3 ms·

Because, from healthcare, to consumer products, to software, to books, the US is paying full price to subsidize the cost to much of the world. The US is the pro

Because, from healthcare, to consumer products, to software, to books, the US is paying full price to subsidize the cost to much of the world. The US is the profit center that makes possible the steeply-discounted-almost-free sales elsewhere.

cmdrfred 10y ago
The "full price" here was 15 percent of GlaxoSmithKline's revenue last year. They spent 40 percent on marketing. When can this myth die? http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gsk-ranks-in-r-d-spending-against-sales-and.html http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gs...
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  Probably about the same time as people stop equating "general and administration expenses" with "marketing". Marketing is a subset of that.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Yes, it also includes buying lunches for doctors and private jets for the executive staff. What it does not include is R&D in any shape or form. The fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high.
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      Oy. It also includes paying the janitors, the property taxes, and the myriad of other costs that come with running a company. > The fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high. Neither are their SGA expenses. The two combined are just under half GSK's revenue. Anyway, that's irrelevant to trying to score cheap points with a false equivalence.
kbart 10y ago
"the US is paying full price to subsidize the cost to much of the world. The US is the profit center that makes possible the steeply-discounted-almost-free sales elsewhere." Yeah, right. So why we pay ~30% more[1] for the same iPhone in Europe? I've seen this "we pay for the rest of the world" myth over and over again, but never reliable proofs or sources that support it. Sure, I bet Apple gets most profits from USA, but it's because it sells most of phones there, not that they are "given for free" elsewhere. 1. http://micgadget.com/36729/iphone-7-price-in-usa-china-europe-worldwide/ http://micgadget.com/36729/iphone-7-price-in-usa-china-europ...

cmdrfred 10y ago

The "full price" here was 15 percent of GlaxoSmithKline's revenue last year. They spent 40 percent on marketing. When can this myth die? http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gsk-ranks-in-r-d-spending-against-sales-and.html http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gs...

vonmoltke 10y ago
Probably about the same time as people stop equating "general and administration expenses" with "marketing". Marketing is a subset of that.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Yes, it also includes buying lunches for doctors and private jets for the executive staff. What it does not include is R&D in any shape or form. The fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    Oy. It also includes paying the janitors, the property taxes, and the myriad of other costs that come with running a company. > The fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high. Neither are their SGA expenses. The two combined are just under half GSK's revenue. Anyway, that's irrelevant to trying to score cheap points with a false equivalence.

kbart 10y ago

"the US is paying full price to subsidize the cost to much of the world. The US is the profit center that makes possible the steeply-discounted-almost-free sales elsewhere." Yeah, right. So why we pay ~30% more[1] for the same iPhone in Europe? I've seen this "we pay for the rest of the world" myth over and over again, but never reliable proofs or sources that support it. Sure, I bet Apple gets most profits from USA, but it's because it sells most of phones there, not that they are "given for free" elsewhere. 1. http://micgadget.com/36729/iphone-7-price-in-usa-china-europe-worldwide/ http://micgadget.com/36729/iphone-7-price-in-usa-china-europ...