TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Case Against Obama in a Nutshell
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yet here we are for some reason arguing over what constitutes a profit... It was, you just said so above! I never said R&D doesn't affect profits, I said they were NOT profits. EVERY FUCKING THING A COMPANY DOES AFFECTS PROFITS Everytime I make a point you shift the goal posts in order to make an irrelevant point. In this case, I simply said it was not ethical to make a profit in the pharmaceutical industry and for some reason you've spent 5 pages arguing about how R&D is or isn't part of those profits (I don't even think you knwo what point your making any more) And you have the nerve to call ME a moron after this reply?! Are you fucking retarded or something? My "conclusion" was to agree with your point, so why do I need to answer further? Ah! The classic Shakka and his amazing moving goal post trick again! So you asked me a question about if the "government ran everything" and when I gave you your answer all of a sudden you decide the question was really about the pharmaceutical industry!!! Quite clearly they don't and you've already proven they don't by showing how much shareholders receive from those profits I'm sorry mate but you twisted every single point I make even when agreeing with you, so you tell me who's being a retard? The point, that you so amazingly missed, was not to invent opinions and try and impose them on other people so you can make a devious attack on them...

fail.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka fail.

I'm sorry mate, you're a smart guy and all, but that is the most annoying meme in the history of the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm sorry mate, you're a smart guy and all, but that is the most annoying meme in the history of the internet.

Agreed. Second only to George himself.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm sorry mate, you're a smart guy and all

Let's not get carried away with ourselves now shall we!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Let's not get carried away with ourselves now shall we!

Well, I didn't say he was right!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Well, I didn't say he was right!

Rather, you didn't say you agreed with me. Ethical or not, good or bad, a profit is still a profit. I can't believe this madness continues.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Rather, you didn't say you agreed with me. Ethical or not, good or bad, a profit is still a profit.

EXACTLY what I've been trying to tell you, finally you come round!

quote:

I can't believe this madness continues.

Unfortunately I can

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley EXACTLY what I've been trying to tell you, finally you come round! Unfortunately I can

Give it a rest already. If your whole premise comes down to some poorly characterized translation of me saying that cost somehow equals profit, I am afraid you are (and have been) severely mistaken.

When I said cost was part of profit I explained many times over that the definition of "profit" = sales - costs. By virtue of being part of the profit equation, costs are part of the profit. Specifically, the profit margin is directly impacted by the level of costs.

To say that cost = profit is asanine. Profit is what you keep, cost is what you pay. A fucking 2 year old knows the difference, but you felt the need to protest it in some ridiculous manner. You even went so far as to try to make the distinction between gross/net income as being more relevant to your point, which it was not. You accused me of "wriggling" around a definition of profit that was somehow tied to ethics. You accused me of moving goalposts, though you did not say how, and I do not understand how I moved anything since my entire line of reasoning has been what constitutes a motherfucking profit.

The original point brought up was that pharmaceutical companies, generally speaking, use profits to further their business by reinvesting in innovation, etc., as well as Pfizer (since you specifically brought them up) who return excess profits to their shareholders (a common practice by many businesses to "reward" their owners for their investment). After all, nobody invests in a business, let alone a public company, with the intention that they will not somehow see personal financial gain. Your leftist ideology seems to tell you that this is wrong. My capitalistic ideology tells me that there is nothing wrong with this from a business standpoint (though ethics is always something that must be considered).

Your original comment that I saw as erroneous was this:

quote:

Profit is how much you make off selling a product compared to what you spent on it, therefore anything spent on R&D is calculated in the production costs, not the profit margin

While I agree with your first point, your contention that R&D is not in the profit margin is simply wrong. R&D is a cost that is amortized, but included in the cost of producing the product that you sold. Therefore, those costs are implicit in the profit margin associated with that product. Whether the company amortized more of those costs prior to the commercialization of the product is one thing, however when looking at the total lifecycle of the drug in question, it's probably more sensible to look at the big picture. The simplest point I made is that R&D is, in fact, directly related to the profit margin. You seem to argue that it is somehow not a real cost and that the company must not have spent any real money on R&D to develop the product. Otherwise, I don't see how you can possibly argue that profit margins are not affected by this expense.

You say "anything spent on R&D cannot be considered part of the profit."

While I think I understand your one-side-of-the equation thinking, I reiterate that profit = sales - costs, so therefore, R&D is part of the overall profit by virtue of being a component of the equation. It's really simple.

Ah so now you justify your ramblings in the previous 5 pages by saying that production costs are part of the profit equation!

I should also point out that I have never said production costs do not affect the profits, because that is blindingly obvious, so why you keep harking on about that God only knows

So, to put this matter to bed once and for all, can we both agree that the profit a company makes is what is spent on making a product compared to what they sell it for, and that what is spent on making a product is the production costs and, altho this will impact on the level of profits made by selling a particular product, it is not part of the profit taken home by the company?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So, to put this matter to bed once and for all, can we both agree that the profit a company makes is what is spent on making a product compared to what they sell it for, and that what is spent on making a product is the production costs and, although this will impact on the level of profits made by selling a particular product, it is not part of the profit taken home by the company?

Yes, up to the final point. I don't understand how on the one hand you can say development costs affect the level of profits, but that somehow it is not part of the profit taken home by the company. The best I can do to try to allow that point to make sense is to say that in a given year this may be the case because so much of the R&D expenditures were realized in prior years. However in the grand scheme of things every production cost was an expense borne on the P&L so I just don't understand what it is you're trying to get at.

If all you're trying to clarify is that a cost is different from a profit, all I can say is, well d'uh.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka If all you're trying to clarify is that a cost is different from a profit, all I can say is, well d'uh.

It would have been nice for you to say "well d'uh" a few pages ago, however, none of this is really relevant to my original point about profits made by pharmaceutical companies not being ethical...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It would have been nice for you to say "well d'uh" a few pages ago, however, none of this is really relevant to my original point about profits made by pharmaceutical companies not being ethical...

why do you claim that pharmaceutical profits are unethical? do you object to them not giving out for free (or for cost) what they spent years and billions of dollars to create?

do you think people who fund, work in, and own pharmaceutical companies don't have the right to profit the same as those in other industries? why not? if not for those people, those drugs that benefit people wouldn't even be created, regardless of the cost.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 why do you claim that pharmaceutical profits are unethical? do you object to them not giving out for free (or for cost) what they spent years and billions of dollars to create? do you think people who fund, work in, and own pharmaceutical companies don't have the right to profit the same as those in other industries? why not? if not for those people, those drugs that benefit people wouldn't even be created, regardless of the cost.

charging extortionist prices for life-saving medicines = unethical in my book (not to mention their use of human guinea pigs in 3rd world nations). if only it was the pharmaceutical business that was being undermined by torrents and copyright infringement rather than the gaming industry

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What makes you think that staff wages will automatically be lowered under nationalisation? The most prestigious jobs, privatised or nationalised will always be the most well rewarded. I see that in my country where doctors' wages are paid for out of tax revenues, but they are the highest paid professionals as a whole. I see no reason why scientists would not also be extremely well compensated for their work

nationalized industries can't compensate people with euity. that is an important aspect of the compensation structure. it promotes risk taking by the researchers because they will be able to share in the rewards more so than under a traditional compensation structure. there simply is no substitute for stock and other similar compensation when it comes to risk taking.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN charging extortionist prices for life-saving medicines = unethical in my book (not to mention their use of human guinea pigs in 3rd world nations). if only it was the pharmaceutical business that was being undermined by torrents and copyright infringement rather than the gaming industry

i can sympathize, however, without those prices who knows if those products would even be produced. we can speculate, but we do know that this system has produced many breakthrough drugs. why is it that countries with a history of nationalized industries weren't producing breakthrough pharmaceuticals?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 why do you claim that pharmaceutical profits are unethical? do you object to them not giving out for free (or for cost) what they spent years and billions of dollars to create? do you think people who fund, work in, and own pharmaceutical companies don't have the right to profit the same as those in other industries? why not?

I don't think it's particularly ethical for anyone to make money off people's misery, however, sometimes that is necessary. In this case however, I think it's disgusting that people can be denied a drug because they can't afford it. In my country, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decide which drugs are too expensive to be given to patients through the NHS. There is currently uproar about this because we demand all drugs are available though the NHS and shouldn't only be available privately (and this is something right wingers and left wingers will agree). They're "too expensive" because of what the pharmaceutical companies charge for them. If these companies were nationalised the production costs would be reduced and there would be no profits factored into the final price of the product - it would be much cheaper and affordable

But also, once a company creates a new drug, what do they do? They stick a patent on it so only they can sell it or licence it to other companies! They basically prevent anyone else from having the ability to treat illnesses because they only care about making money! Imagine if one of the companies discovers a cure for cancer and won't let anyone else have it so they can make money! That is not ethical in anyway shape or form.

quote:

if not for those people, those drugs that benefit people wouldn't even be created, regardless of the cost.

That's just not true. Why can't a "Ministry of Science", funded by tax payers money, be tasked to find cures for illnesses?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 nationalized industries can't compensate people with euity. that is an important aspect of the compensation structure. it promotes risk taking by the researchers because they will be able to share in the rewards more so than under a traditional compensation structure. there simply is no substitute for stock and other similar compensation when it comes to risk taking.

That's a pretty poor argument against nationalised industries! Clutching at straws a bit I think.

The police and army don't compensate their staff with stock but nobody seems to complain about that!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I don't think it's particularly ethical for anyone to make money off people's misery, however, sometimes that is necessary.

"sometimes it's necessary"????????wtf? isn't that the fundamental premise of the entire healthcare industry, regardless of whether its nationalized or not?

you're saying its unethical for a doctor to make money doing his job...unless you think what he does during normal working hours in a big white building should be considered his hobby.

i suppose the evil dialysis machine producing corporate goons fall in that same catagory? what about glucose meter manufacturers? the nerve of them investing their profits developing faster, less invasive, cheaper, smaller meters. pffffttt

they represent the same model industry, right? theyre in the BUSINESS of making people's lives better through technology and manufacturing as much as pharmaco's are in the business making people's lives better through chemistry.

i used be in utter "misery" from hemorroids and those unethical bastards at Preparation-H actually profitted off my burning butthole???? f**king cocksuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "sometimes it's necessary"????????wtf? isn't that the fundamental premise of the entire healthcare industry, regardless of whether its nationalized or not? you're saying its unethical for a doctor to make money doing his job...unless you think what he does during normal working hours in a big white building should be considered his hobby. i suppose the evil dialysis machine producing corporate goons fall in that same catagory? what about glucose meter manufacturers? the nerve of them investing their profits developing faster, less invasive, cheaper, smaller meters. pffffttt they represent the same model industry, right? theyre in the BUSINESS of making people's lives better through technology and manufacturing as much as pharmaco's are in the business making people's lives better through chemistry. i used be in utter "misery" from hemorroids and those unethical bastards at Preparation-H actually profitted off my burning butthole???? f**king cocksuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well when I said "making money off" I was referring to corporate profits rather than people's wages. So while I have no problem with doctors or policemen or soldiers being paid a good wage (they are workers after all and all workers deserve a good wage) I do have a problem with businesses making money from the industry.

Nationalised industries don't make any money for shareholders from the business they conduct...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Nationalised industries don't make any money for shareholders from the business they conduct...

So you're against enriching shareholders (who put up capital to make the business viable), but you are not against enriching the doctors at the expense of the taxpayers?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you're against enriching shareholders (who put up capital to make the business viable), but you are not against enriching the doctors at the expense of the taxpayers?

That is correct (in the health industry, of course)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I don't think it's particularly ethical for anyone to make money off people's misery, however, sometimes that is necessary. In this case however, I think it's disgusting that people can be denied a drug because they can't afford it. In my country, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decide which drugs are too expensive to be given to patients through the NHS. There is currently uproar about this because we demand all drugs are available though the NHS and shouldn't only be available privately (and this is something right wingers and left wingers will agree). They're "too expensive" because of what the pharmaceutical companies charge for them. If these companies were nationalised the production costs would be reduced and there would be no profits factored into the final price of the product - it would be much cheaper and affordable But also, once a company creates a new drug, what do they do? They stick a patent on it so only they can sell it or licence it to other companies! They basically prevent anyone else from having the ability to treat illnesses because they only care about making money! Imagine if one of the companies discovers a cure for cancer and won't let anyone else have it so they can make money! That is not ethical in anyway shape or form. That's just not true. Why can't a "Ministry of Science", funded by tax payers money, be tasked to find cures for illnesses?

I suppose a government funded entity could fund pharma research, however it would have to likely provide sufficient incentives for chemist not to focus on a non-nationalized field. Like it or not, government just doesn't pay as well as private industry. While you keep saying doctors in the uk make a good living, doctors have no choice but to accept government pay since there is no alternative. With respect to chemists, they have the opportunity to work in petrochemicals, agriculutral research, and a vast variety of field. Admittedly, some chemists will still be drawn to the work for the personal satisfaction of helping others. However, the most talented likely will be lured away by bigger paychecks from private companies. As a result, the brightest minds may not be developing the new drugs, and breakthroughs may take more time to develop.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I suppose a government funded entity could fund pharma research, however it would have to likely provide sufficient incentives for chemist not to focus on a non-nationalized field. Like it or not, government just doesn't pay as well as private industry. While you keep saying doctors in the uk make a good living, doctors have no choice but to accept government pay since there is no alternative. With respect to chemists, they have the opportunity to work in petrochemicals, agriculutral research, and a vast variety of field. Admittedly, some chemists will still be drawn to the work for the personal satisfaction of helping others. However, the most talented likely will be lured away by bigger paychecks from private companies. As a result, the brightest minds may not be developing the new drugs, and breakthroughs may take more time to develop.

We have private hospitals that NHS doctors also work at...

in the most basic terms, we need some higher taxes right now. the laffer curve is straight BS in large open economies.





"trickle down is dead"

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley We have private hospitals that NHS doctors also work at...

do those doctors get paid higher wages? are those positions more competitive than public jobs?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.