Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 05:31:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:51:08 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

So a drug company may well
charge a lot for a drug in a developed country and sell it a lot
cheaper in a poor country (or, in the case of Canada, make a bulk deal
with a volume buyer.) That is the best deal for everyone, isn't it?

Not when the country next door is paying a fraction of what you pay. You Americans
are being taken to the proverbial cleaners.

We are paying to develop drugs

You think that only American drug companies develop drugs ?


I think that all companies that develop drugs need to be paid for the
related costs. Did I specify "American"? Why do you accuse me of being
an American chauvanist because I used the term "developed country"?


that benefit the whole world, including
poor people who can't afford to pay much. That sounds awfully nice to
me.

It sounds remarkably misinformed to me actually.

Why? Does Kenya develop a lot of new drugs? Do Kenyans need drugs?

But you can't allow the cheap drugs to be re-imported to the country
of origin, or the whole thing collapses.

I'm surprised that I have to explain stuff like this.

You are ???

" re-imported to the country of origin " ??? What kind of nonsense is this ? It's
actually cheaper to send something abroad and bring it back ? This is the economics
of the madhouse !

I'm surprised people don't understand simple stuff like this.

It's daft. Another word for it is protectionism.


Well, please explain how drugs can be developed if they can't earn
back the development costs. If AIDS drugs were sold at incremental
production prices to third-world countries (which they are, and
sometimes for less) and are reimported into the country of development
(where they are still expensive to a population that can afford it)
how can the companies afford to develop drugs? The alternative is to
let all those Africans die if they can't pay full price; that's one
economically viable solution.

I have the same situation in my business. It can cost a couple of
hundred thousand dollars to develop and launch a product that
subsequently costs very little to manufacture. Should I amortize the
development cost amongst production units, or ignore the one-time
costs and price the products based solely on manufacturing costs with
a modest profit? The selling price ratio, between these scenarios,
might be 3:1 or so. Which should I do?

Should software be sold for the cost of the CD's that it's distributed
on?

(Aside: I do now charge $500 to set one bit in an EPROM.)


It's nothing short of Government sanctioned fraud IMHO. Whatever happened to free
trade ?

Wanna discuss the way gray-market electronics is handled in Europe?

Please do.

Philips VCRs cost a lot more in Europe than they do in Bang***, and
it's illegal to buy them in Bang*** and resell them in Europe.
Philips effectively owns them even after someone in Bang*** pays for
them and takes legal title.

John

.