There arent infinite resources, the whole point is how to manage them. The US has millions of malnourished kids, Something that can be solved with a lot less resources than obscure diseases that will affect only a handful.

That said, let the billionaires spend their money on such cures if they wish (and they do). If we talk about what is the role of government in spending money to save lives, expensive pharma isnt one of them.

Imagine we could choose between living miserably and never progress, or let one person die one hour earlier than they normally would and the rest would live immortally and thrive in luxury forever. I think most people would pick the latter.

Now, we're in a situation similar to this, although much much less extreme. But the point is, trade-offs exist. And this is one of them.

The current economic situation is a lot closer to "what if one person could live immortally in luxury, at the cost of everyone else dying an hour earlier than they normally would".

What. How did you come to this estimation?

An economy isn't something you choose to have or not have. It arises naturally as a matter of fact. Our legislation and rules and laws that govern it are a consequence of its existence, not its cause.

It's a feedback cycle, not a one-way arrow.

> what's the point of having an economy in the first place?

Ask yourself who established the rules for our economy and who stands to benefit from them. If you ask them, things are working just as they are meant to.

Our country owes its roots to a wealthy, merchant class uprising. The system they setup benefited people like themselves.