Throughout all of human history, humans have always overcome problems with solutions. Solving problems in creative ways is a uniquely human trait that far outstrips the abilities of other animals to solve their own set of problems. Humans created the wheel, clothing, beer, farming, money, houses, wagons, ships, cars, telephone, and on and on, all to solve particular problems.
Unlike physics, the economic science of problem solving is a perpetual motion machine: all solutions are ultimately hacks; temporary solutions that either beget a better solution or create new problems that demand new solutions. And it's a positive economic engine because there is usually a profit tied to solving a problem.
A situation becomes a problem when there is a burdensome economic cost. If I need to get from point A to point B, that's a burden -- hence, a problem. If someone can provide me with a quicker or easier way to get from A to B, that's a solution and I am willing to trade something for that solution. Money was created to make the trade more fungible, the lack of which was a problem prior to the invention of money.
For the longest time, the game was played earnestly where legitimate problems were identified, and hardworking people toiled to create solutions. Again, in the grand scheme of things, every solution is just a temporary hack. There is no such thing as the "ultimate" solution to a problem. Problems sometimes become extinct because the solutions have pushed the problem so far away from reality. For example, we no longer have to worry abut the problem of human underpopulation. (For many millennia, the survival of the homo sapiens species was touch and go. We could have died out and cro-magnons or the neanderthals might have taken over.)
The problem-solution paradigm is ingrained, at least, in western civilization. The scientific method is really nothing more than an application of the problem-solution paradigm applied towards the understanding of the natural world. Engineering is the creation. Virtually all avocations of man is related to this problem-solution paradigm. (I imagine music -- instrumental music, and novel writing as avocations that do not directly address a problem, other than the default problem of earning a living using an avocation.)
The problem-solution paradigm is also the only perpetual motion machine. Value is created when a solution is found. It is not a zero-sum game where the value of a solution is equal to the cost of the problem. The value of the solution is much greater than the problem's present and future cost. That's how we humans have managed to create great wealth (ok, it is sort of arbitrary: a dollar bill means nothing to a donkey), but also great physical creations like buildings and dams and highways and ships and planes. All these changes could not occur if creation is equal to the destruction. (All right, it's not totally a perpetual motion machine, since the earth is not a totally closed system. We have a sun that shines upon the planet tera-watts of power every day. That energy is stored in the tides, the winds, the plants, in the food we eat, the fuel we use. And all that energy is often used to power our solutions to problems.)
So what's the problem? The problem now is that there are entities who have decided that, rather than seek out problems and solve them, they will instead claim to solve a problem, but instead of solving it, will extend and create more problems so that they can continue to cash in on "solving" the problem. They manufacture problems that they can solve.
Who are these people? What group does this? Well, the large global companies primarily. Evidence?
Oil companies choose not to build additional refineries. Whether there is a glut or a shortage of crude oil, the bottleneck is exactly at the refinery. Consumers cannot get gas at the stations until that gasoline exits the refinery. But oil companies do not build additional refineries. Oil companies use two excuses: environmental groups don't want refineries and existing refineries are sufficient. The truth, however, is that by limiting the refineries, the oil companies can game the pricing for retail gasoline. They also don't have to spend capital to build refineries. And lastly, they can use the constriction to argue for more drilling rights. Drilling is cheaper than building refineries because the drill platform is much simpler to build.
Another example is the health care industry. Specifically, the pharmaceutical industry. All right, creating a drug that literally saves lives without negative side effects and is also relatively cheap is a very difficult problem to solve. It is almost a herculean job to solve health care problems. Now, I'm not going to the cheap route to claim that with proper diet, good exercise and some exotic herbs will prevent most of the health problems that these drugs are attempting to cure. Those courses of action are most certainly beneficial to one's health. But make no mistake: western medicine in the form of pills and injections have shown to be a very capable solution to many health-related problems.
But what the health care industry has decided to do now is not to research and develop medicine-based solutions to health problems; problems like diabetes, cancer, renal failure, high blood pressure. They have decided to first go after the low hanging fruit: restless leg syndrome, hair loss, erectile dysfunction, cosmetic medical treatments (botox and the like). One reason, a justifiable one, is because treating these disorders aren't likely to involve using medicine that could kill the patient: it's unlikely that a hair loss pill will kill Uncle Bill.
A second reason is because a lot of these "problems" were invented by the medical community itself. Sure, hair loss has been around since the time of Moses, but people just dealt with it. It's not a problem. Now, we have a solution, so we now have a problem to attach a solution to. Most ADD and ADHD symptoms were once categorized as "being a kid." Now, they're problems and there are drugs to solve them. I'm not belittling the sufferers of ADD/ADHD (and they're primarily the parents), but I remember as a kid seeing other kids, including myself, exhibiting behaviors which we now would label as ADD/ADHD behaviors. None of us were drugged. The teachers and parents dealt with it and eventually, we outgrew being a goofball.
The third reason is because these therapies are among a group of treatment programs that becomes enduring. When you take a pill for treating hair loss, that only works as long as you keep taking the pills, or until you decide that baldness is perfectly fine. Viagra doesn't permanently cure erectile dysfunction. It works for the next few hours after dosing. Now, are they trying that with medicine for the more serious problems like cancer or diabetes or heart disease or AIDS? Well, I would be making a big fool of myself if I were to just say, "YES." I'm not in the pharmaceutical industry and I don't know all the details of all the current research work. But, from talking with people who are in the industry, there seems to be more of a move to make drugs that don't necessarily cure (solve) the disease (problem), but instead delay the critical effects of the problem. Why cure AIDS when you can get them to take a cocktail of drugs to indefinitely minimize the effects of AIDS? Why cure diabetes when you can get them to inject insulin forever? It's cash-flow, baby.
The health care industry, particularly the pharmaceutical industry have moved from curing to mitigating. The problem -- a real problem -- is that this course of treatment is not viable in the long term. For various infectious diseases, from bacterial to viral, the bug evolves. If the "solution" is mitigation, the bug doesn't die, it just get repressed until it's physiologically irrelevant. But over time, the bug evolves to deal with the treatment and then it blossoms into a real nasty bug. Of course, that's a boon to the health industry: a new problem!
So this not-solving-the-problem-entirely is itself a problem. There is a solution to it, and it involves political will. Governments have to intercede and get these industries to do the right thing. Governments can basically do this in two ways: monetary incentives and disincentives (grants in the former, taxes in the latter) and penalties. At the moment, the US government, at least, have not tried using the penalties option, and mostly use just the monetary incentive option. We need to take back our control of the oversight groups: the Department of Energy, the FDA, the HHS, EPA and use them to enforce laws that are already written. Now, coming this November, which party and which candidate for president is more likely to attempt this?
Unlike physics, the economic science of problem solving is a perpetual motion machine: all solutions are ultimately hacks; temporary solutions that either beget a better solution or create new problems that demand new solutions. And it's a positive economic engine because there is usually a profit tied to solving a problem.
A situation becomes a problem when there is a burdensome economic cost. If I need to get from point A to point B, that's a burden -- hence, a problem. If someone can provide me with a quicker or easier way to get from A to B, that's a solution and I am willing to trade something for that solution. Money was created to make the trade more fungible, the lack of which was a problem prior to the invention of money.
For the longest time, the game was played earnestly where legitimate problems were identified, and hardworking people toiled to create solutions. Again, in the grand scheme of things, every solution is just a temporary hack. There is no such thing as the "ultimate" solution to a problem. Problems sometimes become extinct because the solutions have pushed the problem so far away from reality. For example, we no longer have to worry abut the problem of human underpopulation. (For many millennia, the survival of the homo sapiens species was touch and go. We could have died out and cro-magnons or the neanderthals might have taken over.)
The problem-solution paradigm is ingrained, at least, in western civilization. The scientific method is really nothing more than an application of the problem-solution paradigm applied towards the understanding of the natural world. Engineering is the creation. Virtually all avocations of man is related to this problem-solution paradigm. (I imagine music -- instrumental music, and novel writing as avocations that do not directly address a problem, other than the default problem of earning a living using an avocation.)
The problem-solution paradigm is also the only perpetual motion machine. Value is created when a solution is found. It is not a zero-sum game where the value of a solution is equal to the cost of the problem. The value of the solution is much greater than the problem's present and future cost. That's how we humans have managed to create great wealth (ok, it is sort of arbitrary: a dollar bill means nothing to a donkey), but also great physical creations like buildings and dams and highways and ships and planes. All these changes could not occur if creation is equal to the destruction. (All right, it's not totally a perpetual motion machine, since the earth is not a totally closed system. We have a sun that shines upon the planet tera-watts of power every day. That energy is stored in the tides, the winds, the plants, in the food we eat, the fuel we use. And all that energy is often used to power our solutions to problems.)
So what's the problem? The problem now is that there are entities who have decided that, rather than seek out problems and solve them, they will instead claim to solve a problem, but instead of solving it, will extend and create more problems so that they can continue to cash in on "solving" the problem. They manufacture problems that they can solve.
Who are these people? What group does this? Well, the large global companies primarily. Evidence?
Oil companies choose not to build additional refineries. Whether there is a glut or a shortage of crude oil, the bottleneck is exactly at the refinery. Consumers cannot get gas at the stations until that gasoline exits the refinery. But oil companies do not build additional refineries. Oil companies use two excuses: environmental groups don't want refineries and existing refineries are sufficient. The truth, however, is that by limiting the refineries, the oil companies can game the pricing for retail gasoline. They also don't have to spend capital to build refineries. And lastly, they can use the constriction to argue for more drilling rights. Drilling is cheaper than building refineries because the drill platform is much simpler to build.
Another example is the health care industry. Specifically, the pharmaceutical industry. All right, creating a drug that literally saves lives without negative side effects and is also relatively cheap is a very difficult problem to solve. It is almost a herculean job to solve health care problems. Now, I'm not going to the cheap route to claim that with proper diet, good exercise and some exotic herbs will prevent most of the health problems that these drugs are attempting to cure. Those courses of action are most certainly beneficial to one's health. But make no mistake: western medicine in the form of pills and injections have shown to be a very capable solution to many health-related problems.
But what the health care industry has decided to do now is not to research and develop medicine-based solutions to health problems; problems like diabetes, cancer, renal failure, high blood pressure. They have decided to first go after the low hanging fruit: restless leg syndrome, hair loss, erectile dysfunction, cosmetic medical treatments (botox and the like). One reason, a justifiable one, is because treating these disorders aren't likely to involve using medicine that could kill the patient: it's unlikely that a hair loss pill will kill Uncle Bill.
A second reason is because a lot of these "problems" were invented by the medical community itself. Sure, hair loss has been around since the time of Moses, but people just dealt with it. It's not a problem. Now, we have a solution, so we now have a problem to attach a solution to. Most ADD and ADHD symptoms were once categorized as "being a kid." Now, they're problems and there are drugs to solve them. I'm not belittling the sufferers of ADD/ADHD (and they're primarily the parents), but I remember as a kid seeing other kids, including myself, exhibiting behaviors which we now would label as ADD/ADHD behaviors. None of us were drugged. The teachers and parents dealt with it and eventually, we outgrew being a goofball.
The third reason is because these therapies are among a group of treatment programs that becomes enduring. When you take a pill for treating hair loss, that only works as long as you keep taking the pills, or until you decide that baldness is perfectly fine. Viagra doesn't permanently cure erectile dysfunction. It works for the next few hours after dosing. Now, are they trying that with medicine for the more serious problems like cancer or diabetes or heart disease or AIDS? Well, I would be making a big fool of myself if I were to just say, "YES." I'm not in the pharmaceutical industry and I don't know all the details of all the current research work. But, from talking with people who are in the industry, there seems to be more of a move to make drugs that don't necessarily cure (solve) the disease (problem), but instead delay the critical effects of the problem. Why cure AIDS when you can get them to take a cocktail of drugs to indefinitely minimize the effects of AIDS? Why cure diabetes when you can get them to inject insulin forever? It's cash-flow, baby.
The health care industry, particularly the pharmaceutical industry have moved from curing to mitigating. The problem -- a real problem -- is that this course of treatment is not viable in the long term. For various infectious diseases, from bacterial to viral, the bug evolves. If the "solution" is mitigation, the bug doesn't die, it just get repressed until it's physiologically irrelevant. But over time, the bug evolves to deal with the treatment and then it blossoms into a real nasty bug. Of course, that's a boon to the health industry: a new problem!
So this not-solving-the-problem-entirely is itself a problem. There is a solution to it, and it involves political will. Governments have to intercede and get these industries to do the right thing. Governments can basically do this in two ways: monetary incentives and disincentives (grants in the former, taxes in the latter) and penalties. At the moment, the US government, at least, have not tried using the penalties option, and mostly use just the monetary incentive option. We need to take back our control of the oversight groups: the Department of Energy, the FDA, the HHS, EPA and use them to enforce laws that are already written. Now, coming this November, which party and which candidate for president is more likely to attempt this?