The observation that in certain economic and political structures, creating, prolonging, or managing a problem can be more profitable and sustainable than genuinely solving it.

The financial models of these sectors often reward problem maintenance or artificial scarcity:

1. The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) 🛡️
2. The Problem: Conflict and geopolitical instability (the existence of a persistent “Them”).
3. The Profit: Guaranteed, massive government contracts for weapons and military hardware thrive on the continuation of threats, real or perceived.
4. The Paradox: Lasting world peace would lead to a collapse in demand and revenue, making the business model dependent on conflict.

1. Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals 💊
2. The Problem: Chronic illness and dependency.
3. The Profit: Focuses on developing drugs that manage chronic conditions indefinitely (a lifetime subscription), rather than curative treatments (a one-time transaction).
4. The Paradox: A cure is financially less rewarding than a long-term maintenance drug, leading to research prioritization based on market longevity.
5. Cybersecurity and Anti-Virus Software 💻
6. The Problem: Evolving digital threats (viruses, malware).
7. The Profit: Relies on the constant evolution of threats requiring continuous subscription services and updates.
8. The Paradox: A truly perfect, unhackable security system would eliminate the need for perpetual subscription revenue.

1. This dynamic is an example of the sliptun effect: the stated goal is to eliminate the problem, but the financial incentive is to ensure the threat persists at a manageable, profitable level.
2. This represents a key critique where market incentives prioritize financial value (making money) over social value (ending a problem).
3. Note: The opposite dynamic exists in disruptive innovation, where a solution that offers overwhelming efficiency and convenience (e.g., self-driving technology, cheap solar power) can make massive profits by eliminating an old problem or market need.