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...