2020 US Election (Part One)

[Socrates99]

and if they were for some insane reason losing money outside the US, stopping that would not preclude a drop in prices here it would just preclude them going up over there. I mean could you imagine the shareholder outrage over them dropping prices out here? People would be sued left and right.

I think the idea is that the lower prices in other countries do cover manufacturing costs but us dummies in the US fund the R and D. More often than not once the numbers come out the R and D is covered within the first couple years.

There just recently was that viral clip of AOC grilling the Gilead CEO over high priced AIDS meds. When asked why you could get the med for 8 bucks in Australia but it costs $1700 in the US his only response was the patent expires sooner in Australia. Worst part is that drug was researched by publicly funded labs, not Gilead. They just bought the patent. They're not even recouping losses.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think the idea is that the lower prices in other countries do cover manufacturing costs but us dummies in the US fund the R and D. More often than not once the numbers come out the R and D is covered within the first couple years.

There just recently was that viral clip of AOC grilling the Gilead CEO over high priced AIDS meds. When asked why you could get the med for 8 bucks in Australia but it costs $1700 in the US his only response was the patent expires sooner in Australia. Worst part is that drug was researched by publicly funded labs, not Gilead. They just bought the patent. They're not even recouping losses.

Yea we are the laughing stock of the corporate world. It is known.

 

[Berzerker]

That subsidizing crud is just the lie they sell us to get away with gouging American consumers simply because they can. Whenever they get these guys in front of Congress they can almost never justify their pricing. Especially when the representative has the numbers for research, marketing and manufacturing costs compared to profits right in front of them. All of this is available to Congress via SEC filings. Theres a reason the pharmaceutical industry is a top political donor. It's a good investment to keep politicians in their back pocket.

No, Americans just stupidly allow this to be done to them.

That subsidizing crud was mine, if Europeans are paying less for a drug because of a price control and Americans are paying more, thats a subsidy. Its like Medicare being subsidized by the market in health care, older sicker people dont pay as much and most everyone else picks up the tab by paying more. But one of the reasons why big pharma opposes reimportation of their drugs is because foreigners can simply buy the drug and sell right back to Americans. On second thought, if that was legal the undercutting would drive prices down domestically. But at some point I'd expect the drug producer to just stop selling abroad.

So what would happen if price controls existed everywhere? The drug would be less profitable. Thats where big pharma would start arguing about how they use profits to grow, to fund all the wonderful things they're doing to make sure everyone has a bathroom cabinet full of pills, drops, and creams. They even got pills to treat the symptoms caused by other pills.

It's a weird math if other countries are subsidized by other American taxpayers or not. If those foreign customers didn't exist, it's not like the R&D would be easier or cheaper. Foreign markets make drug profits easier, because the marginal cost of production is pretty low. An extra customer just adds more money.

If other countries didn't bargain for better prices, they'd get gouged. But large buyers always negotiate pricing.

There's some kind of misinformation mill pumping all the same lines into people, I've heard this subsidy argument every single time the topic comes up.

If the drug companies weren't still making money, they wouldn't be distributing their goods to these other countries with price controls. I mean come on, this is capitalism 101

The price controls dont require a loss, they limit the profits. To make up for that other people pay more for the same drug. As El Mac said, large buyers negotiate pricing. Well, apparently Medicare/Medicaid dont negotiate drugs but the taxpayer in off the street will pay more than everyone else. Which is ironic since in this context he's weak and powerless while the rich and powerful pay less.

 

[cardgame]

well maybe the fatcats should learn to live with less like everyone else has been for the past four decades or so

less profit is still profit

 

[Broken_Erika]

well maybe the fatcats should learn to live with less like everyone else has been for the past four decades or so

less profit is still profit

Pffffft! You're forgetting the first rule of Capitalism!

 

[Narz]

Good news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-paint-bleak-picture/?utm_term=.db76872c478c

Not looking good for the Orange cheeto.

Meh, that's what the polls were saying before the 2016 election. Cold comfort.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That subsidizing crud was mine, if Europeans are paying less for a drug because of a price control and Americans are paying more, thats a subsidy. Its like Medicare being subsidized by the market in health care, older sicker people dont pay as much and most everyone else picks up the tab by paying more. But one of the reasons why big pharma opposes reimportation of their drugs is because foreigners can simply buy the drug and sell right back to Americans. On second thought, if that was legal the undercutting would drive prices down domestically. But at some point I'd expect the drug producer to just stop selling abroad.

So what would happen if price controls existed everywhere? The drug would be less profitable. Thats where big pharma would start arguing about how they use profits to grow, to fund all the wonderful things they're doing to make sure everyone has a bathroom cabinet full of pills, drops, and creams. They even got pills to treat the symptoms caused by other pills.

The price controls dont require a loss, they limit the profits. To make up for that other people pay more for the same drug. As El Mac said, large buyers negotiate pricing. Well, apparently Medicare/Medicaid dont negotiate drugs but the taxpayer in off the street will pay more than everyone else. Which is ironic since in this context he's weak and powerless while the rich and powerful pay less.

Here is my real life example. I use eye drops to control internal eye pressure. One of the drops is called Lumigan. At my local Walgreen's under Medicare and plan F it costs me $728 for three months. If I were to buy it from Ireland where Allergan is HQed, they would ship it from India where it is manufactured and send to me through Canada; it would cost me $78 for 3 months. Same drug, same brand, same packaging, same internal paperwork, same bottle.

So, I guess that Walgreen's is not buying their supply from the Indian manufacturer, Allergan India Ltd. which btw charges $8.59 for a 1 month bottle. I'm guessing that Walgreen's buys from one of the other 40 manufacturing sites Allergan uses around the world. And I'm guessing that Walgreen's would not mark up $27 worth of drugs to over $700 retail. They actually can't set their own drug prices. Retail pricing is set by contract with manufacturers and insurance companies. Typically, though 15-20% is a good estimate.

So when I buy $728 for ~$27 of eye drops, where does the $700 of gross margin go? Is there something wrong with this picture?

 

[Narz]

Yeah you can get dick pills from India for like $2 a pill, same stuff in the US costs like $50 per pill.

 

[Kyriakos]

Pffffft! You're forgetting the first rule of Capitalism!

Skeletor stands for capitalism, but so does He-Man.
Very two-party american.

 

[Sommerswerd]

They are splitting it into two groups. They tried to break the groups up such that neither would be the 'must watch' debate.
View attachment 526661

Still too many candidates. There should be no more than 6 onstage at a time. I like Mike Smerconish's (IIRC maybe it was Chris Cuomo?) idea of having the debates split up into several short one-on-ones

Also, I thought the split was random to avoid accusations of bias etc like in 2016 ... The set with Biden, Harris and Bernie is clearly the "A" debate... especially with Buttigeig in there too.

 

[Berzerker]

Here is my real life example. I use eye drops to control internal eye pressure. One of the drops is called Lumigan. At my local Walgreen's under Medicare and plan F it costs me $728 for three months. If I were to buy it from Ireland where Allergan is HQed, they would ship it from India where it is manufactured and send to me through Canada; it would cost me $78 for 3 months. Same drug, same brand, same packaging, same internal paperwork, same bottle.

So, I guess that Walgreen's is not buying their supply from the Indian manufacturer, Allergan India Ltd. which btw charges $8.59 for a 1 month bottle. I'm guessing that Walgreen's buys from one of the other 40 manufacturing sites Allergan uses around the world. And I'm guessing that Walgreen's would not mark up $27 worth of drugs to over $700 retail. They actually can't set their own drug prices. Retail pricing is set by contract with manufacturers and insurance companies. Typically, though 15-20% is a good estimate.

So when I buy $728 for ~$27 of eye drops, where does the $700 of gross margin go? Is there something wrong with this picture?

Walgreens is a rip off, they wanted to charge me 8-10x what I pay for acid reducers. I hope you're not on timolol maleate. Yes there is something wrong with that picture, but your drops are not domestically produced, sold abroad, and then exported back into the country by people taking advantage of foreign price controls.

 

[Ironsided]

Dunno why but this discussion reminds me of something I saw on YouTube a few years back. Ashens “Poundland special” reviewing a plastic cup of mashed potato. Reading on the cup it contained hundred percent UK potato flakes or something like that, only it was packaged and seasoned in China. So apparently they shipped potato starch from the UK to China only to have the Chinese put it in a plastic cup and send it back to Poundland in the UK. No doubt this was done with a hundred percent economic rational from a business point of view. Never mind the climate effects or local unemployment or the sheer idiocy of shipping potato flakes around the globe to have them end up in the same place. In an effort to tie this to the discussion: The only one in the democratic race who would even challenge this capitalist order of things is Bernie. Not even Warren would.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Dunno why but this discussion reminds me of something I saw on YouTube a few years back. Ashens “Poundland special” reviewing a plastic cup of mashed potato. Reading on the cup it contained hundred percent UK potato flakes or something like that, only it was packaged and seasoned in China. So apparently they shipped potato starch from the UK to China only to have the Chinese put it in a plastic cup and send it back to Poundland in the UK. No doubt this was done with a hundred percent economic rational from a business point of view. Never mind the climate effects or local unemployment or the sheer idiocy of shipping potato flakes around the globe to have them end up in the same place. In an effort to tie this to the discussion: The only one in the democratic race who would even challenge this capitalist order of things is Bernie. Not even Warren would.

I was with you until the bolded. Why do you think she won't?

And uh, if anyone but Bernie makes it on the ticket, will you hold your nose and vote for them? Because purity tests are killing the Democrats

 

[Ironsided]

I don’t think she would because she has more faith in, and a less intrusive way of viewing in the private sector. Likewise I don’t think Hillary, Obama, Bill would either. And honestly, I can respect that so long as they stand by these decisions when questioned about responsibility for climate and local unemployment etc. And I have no doubt Warren would do that because she is very genuine but also IMO too weak on certain issues like this.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Would you vote for Warren?

 

[Ironsided]

Only if Bernie was no longer an option, but yes I think after Bernie Warren is the best choice in my lifetime – for Americans.

 

[Lexicus]

Nonsense.

Companies plan in hopes of influencing markets.

For this to be a useful discussion, you need clearly defined terms. Without them it is all smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, because one-word denials of my claims really help this to be a useful discussion

Companies plan in hopes of influencing markets- well, duh, which is why I said

the whole idea that markets and planning are antithetical is absurd.

But yes: clear definitions. Capitalism is a political-economy system where markets are controlled by capitalists for the benefit of capitalists - this is justified by an ideology which claims such control is necessary for "innovation" and growth. Without capitalists enforcing the social discipline of savings, there could be no growth and no technological change.

Socialism, by contrast, is the democratic control of investment and institutions to meet human needs rather than to create capitalist profits.

I have to say I am quite impressed by Warren's idea of a national industrial policy. I am not up on the details but the mere fact of the proposal is...exciting. I've already more-or-less defected to her from Sanders, who is too old. It would be amazing to see a (president) Warren-Sanders (VP) ticket.

And uh, if anyone but Bernie makes it on the ticket, will you hold your nose and vote for them? Because purity tests are killing the Democrats

IIRC @Ironsided isn't American.

FWIW I don't think Bernie and Warren differ substantially in the outcomes they'd deliver on these trade issues.

Also, I submit to you that neoliberal ideology and being too similar to the Republicans is killing the Democrats, not "purity tests"

 

[Birdjaguar]

Walgreens is a rip off, they wanted to charge me 8-10x what I pay for acid reducers. I hope you're not on timolol maleate. Yes there is something wrong with that picture, but your drops are not domestically produced, sold abroad, and then exported back into the country by people taking advantage of foreign price controls.

What do you have against timolol maleate?
Allergan doesn't manufacture any of its products in the US, they are all made elsewhere and brought in. So, the $700 price is just a US price arranged by contract between Allergan, insurance companies and pharmacies. That means that in the US we are paying super premium prices because of our healthcare system and not any market considerations.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And the whole idea that markets and planning are antithetical is absurd. Our actually-existing, so-called free market economy is today largely a planned economy - large, integrated corporations are devices for economic planning.

But yes: clear definitions. Capitalism is a political-economy system where markets are controlled by capitalists for the benefit of capitalists - this is justified by an ideology which claims such control is necessary for "innovation" and growth. Without capitalists enforcing the social discipline of savings, there could be no growth and no technological change.

Socialism, by contrast, is the democratic control of investment and institutions to meet human needs rather than to create capitalist profits.

I have to say I am quite impressed by Warren's idea of a national industrial policy. I am not up on the details but the mere fact of the proposal is...exciting. I've already more-or-less defected to her from Sanders, who is too old. It would be amazing to see a (president) Warren-Sanders (VP) ticket.

Thanks. So, what is a planned economy and what is economic planning? They are related, but not the same.

 

[Lexicus]

Thanks. So, what is a planned economy and what is economic planning? They are related, but not the same.

A planned economy would be an economy characterized by planning more than some arbitrary threshold. I will have to think some to come up with a proper definition for economic planning.