Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No kidding. The point I was working towards was that if there is something so magical about pharma R&D, perhaps we could spend govt money on it, rather than hoping that pharma companies will spend their money on it instead of distributing same to their shareholders.
Club, your view about the connection between profits and R&D expenditure remains elusive. My suggestion: how much pharma invests in R&D is a function of the expected rate of return, not a question of how much cash they have on hand, e.g. because they are currently enjoying lots of profits. It appears that you oppose anything that might cut into pharma profits for fear that they will invest less on R&D. I can't figure out where this principle ends, though.
|
Of course it's a partially a functon of expected return (i.e., profits), but it is also a function of available resources. Think of it this way, if pharma co determines it's expected rate of return on R&D is 30%, then the more resources put towards R&D, the more net profit they will realize (assuming they couldn't earn more using the resources in a different manner), and the more innovation we should ultimately enjoy as a society.
I more properly oppose anything that would unreasonable infringe on revenues. I'll let pharma co decide how much should go to R&D because I believe pharmo co is in the best position to make that determination because all of the incentives point in that direction.
