3 ms·

I agree that I may be bullish on long-long-term prospects. One of my gripes from the get-go was that even though Crypto was not intentionally exclusive as anyon

I agree that I may be bullish on long-long-term prospects. One of my gripes from the get-go was that even though Crypto was not intentionally exclusive as anyone anonymously anywhere in the world could create a Bitcoin wallet, it is intended for the more tech-savvy crowd. This excludes people like my parents and grand-parents who have used cash for a lifetime or plastic digital currency. I also believe a central monetary agency and a regulatory agency are vital to an economy to keep it from getting out-of-hand. The reason for my phase shift in thinking, is really applying the principal of greed I see here to other industries such as pharmaceuticals. I admit that I am not an expert in Pharmaceuticals, but I have to believe that these big pharma companies are altruistic and can only justify high prices by investing in high-risk, high-reward studies to find cures for ailments that are currently not treatable. I believe there exist good people in every industry, but the age-old notion of "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrow", remains more relevant than ever. Disclosure: I have formerly worked in Prime Brokerage Tech at Goldman Sachs and an HFT focused on the US Muni and Corporate Bond market. Currently in wine tech though ;)

lykr0n 9y ago
That "F" stock I have? My parent's Pharmaceuticals company. I can give you a bit of insight into why the cost is so high. 1. Because they can. Other countries don't pay as much, so they can get away with increasing their margins in the US market because they can't elsewhere. 2. The R&D is a shitload. With research, they are making educated guesses at stabbing into the dark to find something that works in their lab sample. Once they find a promising lead, they dig into that. If it shows promise, they start to experiment on rats. If that works, they try it in humans (phase 1) to see if it kills or harms people. This is where they see if it actually works in a human. Then, once there is evidence that the drug doesn't kill a person, this dose has shown some results they get more people (phase 2). This shows that the drug is generally effective and what side-affects happen. Then, they give it to a large population (Phase 3). Sometimes the FDA will allow them to skip this step if Phase 2 was an overwhelming success. That process can cost millions, if not billions. People say that "this drug only costs $0.02 per pill to make, why are you charging $100?" Because they only have 7 to 11 years to recoup the R&D costs before Generics can move in produce the drug. The method of using Universities and Research Institutions helps mitigate some of the initial R&D, which is why you hear "Harvard Scientists discover cure for super-aids." In the lab, they have a drug that in their testing cures super-aids. The next step is for a drug company to buy it and let their R&D department go to work. And when you are in the trials phase, you have to convince humans humans to be test subjects, which means giving them money, doctors to run the tests, and pay for any healthcare costs that results in side-affects. That costs money. And then add in the costs of making sure literally EVER is documented, numbers add up, and every possible question can be answered. The FDA, for good reason, goes through everything with a fine toothed comb. If something doesn't add up, numbers change from document to another, or something minor was overlooked (like the drug was kept at 10C at Site 1 and 10.5C at Site 2), the FDA will come back and demand an answer. It's all red tape, but for good reason. It's the reason why everyone really freaked out when Trump was floating that crazy dude for the FDA. It's the last place you want lax oversight. AFAIK, most countries deffer to the FDA's recommendations on allowing drugs on the market due to it's strict oversight. 3. As I mentioned, there is only a limited period where they can make money before other manufacturers can start making the drug. Any sunken costs must be recouped by this point, which drives up the cost.

lykr0n 9y ago

That "F" stock I have? My parent's Pharmaceuticals company. I can give you a bit of insight into why the cost is so high. 1. Because they can. Other countries don't pay as much, so they can get away with increasing their margins in the US market because they can't elsewhere. 2. The R&D is a shitload. With research, they are making educated guesses at stabbing into the dark to find something that works in their lab sample. Once they find a promising lead, they dig into that. If it shows promise, they start to experiment on rats. If that works, they try it in humans (phase 1) to see if it kills or harms people. This is where they see if it actually works in a human. Then, once there is evidence that the drug doesn't kill a person, this dose has shown some results they get more people (phase 2). This shows that the drug is generally effective and what side-affects happen. Then, they give it to a large population (Phase 3). Sometimes the FDA will allow them to skip this step if Phase 2 was an overwhelming success. That process can cost millions, if not billions. People say that "this drug only costs $0.02 per pill to make, why are you charging $100?" Because they only have 7 to 11 years to recoup the R&D costs before Generics can move in produce the drug. The method of using Universities and Research Institutions helps mitigate some of the initial R&D, which is why you hear "Harvard Scientists discover cure for super-aids." In the lab, they have a drug that in their testing cures super-aids. The next step is for a drug company to buy it and let their R&D department go to work. And when you are in the trials phase, you have to convince humans humans to be test subjects, which means giving them money, doctors to run the tests, and pay for any healthcare costs that results in side-affects. That costs money. And then add in the costs of making sure literally EVER is documented, numbers add up, and every possible question can be answered. The FDA, for good reason, goes through everything with a fine toothed comb. If something doesn't add up, numbers change from document to another, or something minor was overlooked (like the drug was kept at 10C at Site 1 and 10.5C at Site 2), the FDA will come back and demand an answer. It's all red tape, but for good reason. It's the reason why everyone really freaked out when Trump was floating that crazy dude for the FDA. It's the last place you want lax oversight. AFAIK, most countries deffer to the FDA's recommendations on allowing drugs on the market due to it's strict oversight. 3. As I mentioned, there is only a limited period where they can make money before other manufacturers can start making the drug. Any sunken costs must be recouped by this point, which drives up the cost.