The world is moving to subscription based business models from ownership based models.
Buying house -> Renting one
Buying MS Office -> Annual subscription (software-as-as-service)
Buying cars for running a taxi service -> Using someone else's car for a fee (Uber)
Buying seeds -> Pay royalty to Monsanto for seed use (seeds are slightly genetically modified from naturally occurring ones, so they can claim to be engineered and therefore patented. If you then somehow make all natural varieties extinct and you own the only remaining species).
Building a motel/hotel -> Using someone's else house or hotel for a fee
So why not Big Pharma too?
Someone on this site said it once: immunity-as-a-service model for COVID-19 vaccines. Pay your annual fee to upgrade your immunity to the latest threats out there (like the antivirus on your computer).
Think about how much money you make from treating patients indefinitely vs curing them in one shot? Why would you ever release a cure? You'd try to stop any information about non-patentable remedies
Yours is a wonderful comment. If a company offers a (fill in the blank)-as-a-service its stock valuation increases. Drug companies would do just about anything to create a situation where everyone on earth must take their shots at least every year for their entire lives. However, one aspect (your first example) strikes me as not quite right.
Buying house -> Renting one
Renting and landlords have been around for hundreds of years. The new model for land ownership is modelled after the Chinese system. You can have a house, but you get permission from the government to place your house on the land and cannot own the land. They have already copied this model in places like Thailand and the idea is to impose this sort of "land reform" on the rest of the world.
You are correct that it is old. However, when I wrote this. I was thinking of the recent news item about BlackRock buying up residential properties, increasingly driving "commoners" out of the market due to rising prices. We might be moving to much higher levels of renting than in the recent past, if there are no more affordable homes to buy.
The world is moving to subscription based business models from ownership based models.
So why not Big Pharma too?
Someone on this site said it once: immunity-as-a-service model for COVID-19 vaccines. Pay your annual fee to upgrade your immunity to the latest threats out there (like the antivirus on your computer).
Think about how much money you make from treating patients indefinitely vs curing them in one shot? Why would you ever release a cure? You'd try to stop any information about non-patentable remedies
Yours is a wonderful comment. If a company offers a (fill in the blank)-as-a-service its stock valuation increases. Drug companies would do just about anything to create a situation where everyone on earth must take their shots at least every year for their entire lives. However, one aspect (your first example) strikes me as not quite right.
Renting and landlords have been around for hundreds of years. The new model for land ownership is modelled after the Chinese system. You can have a house, but you get permission from the government to place your house on the land and cannot own the land. They have already copied this model in places like Thailand and the idea is to impose this sort of "land reform" on the rest of the world.
You are correct that it is old. However, when I wrote this. I was thinking of the recent news item about BlackRock buying up residential properties, increasingly driving "commoners" out of the market due to rising prices. We might be moving to much higher levels of renting than in the recent past, if there are no more affordable homes to buy.