Look at any commodity market, with no barriers to entry, no IP protection, thin margins, say: making bread. The logic that everybody will stop making bread because there's more money to be made in making iPads is false.
The general rule is: as long as there is money to be made, people will compete for this money.
There's a lot of money to be made in drugs and as long as it's true, companies will compete for this money, even if the margins won't be as great as they are today.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companie...: the top pharma company makes $12bn profit on $62bn of revenue with $7bn spent on R&D.
The $12bn is a lot of wiggle room and twice the amount they spend on R&D. They are making profits hand over fist.
The $7bn total spent on R&D also puts your $1bn per drug into question - does the biggest pharma company can only do 7 new drugs per year (and I'm really generous in assuming all of that R&D goes into developing new drugs)?
Pharmaceuticals involve high liability, high costs, and highly skilled workers at least in the R&D area. I'm not sure whether the "net income" (it doesn't say profit) listed on that wikipedia page is net of R&D and net of taxes. Actual profit might be much smaller than it appears; if R&D is not included then the top firm has a profit of 8% and that may not include taxes. If they are only able to make bread-bakers profits they might as well just make bread and avoid all the hassle.
Just take a look at how many drugs those multi-billion dollar per year R&D budgets get you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-tru...
Or are you saying that the poor should feel lucky for the opportunity to sign up for experimentation?
The US government (read taxpayers) paid milions to GM in bailout money in the last week of September 2008, GM opened a new plant in St. Petersburg, Russia in the first week of October 2008.
How is it all not as simple as good vs evil? Could the trillions of dollars of taxpayer bailout money not be spent on providing healthcare to all Americans and their generations to come?
When they fail we all need to chip in, when they succeed (say their drug is successful) we all have to pay for their profits.
Anyone remember the millions of dollars Rumsfeld made over the bird flu scam? Remember Tamiflu? Bird flu killed a fraction of the number of people routinely killed by common cold and malaria around the world but the UN rushed to declare it a pandemic and that translated into billions of Dollars of purchases of medication from governments around the world. The medication did not even provide the defense it claimed to provide any way.
No reply to the comment but down votes? I didn't know we also had banksters at Hackernews.
And when the BBC World Service investigated they people who talk to them had to have their identity & voices disguised because they did not want to end up dead
Huge amounts of money have to be raised to make a new drug. The cost of bringing a new drug to market is typically $800m-$1.2bn (i.e more than exit value of Instagram or Yammer is required just to get to launch).
With treatments for viruses it gets even more problematic, in developing countries where regulations and medical practices are lax, a large number of people taking drugs in an uncontrolled manner can allow viruses to mutate making the drugs ineffective for everyone.
The issue isn't as simple as good vs evil as the article makes out. There are complex ethical, economical and medical issues here and this article completely ignores that.