Experts fear shortage of unprofitable cancer drug.

[Spectral]

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.

[Kasierith]

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?

[Laize]

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 ----------

I don't know a polite way to put it - this is really stupid.

Yeah... Spectral hit the nail right on the head.

[Beefsquatch]

I don't know a polite way to put it - this is really stupid.

Explain to me how is this stupid?

Why exactly does this disgust you?

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

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.

[Spectral]

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.

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?

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.

[Wells]

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.

[Spectral]

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.

[Felya]

Explain to me how is this stupid?

Explain how there is no money in cures.

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 ----------

Money is, by definition, a fungible asset. There's absolutely no difference between an opportunity cost and an out of pocket expense.

Perception...

[Laize]

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 ----------

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.

[stuck4cash]

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.

[Spectral]

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.

[Wells]

That's true, but I don't think anyone posited that there's an operating loss here.

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.

[Laize]

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.

[Wells]

You said losing money on the production. That more than clearly implies that they're not making a profit.

[Felya]

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?

[Laize]

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.

[Wells]

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.

[Laize]

Probably because you're not condescending enough.

Or it could be you simply don't want to admit you were wrong.

[Wells]

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.

[Laize]

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.