Re:Cost of developing new drugs may be far lower than indust...
by xyzzy123 on Saturday April 27, 2024 @01:41AM
(#40177573)
Right, from a private capital perspective, it's a misallocation of resources.
If a company can make X% return on capital (researchers, equipment, marketing, regulatory engagement, office space etc) working on communicable diseases, but Y% >> X% doing something else, a responsible steward of somebody else's pile of money is supposed to direct the capital towards Y.
Re:Cost of developing new drugs may be far lower than indust...
by llamaimperative on Saturday April 27, 2024 @08:04AM
(#40179317)
Itβs called opportunity cost, which when inflicted regularly enough and to a great enough degree starts to just look like general incompetence.
Re:Cost of developing new drugs may be far lower than indust...
by s1artibartfast on Saturday April 27, 2024 @10:07AM
(#40180063)
Less profit than anything theoretically, and in practice, less than the US treasury bond rate.
If the company is spending $1B/yr for a 1% return in that division, but the return on bonds is 5%, the financial answer is to liquidate, and put the cash in bonds.
Re:Cost of developing new drugs may be far lower than indust...
by BurningFrog on Saturday April 27, 2024 @12:49PM
(#40181408)
OK, I agree with this.
My claim was a bit too strong. But I think my general point stands.
And without knowing the specifics, there can be a lot of value from continuing to produce those sorts of things, if it's within reason. I mean shit they probably spend more on ads saying how great they are than it would cost to actually be great (by saving lives with cheaper meds)