3 ms·
I believe the argument is not that it's negative profit... It's just less profit than other pharmaceuticals. And without knowing the specifics, there can be a
by fireflash38 2y ago
I believe the argument is not that it's negative profit... It's just less profit than other pharmaceuticals.
And without knowing the specifics, there can be a lot of value from continuing to produce those sorts of things, if it's within reason. I mean shit they probably spend more on ads saying how great they are than it would cost to actually be great (by saving lives with cheaper meds)
- xyzzy123 2y agoRight, from a private capital perspective, it's a misallocation of resources. If a company can make X% return on capital (researchers, equipment, marketing, regulatory engagement, office space etc) working on communicable diseases, but Y% >> X% doing something else, a responsible steward of somebody else's pile of money is supposed to direct the capital towards Y.
- llamaimperative 2y agoIt’s called opportunity cost, which when inflicted regularly enough and to a great enough degree starts to just look like general incompetence.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoLess profit than anything theoretically, and in practice, less than the US treasury bond rate. If the company is spending $1B/yr for a 1% return in that division, but the return on bonds is 5%, the financial answer is to liquidate, and put the cash in bonds.
- BurningFrog 2y agoOK, I agree with this. My claim was a bit too strong. But I think my general point stands.