Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
This assumption has merit. They will not accept significantly less profit. Instead what they will do is stop or significantly decrease investing in R&D (an expense) and trim jobs to right size the operation, which will negatively effect technical progress (e.g., good luck coming up with a cure for Alzheimers). They will also be less profitable over the long haul, which will have the effect of producing less wealth for the millions of people who have invested their retirement savings through 401(k)s mutual funds, etc.
I will continue to harp on this, but there are consequences to every action that need to be considered.
|
What you're saying isn't rational. There's no reason for drug companies to leave money on the table, right? If what you say is try, they should be slashing R&D right now in order to pay bigger dividends to their shareholders. By this reasoning, we should get rid of anything that cuts into their profits -- taxes, etc. -- hell, we should be giving them money, in the hope that they will invest it in R&D.
Alternatively, you are just saying that because drug companies make money selling a product that's good for people, we should not do anything that limits their profits. Or the little girl gets it.
Threaded Mode