Pharma Exec: “Moral Requirement” to Charge as Much as Possible for Drugs

[Cubo de Sangre]

The examples are from McTaggart, Findlay and Parkins, ECONOMICS, 5th Edition. It's a textbook I have floating around from university when I was studying economics.

Spoiler

Did those examples come with any reasoning? I did say "true" monopoly (pretty sure). Not some expanded legal viewpoint designed to take down market leaders in court.

 

[Trotsky]

Don't recall my US Steel history, but Microsoft enjoyed patents (or is that copyright with code?), yes?

US Steel was strong arming railroads to exclude competitors.

I don't believe Microsoft was all that dependent on patents in the area that I'm talking about. Well, I suppose they were in the areas of software compatibility, but certainly not in the browser wars. There, they were mandatorily (sp) bundling their browsers with their operating systems, having them automate to them, and installing all these bogus messages and warnings within the OS's that would discourage using competitors' products.

 

[Neph]

Did those examples come with any reasoning? I did say "true" monopoly (pretty sure). Not some expanded legal viewpoint designed to take down market leaders in court.

I don't know what you mean by true monopoly

A natural monopoly is a monopoly and requires no legislation to maintain it.

 

[Trotsky]

One more patch of your scalp for my belt, Dumbo.

Go find your tampon dispenser. I'll be linking this for a week. Drip drip drip.

Yikes, this is getting really sad. First you freak out about social democracy, then you call it authoritarian communism, then you make up "social capitalism," then you inadvertently make an argument for social democracy (the ideology you had a problem with to begin with), and now you're trying to strut through the tears.

 

[Ruprecht]

Did those examples come with any reasoning? I did say "true" monopoly (pretty sure). Not some expanded legal viewpoint designed to take down market leaders in court.

You do get regional monopolies in utilities, even in places without regulation, due to barriers to entry.
Even with the collapse of government in Somalia you aren't seeing multiple power and water companies competing within regions.
It's not always government regulation either. Plenty of monopolies in mining towns, although I guess the distinction between corporation and "government" is fairly semantic in those cases.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

US Steel was strong arming railroads to exclude competitors.

I don't believe Microsoft was all that dependent on patents in the area that I'm talking about. Well, I suppose they were in the areas of software compatibility, but certainly not in the browser wars. There, they were mandatorily (sp) bundling their browsers with their operating systems, having them automate to them, and installing all these bogus messages and warnings within the OS's that would discourage using competitors' products.

Yeah, there's definitely dirty practices that are effective. Pretty rare though when you think of all the government enabled examples (patents, copyrights, regulated private utilities).

I don't know what you mean by true monopoly

A natural monopoly is a monopoly and requires no legislation to maintain it.

I mean there's no way to supply a competing product or service. Not just that it's hard or that the market has an overwhelming preference. Like trying to call the UFC a monopoly when competitors exist and anyone with a bit of resources and savvy can try their hand at promotion.

Then utilities would be a bad example of a natural monopoly because legislation does maintain the lack of choice.

 

[ocean size]

Move over pharma bro... Nirmal Mulye (real name) wants to compete for front seat in Hell.

“I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can, to sell drugs for the highest prices.”

This was his justification for raising a life saving antibiotic from $475 to $2350 a bottle.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/health/drug-price-hike-moral-requirement-bn/index.html

This is the logical conclusion, by the way of the unregulated, libertarian capitalism the Right regularly argues for. Every once in a while a CEO sociopath is just autistic enough to say it like it is.

We need UHC, and we need it now.

Haven't read past OP but this was pharma bro's argument too. Legally they are correct in a sense that if they are a publically traded company there is a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits.

Clearly that's fucked but it's more a failure of the system or at least regulation.

 

[Neph]

You do get regional monopolies in utilities, even in places without regulation, due to barriers to entry.
Even with the collapse of government in Somalia you aren't seeing multiple power and water companies competing within regions.
It's not always government regulation either. Plenty of monopolies in mining towns, although I guess the distinction between corporation and "government" is fairly semantic in those cases.

Yep, you don't need a government to prevent entry into many of the utility markets.

Not only is the barrier to entry extreme (ie: building a second electricity grid or sewer network would be impossibly expensive) they are also not viable in an ongoing basis because the existing natural monopoly requires the economy of scale to operate successfully (ie: having only half the population on your grid does not produce a profitable business.

I mean there's no way to supply a competing product or service. Not just that it's hard or that the market has an overwhelming preference. Like trying to call the UFC a monopoly when competitors exist and anyone with a bit of resources and savvy can try their hand at promotion.

Then utilities would be a bad example of a natural monopoly because legislation does maintain the lack of choice.

This just isn't what the definition of a monopoly is.

Utilities are a natural monopoly and do not need legislation, see above.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You do get regional monopolies in utilities, even in places without regulation, due to barriers to entry.

If no law stops it then it's likely that lack of profitability is the real barrier. If we wanna call that a monopoly then sure. You Aussies win.

I'll walk it back to most monopolies are government enabled, not all. We good?

 

[Cirris]

The issues here isn't as much about Capitalism. As it is about bureaucracy and socialist patent laws.

When Capitalism is working properly, a shitstain douche like the one above would lose, because he'd price himself into fierce competition. As there would be a huge gap in profits versus costs to bringing that product to market. creating money making opportunities for potential rivals.

 

[Trotsky]

Yeah, there's definitely dirty practices that are effective. Pretty rare though when you think of all the government enabled examples (patents, copyrights, regulated private utilities).

Yeah, I don't have a firm universal policy recommendation on much of that. I personally support nationalization of utilities and take a fairly middle-of-the-road stance on patents and copyright. Patents, particularly, seem unavoidably necessary to me to sustain innovation, but it's just so goddamned hard to create a framework for duration that isn't arbitrary or won't lead to constant litigation, since the time span necessary to recoup investment is just so individually specific and highly varied. Patent litigation is already so wasteful, even with our incredibly streamlined and unspecific system.

Honestly, patent/patent litigation and antitrust law are two areas where liberal democracy can seem really frustrating and wastefully pedantic.

 

[Madmick]

Yikes, this is getting really sad. First you freak out about social democracy, then you call it authoritarian communism, then you make up "social capitalism," then you inadvertently make an argument for social democracy (the ideology you had a problem with to begin with), and now you're trying to strut through the tears.

Your Urban Dictionary ignorance has been corrected. Stop blaming me because you thumped a dictionary you haven't studied.

If you slowed down, and weren't so desperate for a "win" after your recent throttlings, you wouldn't be in the position where, ironically, you're deploying memes and GIFs when you have whined about just that tactic in the past. It's delicious.

Drip drip.

 

[Trotsky]

Your Urban Dictionary ignorance has been corrected. Stop blaming me because you thumped a dictionary you haven't studied.

Don't blame me that the first definition that came up for your derp term was from Urban Dictionary.

Trust me, I found it hilarious too. That's why I commented on the entry's Madmickian grammar.

If you slowed down, and weren't so desperate for a "win" after your recent throttlings, you wouldn't be in the position where, ironically, you're deploying memes and GIFs when you have whined about just that tactic in the past. It's delicious.

Holy lol - how do you not realize that I'm openly copying your tactic that I called you out on earlier today - seizing on a periphery mistake and then high-stepping about it? You think you have a gotcha moment when, once again, you're showing your ass on how dumb you are. Like I mistakening used "inoculating" for syphillis, you mistakenly (err, I'm giving you some leeway here since you're embarrassing yourself) referred to "social capitalism" instead of social democracy. But, sadly, even that was secondary to your actual gaffe, which was characterizing regulated capitalism as authoritarian communism in the first place.

Your level of density and self-unawareness is Jerry Seinfeld-level hilarious.

Trigger warning

Spoiler

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yeah, I don't have a firm universal policy recommendation on much of that. I personally support nationalization of utilities and take a fairly middle-of-the-road stance on patents and copyright. Patents, particularly, seem unavoidably necessary to me to sustain innovation, but it's just so goddamned hard to create a framework for duration that isn't arbitrary or won't lead to constant litigation, since the time span necessary to recoup investment is just so individually specific and highly varied. Patent litigation is already so wasteful, even with our incredibly streamlined and unspecific system.

Honestly, patent/patent litigation and antitrust law are two areas where liberal democracy can seem really frustrating and wastefully pedantic.

My gut feeling is patents provide more for profits than they do innovation. People are naturally creative and inquisitive. Universities could be more of a breeding ground.

Private utilities are highly regulated at the rates are capped (think an allowable profit margin of 8-10%). In order to raise rates the utility submits a rate case to the public authority. Requests for relief are highly scrutinized and mostly less is granted than what's applied for.

What area of law are you in?

 

[Madmick]

Don't blame me that the first definition that came up for your derp term was from Urban Dictionary.

Trust me, I found it hilarious too. That's why I commented on the entry's Madmickian grammar.

Like "libertarian capitalism" in the OP? It was laissez-faire when I studied these terms, but the semantics don't confuse me-- probably because the Urban Dictionary doesn't come up on the first page of my results.

Holy lol - how do you not realize that I'm openly copying your tactic that I called you out on earlier today - seizing on a periphery mistake and then high-stepping about it? You think you have a gotcha moment when, once again, you're showing your ass on how dumb you are. Like I mistakening used "inoculating" for syphillis, you mistakenly (err, I'm giving you some leeway here since you're embarrassing yourself) referred to "social capitalism" instead of social democracy. But, sadly, even that was secondary to your actual gaffe, which was characterizing regulated capitalism as authoritarian communism in the first place.

Your level of density and self-unawareness is Jerry Seinfeld-level hilarious.

Trigger warning

Spoiler

How odd to lecture me about a lack of self-awareness in such a moment. You're slowly conforming to my shape, and not vice versa. This is how the weaker mind adapts.

You didn't "gaffe" about syphilis. You were just ignorant about that, and the rest of the history surrounding penicillin, and why it was so significant. Unlike you, I have a history of using these terms while you have no history proving your understanding that there is no syphilis vaccine, and penicillin's early means of distribution/growth. You learned about this from me. I was your teacher. You still can't admit it. Instead here come the flames.

 

[Neph]

You're slowly conforming to my shape, and not vice versa. This is how the weaker mind adapts.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I agree 100% in the area of employment (that entitlements, UBI, etc. won't stop people from wanting to be productive, and will actually increase entrepreneurial freedom), but the upfront research costs on medicine can be so astronomical that'd I be more in favor of a type of system where companies are issued provisional patents until they can document with the government how much they are tangibly owed for their research.



I'm in multiple currently. Started in criminal defense, did some securities after law school, and am now doing labor/employment and also contracting with a prior employer firm in product liability. My foremost passion is labor law (representing unions), but having that as a sole area of practice is pretty much extinct now with the recent laws (RTW) and rulings (Janus).

I'm a proponant of government funding for universities in the area of medical research. Issue no patents. Set up government manufacturing, but allow private manufacturing to try to compete.

A friend of mine is in employment law. She seems to love it. I think she gives seminars on it.

 

[Madmick]

 

[Trotsky]

Like "libertarian capitalism" in the OP? It was laissez-faire when I studied these terms, but the semantics don't confuse me-- probably because the Urban Dictionary doesn't come up on the first page of my results.

Again, that's not my OP so I'm not bound to answer your deflections, but I will since I think you need a helping hand. "Libertarian" was very clearly used as an adjective in that sentence.

How odd to lecture me about a lack of self-awareness in such a moment. You're slowly conforming to my shape, and not vice versa. This is how the weaker mind adapts.

The....weaker mind....becomes petty and immature to adapt to the already-petty and immature superior mind? Of course, that is more coherent than expecting that you would conform to the shape of an intelligent adult, so I will grant you that.

No, you're just a childish moron and I'm having fun with you. I've never made any pretenses about my petty streak.

You didn't "gaffe" about syphilis. You were just ignorant about that, and the rest of the history surrounding penicillin, and why it was so significant. Unlike you, I have a history of using these terms while you have no history proving your understanding that there is no syphilis vaccine, and penicillin's early means of distribution/growth. You learned about this from me. I was your teacher. You still can't admit it. Instead here come the flames.

So I'm clear, it's your position that I thought syphilis - a disease that we all know is still present in the population - was eradicated by vaccines? And that that was the undoing of my position that government plays a crucial role in resolving health crises?

Also, what is your profession, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Trotsky]

HAHA! You're acting stupid like I naturally am!