> Money is not the issue - getting access to production lines is

You don’t think having the heft of the U.S. government behind one of those parties will help with that access?

What I'm trying to say is that the supply is constrained, not the demand. And the supply of factories themselves are constrained as well. So they need to build more factories, which they are doing at an impressive pace. And for building factories it's similarly not the land or the money or the red tape that's the issue. It's the time to build a factory that's the limiting factor.

I interviewed for a contractor involved in building factories for Novo Nordisk. The timelines sounded insanely ambitious.

> Do you see the US government wanting to disrupt these industries, many of which are political donors?

When the one being disrupted is a European pharma? Yes.

The article is about disrupting big tobacco, candy companies, etc. being disrupted by a European pharma. Why would the US gov’t make a massive order to bring down costs to disrupt homegrown companies?

> Why would the US gov’t make a massive order to bring down costs to disrupt homegrown companies?

Have you been around our lawmaking institutions, or lawmakers? The idea that we'd sandbag something like Ozempic, which by the way is being negotiated for mass deployment through Medicare [1], to save the likes of Frito-Lay is nuts. Even if we reduce American politics to the lobbyist-conspiracy model, which isn't terribly predictive but whatever, you're pitting big pharma against chips and fast food.

[1] https://qz.com/wegovy-ozempic-weight-loss-drugs-medicare-rul...