I believe he meant factoring the cost of future research for future drugs, rather than just the sunk cost of research for the product you are pricing specifically. edit: nevermind, he answered himself.
How does the rate of failures for drug companies compare to the rate of failures for companies that create "other goods?"
Is that what we are trying to determine? Whether drug prices are inflated or not? Has anyone said that drug prices aren't inflated? I don't know who you are arguing with/against there. I think the question is more of whether they should be factoring that sort of thing into their prices or not. You seem to think they shouldn't, but I think my question about rate of failures is worth answering. I'm also curious about your use of the word "almost." Almost none? Then which others do? If you look at the companies that top the R&D charts, they're all tech, automobile, and drug companies. Do the goods produced by tech and automobile companies take into account the cost of other failures?
You are trying to determine something, I am not. I made a statement. You are questioning that statement--that's not an argument, that's you trying to determine something. Hope that clears that up for you. The biomedical engineering field does; most medical related fields in general, do. Tech, no. You aren't being charged for Netflix based on their failed attempt at sending DVDs and Bluray disks, or Facebook for its failed attempts at integrating single sign on. You don't pay for facebook at all, or google, or to use Amazon. With tech, you'd be trying to find the example of the company that does, not does not. Whereas with pharma, we'd be looking for the company that doesn't instead of does. Same with automobiles, you aren't paying this year's model's price based on failed concept cars. Not even the new manufactures, like Tesla do that.
I asked a question, and you replied that my question was immaterial to determining whether price is inflated or not. So I'm just trying to figure out when we started attempting to determine whether price is inflated or not. I don't really see where that fits into any discussion taking place in this thread, but you said it, so now I'm just trying to figure out why. If most medical related fields in general do, then why shouldn't pharma? How do you know that Neflix isn't charging extra based on failed attempts at sending DVD's and Bluray disks? Comparing to tech is obviously difficult and may not make a ton of sense. You're making statements as if the "good" produced by Facebook or Google is the platform itself. Facebook and google make their money through ads and data, not by charging every day people to use their platforms. How do you know they aren't factoring the cost of related and unrelated failures into their prices for ads/data?
We didn't, price is inflated. There is nothing to determine. No, you aren't trying to figure out why, you're trying to get me to spell it out for you. Do you need help? I'll give you a hint (COVID drugs have been, in several cases, pre-purchased by Government, who are funded by taxpayers... Oh, damn, I went too far, and spelled it out for you.) I explained why pharma shouldn't. Are you suggesting that because I can cite an example, that I'm in support of that example also doing it? You asked for an example, not how they should be treated. Jesus. Because Netflix is competing with streaming services who never had failed DVD and Bluray disk services, and yet have a competitive price with those other streaming services. So you can conclude they are not, fairly simply. Comparing tech is not difficult, and makes plenty of sense. The good is the platform. If nobody consumes the platform, there is no ad revenue generated. IE, the good is the platform. Stop me if you've heard this one before... but, because Google, Facebook, and other entities are competing with services who have not had those failures, but yet maintain a competitive price for advertisement space, you can conclude, fairly simply, that they are not.
I would think that would be good. Why is that not good? And I say I think it would be good, because, anything promised now might not survive the election.
1. The plan was to try to have it ready to vote on when the Senate comes back on the 19th so it will be taken care of before the election. 2. A whole bunch of small businesses are reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly struggling right now and could use the check. 3. We're still in limbo with the first round of PPP funding and if there will be automatic forgiveness for loans $150K and less. That makes up approximately 80% of the PPP loans. It's going to be an administrative nightmare across the board if this isn't done. 4. If (when?) he loses I could most certainly see him saying "[uck fay] it" and not doing anything.
He is going to be too busy yelling, suing and rallying his base when the overnight results are modified over the next week by all of the mail in ballots and if it changes the "results of the election" he is going to be digging in like an Alabama tick.
I'll let you guess approximately when this was annoucned today - https://www.google.com/search?q=dow...rome&ie=UTF-8#scso=_Z858X7DrLcaw5wLfj66wDw8:0
Both (the individual piece is still being debated), but in this instance I was referring to PPP loans.
They are. But right now small businesses are closing down left and right. Most of my clients have done well, but a few are beginning to get nervous too.
See, this is where a legislative body that is an equal third of the government could, in good conscience, thumb their nose at him and continue working without him. bahahahahahahahaha
A new round of PPP prolongs the inevitable. I don't know that I see people getting back to anything resembling normalcy until next summer. I don't think a new round of PPP helps keeps a lot of businesses alive for that long. This round of PPP extended us, 3 months? I guess if this round of PPP was limited to only businesses that didn't get it the first time, I could see it being more helpful. But I doubt that was a restriction.
