4 ms·
Your first link is from 2008, and analyzes data from 2004. I don't see how this proves anything, or even suggests much, about the industry today. Your second
by greeneggs 5y ago
Your first link is from 2008, and analyzes data from 2004. I don't see how this proves anything, or even suggests much, about the industry today.
Your second link shows that the pharma companies spend almost as much on R&D as on stock dividends and buybacks. Is there any other industry that spends as much on R&D? Apple, for instance, seems to be spending ~6x as much on stock buybacks and dividends as on R&D (approximately, based on the first Google hits).
Even your own links contradict your claim that very little goes to R&D.
- ricardobeat 5y agoThis is not a dick measuring contest. The comment was challenging the notion that pharmaceuticals companies spending the majority of their cash on advertising and stock buybacks is a desired outcome. The specific numbers, especially across industries, are meaningless.
- Lhiw 5y agoWe're not talking about government action forcing apple to sell iPads for near cost. We're talking about whether using the governments scale to negotiate better pricing is going to put them out of business or in this arguments case whether it will reduce their spending on r&d. The idea that it would is silly at best given how much they spend on marketing compared to r&d. It also ignores how much the government gives them to fund new research with nothing in return, hello Moderna you Brandon loving fucks.