The U.S. effectively subsidizes drug development for the world by paying higher prices. As an American it does seem unfair, but if you drastically cut prices paid in the U.S., you would get many fewer new drugs, so the cure might be worse than the disease. Similarly, the U.S. has been subsidizing the defense of Western Europe and Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.) since World War II. This is not fair either, but I'd be wary of drastically cutting U.S. military spending. You could say there are "hysteresis" effects -- drastically different drug prices and levels of military spending would not make sense if starting from scratch.
If US pharma executive pay and marketing budgets were similar to their European counterparts and only R&D budgets were out-sized, then this might ring true, but to my ears it just sounds like yet more apologia for plutocracy; a tune that I've become more and more accustomed to the longer I've lived in the US.
I am far from convinced that the price of drugs in the US means that the US subsidises the rest of the world or that they would be fewer drugs if they didn't. The market overall would still be huge. For instance the pharmaceuticals market in the Europe only is forecast to reach $250 billion in 2028, that's a big cake in itself [1] even if the American 'cake' is currently much bigger.
The only thing that seems clear is that Amricans are cash cows in that area.
Certainly, though, the US are not subsidising defense in Europe and East Asia. What they are doing is to prevent rivals and to ensure those countries remain dependent on them. So this is obviously done in the interests of the US.
The US DoD budget is at or in excess of three-quarters of a trillion dollars. It is more than the next 10-ish countries combined; most of those - but two? - are allies. Maybe it's not subsidies in your sense of the word, fair enough. But the American people are footing that bill one way or another, and there are others who are profiting from that.
As per my previous comment, this is to benefit the US. This buys them control over most of the Western governments. Sure, they are 'allies' but the relationship is not one of equals and they have to walk the line.
Not really. It's to benefit a handful of players that participate in the USA's version of Crony Capitalism. That's not to be confused with the US voters / citizens at large.
Sure, make broad statements, but please be specific where and when it counts.
> The U.S. effectively subsidizes drug development for the world by paying higher prices.
To clarify a bit, the U.S. *middle class* effectively subsidizes...
This distinction is important given the currect sociopolitical climate. In short, the shrinking (implosion?) of that middle class is no longer sustainable. Is curing the rest of the world worth the sociopolitical illness we're imposing on ourselves?
