←back to thread

249 points randycupertino | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
stego-tech ◴[] No.45949690[source]
I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model.

What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech company it is, but those cured patients are far more likely to go on living longer, healthier lives, and in turn contribute additional value to society - which will impact others in ways that may also create additional value. That doesn't even get into the jobs and value created through the R&D process, testing, manufacturing, logistics of delivery, ongoing monitoring, etc. As long as the value created is more than the cost of the treatment, then it's a net-gain for the economy even if it's a net loss for that singular business.

If all you're judging is the first-order impacts on a single business, you're missing the forest for the trees.

replies(21): >>45949742 #>>45949753 #>>45949762 #>>45949770 #>>45949870 #>>45949906 #>>45950012 #>>45950170 #>>45950199 #>>45950225 #>>45950250 #>>45950263 #>>45950419 #>>45950655 #>>45950858 #>>45950892 #>>45950987 #>>45951787 #>>45952894 #>>45952915 #>>45955069 #
socalgal2 ◴[] No.45950250[source]
> ~public~ transit is not a good business model.

~public~ transit can be a good business model if it's setup correctly. The majority of Japan's 100 train companies are setup such that they own both trains and complementary interests. Office buildings, shopping centers, super markets, apartments. The better their trains are the better their other businesses do by delivering people to them. The better their other businesses are the more people want to use their trains.

https://ir.tokyu.co.jp/ja/ir/news/auto_20251111595684/pdfFil...

replies(7): >>45950290 #>>45950324 #>>45950357 #>>45950479 #>>45950648 #>>45950788 #>>45954481 #
1. ehnto ◴[] No.45950357[source]
It's fair to note that Japan's private rail networks have often been joint public/private investments, but I don't think that negates your point.

I think public transit is something the public should invest in, profitable or not, as a service to ourselves (the public). But it can also be done profitably in certain circumstances.

replies(1): >>45951086 #
2. socalgal2 ◴[] No.45951086[source]
I think trying to get the incentives right is important and that "public" transit rarely gets it right. It relies on politicians to fund it and they have so many strings being pulled on that they can rarely give it the funding it needs. It will always show up as an expense and as such there will always be an incentive to cut funding to "lower the expense". If they ever have a surplus it will be syphoned off to something else instead of invested.

Of course many cities have great "public" (run by the government) transportation for some definition of "great" but many have issues of funding. IIUC, NYC and London are both seriously underfunded. Conversely, AFAICT, these private Japanese trains in a city of a comparible size are not. If you don't want to compare to Tokyo, then compare to Osaka

https://www.keihan.co.jp/corporate/ir/individual/

https://www.hankyu-hanshin.co.jp/docs/integratedreport2025_j...