Re:Anti-addiction drug maker found a captive market in the c...
by logfromblammo on Friday June 30, 2017 @05:37PM
(#14673741)
My primate sense of fairness says that charging 100% of costs is actually a form of charity, 105% of costs is hyper-competitive, 110% of costs is quite respectable and meritorious, whereas 150% of costs is getting to be overly ambitious.
10000% of costs is, quite simply, asking for someone to put a shiv in your kidney.
The only way to achieve such margins is by literally suppressing all competition with armed force, with an unquenchable, non-substitutable demand. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the feds provide that force.
Re:Anti-addiction drug maker found a captive market in the c...
by saas_sam on Friday June 30, 2017 @07:57PM
(#14674352)
Feds provide force sometimes, but other times it's just a matter of time. When you produce a new product or service, you have a 'monopoly' on it until other people move in. Thus, margins start high and quickly lower even in a maximally competitive environment. Just wanted to share that concept in case others didn't make that connection!
Are you saying that's not the correct price in a competitive market? After accounting for all costs, of course.
Maybe you should read those people as saying "this market is lacking in competition to make prices reasonable".