Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    And people wonder why those craaaaazy folk believe that these companies are holding back a cure for HIV and such because there are is no money in cures. While I do believe we don't have it, situations like this make me think about it more. Disgusted is an understatement to how I feel about this.
    I don't know a polite way to put it - this is really stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I either wear welders goggles when I drive, or I go at night

  2. #122
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    11,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    And people wonder why those craaaaazy folk believe that these companies are holding back a cure for HIV and such because there are is no money in cures. While I do believe we don't have it, situations like this make me think about it more. Disgusted is an understatement to how I feel about this.
    Why exactly does this disgust you?
    “…the whole trouble lies here. In words, words. Each one of us has within him a whole world of things, each man of us his own special world. And how can we ever come to an understanding if I put in the words I utter the sense and value of things as I see them; while you who listen to me must inevitably translate them according to the conception of things each one of you has within himself. We think we understand each other, but we never really do.”
    XKCD is always relevant. Always.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    And people wonder why those craaaaazy folk believe that these companies are holding back a cure for HIV and such because there are is no money in cures. While I do believe we don't have it, situations like this make me think about it more. Disgusted is an understatement to how I feel about this.
    I think you're seriously underestimating the incredible financial incentive to cure cancer. You're talking "Every shareholder triples his money" type of financial incentive.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 01:46 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I don't know a polite way to put it - this is really stupid.
    Yeah... Spectral hit the nail right on the head.

  4. #124
    Dreadlord Asseymcgee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I don't know a polite way to put it - this is really stupid.
    Explain to me how is this stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Why exactly does this disgust you?
    Because it's sad that a pharmaceutical company would rather make huge profits instead of helping people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I think you're seriously underestimating the incredible financial incentive to cure cancer. You're talking "Every shareholder triples his money" type of financial incentive.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 01:46 AM ----------



    Yeah... Spectral hit the nail right on the head.
    I think someone else mentioned it on here already but it's an opportunity cost, they aren't losing any money...they just want to make more. But I honestly don't know shit about that so I won't speak too much on it.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    Explain to me how is this stupid?
    Because it requires a belief that there's thousands of scientists clamming up about a "cure" that they could present to the public if they so desired. If someone was sitting on such a thing, it'd be disseminated in very short order; thinking otherwise belies a thorough ignorance of the research world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    Because it's sad that a pharmaceutical company would rather make huge profits instead of helping people.
    Do you expect to be paid for whatever work it is you do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    I think someone else mentioned it on here already but it's an opportunity cost, they aren't losing any money...they just want to make more. But I honestly don't know shit about that so I won't speak too much on it.
    Money is, by definition, a fungible asset. There's absolutely no difference between an opportunity cost and an out of pocket expense.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I either wear welders goggles when I drive, or I go at night

  6. #126
    Money is, by definition, a fungible asset. There's absolutely no difference between an opportunity cost and an out of pocket expense.
    There is however a pretty real difference between an opportunity cost and operating at a loss.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    There is however a pretty real difference between an opportunity cost and operating at a loss.
    That's true, but I don't think anyone posited that there's an operating loss here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I either wear welders goggles when I drive, or I go at night

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    Explain to me how is this stupid?
    Explain how there is no money in cures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    Because it's sad that a pharmaceutical company would rather make huge profits instead of helping people.
    The 'instead' is wrong. The point of any corporation is to make huge profits, it's not to help people. The point of pharma product is to help people. It does not make any sense that the huge profits are not the result of helping people. If their drugs didn't help people, there would be no huge profit.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 02:15 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Money is, by definition, a fungible asset. There's absolutely no difference between an opportunity cost and an out of pocket expense.
    Perception...

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    Explain to me how is this stupid?



    Because it's sad that a pharmaceutical company would rather make huge profits instead of helping people.



    I think someone else mentioned it on here already but it's an opportunity cost, they aren't losing any money...they just want to make more. But I honestly don't know shit about that so I won't speak too much on it.
    It was me explaining opportunity cost.

    If Pfizer doesn't find a "cure for cancer" another pharma company like AstraZenica will. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by NOT curing cancer (Even though that's a medical impossibility* to have a single cure for all cancers)

    *While not technically "impossible" it is, nonetheless highly improbable due to cancer being a label attached to HUNDREDS of different diseases with an even greater number of causes.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 02:18 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    There is however a pretty real difference between an opportunity cost and operating at a loss.
    No one suggested they were operating at a loss.

  10. #130
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Asseymcgee View Post
    Because it's sad that a pharmaceutical company would rather make huge profits instead of helping people.
    You see, the world is far more advanced *because* people are making profit on things. If people didn't make money, they wouldn't pay taxes for the roads you use or the healthcare that you receive.

    Here's the simpliest and most obvious example possible.

    Remember about 20 years ago when the internet was used by hardly anyone? The universities and forums didn't make it profitable and drive the huge usage. It was Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, news websites, etc. The companies that did it for the money. Capitalism is what made western society into the power house that it is. They're the ones on the cutting edge of technology, the ones that make the drugs, the ones that make the medical equipment that goes into hospitals etc.

    Society as a whole advances because they make money and reinvest it. If they didn't, we'd be stuck in tribes in Africa, still trying to work out how to create fire. Cancer wouldn't be a worry then because we'd be dead by 30.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Perception...
    People can perceive things a certain way, but if they're reasonable, they're change that perception when the facts are explained to them. From a business perspective, there's just not any practical difference between an opportunity cost and an expense; the only thing leading to the conclusion that they should stay the course if it costs them money is status quo bias.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I either wear welders goggles when I drive, or I go at night

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    That's true, but I don't think anyone posited that there's an operating loss here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Are you saying businesses should lose money on the production of this drug?
    That's where this all started. They aren't operating at a loss, there's just more to be made somewhere else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    That's where this all started. They aren't operating at a loss, there's just more to be made somewhere else.
    There you go, turning your misunderstanding into words I never said.

    I never said they were operating at a loss.

  14. #134
    You said losing money on the production. That more than clearly implies that they're not making a profit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    People can perceive things a certain way, but if they're reasonable, they're change that perception when the facts are explained to them. From a business perspective, there's just not any practical difference between an opportunity cost and an expense; the only thing leading to the conclusion that they should stay the course if it costs them money is status quo bias.
    I am sorry if I am not understanding this right, but isn't an expance more tangible than an oportunity. A budget shortfall, is far more tangible than a lost oportunity. Is that the status quo bias?

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    You said losing money on the production. That more than clearly implies that they're not making a profit.
    If they could be making more money making something else I don't get why it's not sinking into your head that they're losing money.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    If they could be making more money making something else I don't get why it's not sinking into your head that they're losing money.
    Probably because you're not condescending enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Probably because you're not condescending enough.
    Or it could be you simply don't want to admit you were wrong.

  19. #139
    Listen, you said losing money on the production. Which means that they would have to not be able to make a profit producing the drug. They can make a profit producing the drug. Is there an opportunity cost? Sure, but that has nothing to do with their ability to be financially viable producing the cheaper drug.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Listen, you said losing money on the production. Which means that they would have to not be able to make a profit producing the drug. They can make a profit producing the drug. Is there an opportunity cost? Sure, but that has nothing to do with their ability to be financially viable producing the cheaper drug.
    I never suggested it did. The opportunity cost was what was costing them money. They were, therefore, losing money.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •