The stock market has said SaaS is dead

If the stock market told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

Regardless, the statement "the stock market has said SaaS is dead" is a fair and accurate response to your initial question "Who said SaaS is dead".

Who got access to credit and who was left to go bankrupt and have their lives destroyed? seriously crazy that you can't understand that

That "special" people got access to credit while normal people have their lives destroyed duh

I work with many people who pay for the subscription to play the games

Yeah putting myself in the shoes of someone with this disease or a loved one with this disease I would be so incredibly angry that we weren't allowed to try something when the alternative is certain death

There is a lot of money to be made selling snake oil to the desperate, so we definitely want regulation…

So don't let people sell the drugs at a profit, at early stages.

Ding ding ding this is the way. Sell at cost. Real cost, like cost of making. NOT a cost that includes R&S amortized across the batch.

Not even cost plus? Not sure how that works, from the viewpoint of economic incentives.

It's literally free data for efficacy / later sales.

So charging patients/insurance companies at cost to fund the clinical studies?

Clinical studies today are funded entirely by the pharma companies, keep that. Selling at cost of production would be something extra, for patients who want the drugs but aren't enrolled in an actual study. The company doesn't get solid data it can use for regulatory approval, so making them donate the drugs in that case seems excessive.

A downside would be that for drugs that don't cost much to produce, patients might be less willing to enroll in the studies, given the chance of getting a placebo. That could be handled by shutting down the informal access while the study is enrolled, for anyone who's eligible. I'm sure there are other wrinkles that would need to be considered too.

Put this way, this seems reasonable. Beyond cell therapy, I don't thin the cost of drug is the motivation for not making it more freely available. 'Misuse' leading to potential liability or unjustified bad outcomes, along with some regulatory burden seems like the issue.

Oh sick, so every time my company faces an economic downturn, I can shift huge amounts of workers to a program designed to sell unfinished drugs at cost! Like, it doesn’t even have to be viable, just start selling saline with coloring or something.

Unless it does have to be somewhat viable, which is… regulation.

I'm not against regulation in principle. In this case, full disclosure of exactly what's in the drug should definitely be required. People's doctors can make informed decisions after that.

Restricting this to patients who are otherwise out of options is probably also a good idea. Pancreatic cancer would certainly qualify.

I think you could mitigate some of the problems by making the drug company pay for the treatment before approval.

That's not what the prisoner’s dilemma is.

Yeah this is more like a Pascalian Gamble [1]. If you try nothing, then you are assured to die as God wanted. If you try something, then you might live, but then God hates you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

It is like Pascal's Wager but has nothing to do with "what God wanted" or "God hating you"... It's more "if it doesn't work the outcome is the same anyway" (eternal oblivion in Pascal's case, certain death in this case), therefore why not give it a shot in case it does work.

Warning to anyone reading this: Pascal was NOT a self-help writer.

Well, history has those uniquely medieval (or early modern) situations where kingdoms adopt fiat currencies and don't fail. I dunno how much academics discuss those

Yeah, so funny how they say "fiat" but never say "shiny metals"

Do you use cursor personally? the product is so good, i don't know why people aren't looking at the "companies will complain and pony up $20k a seat" isn't seen as a possibility here

They're implying that the US is exceptional due to its access to cheap credit, not due to some inherent superiority. Your comment listing off successful american companies seems to agree with him if anything. Maybe you misread the comment and got a little defensive?

Ahh. Makes sense. I did get defensive. Bit not sure why. I don't even live in US.

This is such a weird question, just go outside and interact with humans and the evidence is everywhere

That's anecdotal, I was curious if there were (well designed) studies that showed likely correlation between the two.

I have had family members addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and friends that have been addicted to gambling at various times. I've seen similar reactions anecdotally, but that isn't societal or scientific.