and other Americans will soon legally be able to purchase prescription drugs from other countries where drug companies sell them for much less money? Oh, I forgot; "globalization," as meant by multinational corporations and policy makers, doesn't work that way.
Globalization is not a two-way street, and while it would certainly be foolish to bet against it when it means American jobs being shipped to other countries where labor is cheaper and the cost of living is lower, betting against consumers being able to import goods from those same countries where multinationals sell their products for cheaper seems, for the time being anyway, to be a pretty safe bet.
I know economists still have soft spots in their hearts for Smith and Ricardo, but how, in 2010, could anyone honestly cite comparative advantage in support of free trade when the markets for land, labor, and capital have gone global? No nation has an inherent advantage over any other in producing a particular good or service. The idea that we should specialize in producing what we're best at producing and trade for everything else makes less sense in a world where raw materials can be mined in Africa, refined in India, and assembled into a finished product by workers in China to be sold abroad at a 98% markup by a multinational corporation. All too often the primary "comparative advantage" other nations have over us is their lax labor and environmental regulation. And even if we were to follow the tenets of free trade and specialize in what we're best at, what, again, would that be? Economists told us that high-tech jobs would replace the outgoing manufacturing ones. What will replace the high-tech jobs?
I also thought it was amusing to see Tyler suggest that we could learn something from those countries
in East Asia eating our lunch. Apparently he is unaware that those countries all have neomercantilist systems that favor exports over imports, encourage personal saving, and discourage consumption.
As for the original article, the claim that no nation ever got rich by engaging in protectionism is ridiculous. The US pursued a protectionist trade policy from its inception (The American System) up until Smoot-Hawley and even then continued to and still continues to in certain sectors (see the US Sugar Program as a prime example). Great Britain became the most powerful empire on Earth while engaging in protectionism, starting with the infamous Navigation Acts. This is not to say that America and Britain became prosperous because of protectionism, only that it is not as absolutely fatal to an economy as some suggest. Thriving European countries today engage in protectionism against us by putting a VAT on American exports.
Lastly, though this post may have seemed like a defense of protectionism, it isn't. The problem with protectionism is that its antonym is not "free trade" but "free markets." Doctors, lawyers, dentists, and many other white collar professionals enjoy immense economic protection in our system. Rather than adding even more, on behalf of engineers, why not reduce the protection of other professions? If people stopped seeing society throw engineers to the wolves of the market while guaranteeing doctors, lawyers and others comfortable, upper-middle class lifestyles, more people might go into engineering.
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.