And, when the government DOES do high-risk, high-reward investments in science and technology, how can the intellectual property and the subsequent wealth continue to benefit EVERYONE? Not just the contractors, who were already reimbursed for their research.
For all of the public funds that were expended to develop computer technology, space science, medical research, how is it that this wealth of innovation doesn’t benefit everyone? Minimum national incomes?
I don’t know if this interests you, but I just didn’t want it to go unsaid.
The problem is that if you restrict this, then a lot of times you don't get the full development.
For example, with pharmaceutical R&D we passed a law in the eighties to allow private businesses to benefit otherwise, the publicly funded research would just sit on a shelf.
The public benefit comes when the new technology is used
My biggest objection to what you say are the words “the problem”. THE problem? I’m sure that’s only one of many problems. I’m sure that there would have to be some creative minds to figure out how to adjust to make it profitable for enterprises to be involved, without giving away enough money to make the profits obscene. Right now, all of our progress has not made life more secure for many of our citizens. I’m hoping that, in a time of regaining our national footing after a serious coup attempt, some new, creative, hitherto unachievable adjustments might become possible. I mostly don’t want to see us try to go back to how things were BEFORE the coup.
The potential profits MUST be obscene, or there is no point in trying to develop stuff.
Each drug that is successful not only has to pay for itself, it has to pay for the many many many drugs that don't work.
I've done biotech investing, most of the drugs don't work out. I've had a number of companies I've invested in go to zero. So the one drug that works has to be pay for all the ones that don't. That means you really need to make a killing on the one drug that works.
And you don’t see any way to help balance this? What if the government paid for more of the research but shared in the profits, in the rare cases where there WERE profits? Companies might be able to offset the cost of research and share in the successes with something left for the taxpayers who helped make the research possible.
Fewer enormous windfalls would make it less attractive for investors. Any possibilities, or is shooting the moon the ONLY way it could be done?
Sure if you hugely increased spending (not just on R&D, but also on the FDA trials where these drugs fail) then more options would open up.
But we would have to be talking about really huge amounts of money to change the calculus.
Otherwise we would just go back to what happened before. The US would spend money on R&D, but companies wouldn't use it because they couldn't make any money off of it
Realize that I’m not proposing a mature plan. I’m suggesting that we really try to avoid thinking that, if we solve the current GOP uprising by trying to go back to what we had before, that we just turn the clock back to the moment BEFORE the bus went off the cliff.
We should be using this moment of crisis to encourage some bold plans. Ones that profoundly change our relationship to corporations. (Both major political parties).
Very excited for this. My parents gifted me an Atlantic subscription for Christmas in 2019, and since then I’ve been a DT fan.
You’ve played a big part in why I, as a medical student and public health researcher, felt I needed to write. One might say I’m working towards an abundance agenda for healthcare! All the best.
Do you know of any other Millennial journalists who have spent 15-20 years or more at a single publication? Feels uncharacteristic of our generation to spend so long at a single job. Congrats, Derek, and looking forward to the change.
Fastest launch --> sub time I've personally encountered
Agreed!
I also went right away once I found what happened.
Woohoo! Count me in.
Chris has caught a new pokemon!
Big fan. Any feedback on our Every Friday format?
"I’m leaving because, after almost two decades at one publication, I want to write for myself."
That's almost always the best writing, especially, in the end, for readers themselves.
Extremely glad to hear this move!
Let's fucking go, Derek.
this is so exciting! instantly subscribed.
looking forward to reading more GREAT pieces from you!
Ditto!
Congrats on the move! Can’t wait to hear more about abundance and all the big ideas you’ll be sharing here.
Welcome. The water is warm
F YEAH ABUNDANCE.
Welcome Derek! I’ve never subscribed to anything so fast in my LIFE!
And, when the government DOES do high-risk, high-reward investments in science and technology, how can the intellectual property and the subsequent wealth continue to benefit EVERYONE? Not just the contractors, who were already reimbursed for their research.
For all of the public funds that were expended to develop computer technology, space science, medical research, how is it that this wealth of innovation doesn’t benefit everyone? Minimum national incomes?
I don’t know if this interests you, but I just didn’t want it to go unsaid.
The problem is that if you restrict this, then a lot of times you don't get the full development.
For example, with pharmaceutical R&D we passed a law in the eighties to allow private businesses to benefit otherwise, the publicly funded research would just sit on a shelf.
The public benefit comes when the new technology is used
My biggest objection to what you say are the words “the problem”. THE problem? I’m sure that’s only one of many problems. I’m sure that there would have to be some creative minds to figure out how to adjust to make it profitable for enterprises to be involved, without giving away enough money to make the profits obscene. Right now, all of our progress has not made life more secure for many of our citizens. I’m hoping that, in a time of regaining our national footing after a serious coup attempt, some new, creative, hitherto unachievable adjustments might become possible. I mostly don’t want to see us try to go back to how things were BEFORE the coup.
The potential profits MUST be obscene, or there is no point in trying to develop stuff.
Each drug that is successful not only has to pay for itself, it has to pay for the many many many drugs that don't work.
I've done biotech investing, most of the drugs don't work out. I've had a number of companies I've invested in go to zero. So the one drug that works has to be pay for all the ones that don't. That means you really need to make a killing on the one drug that works.
And you don’t see any way to help balance this? What if the government paid for more of the research but shared in the profits, in the rare cases where there WERE profits? Companies might be able to offset the cost of research and share in the successes with something left for the taxpayers who helped make the research possible.
Fewer enormous windfalls would make it less attractive for investors. Any possibilities, or is shooting the moon the ONLY way it could be done?
Sure if you hugely increased spending (not just on R&D, but also on the FDA trials where these drugs fail) then more options would open up.
But we would have to be talking about really huge amounts of money to change the calculus.
Otherwise we would just go back to what happened before. The US would spend money on R&D, but companies wouldn't use it because they couldn't make any money off of it
Realize that I’m not proposing a mature plan. I’m suggesting that we really try to avoid thinking that, if we solve the current GOP uprising by trying to go back to what we had before, that we just turn the clock back to the moment BEFORE the bus went off the cliff.
We should be using this moment of crisis to encourage some bold plans. Ones that profoundly change our relationship to corporations. (Both major political parties).
We talk about this here. We call it exit to planet. https://www.jimruttshow.com/thomas-schindler/
Jerry! No! Don’t fall for it Jerry!
Very excited for this. My parents gifted me an Atlantic subscription for Christmas in 2019, and since then I’ve been a DT fan.
You’ve played a big part in why I, as a medical student and public health researcher, felt I needed to write. One might say I’m working towards an abundance agenda for healthcare! All the best.
My favorite part about your abundance essays will be how they draw out the pro-scarcity crowd.
e.g. "Zoning is good."
I love the framing of anti-abundance folks are pro-scarcity. Gonna steal that one
This is great news
Do you know of any other Millennial journalists who have spent 15-20 years or more at a single publication? Feels uncharacteristic of our generation to spend so long at a single job. Congrats, Derek, and looking forward to the change.
Heck, I'm 63 (Boomer, if barely), and my longest tenure at any job is 6 years.
Great move, Derek. Substack is where journalists can thrive without the gatekeepers of traditional media
Hopefully will get a chance to read more, but I'm a big fan of Plain English!