What you seem to be too stupid to understand is that ordinary people can't directly buy pharmaceuticals. They have to be prescribed by doctors who gain 100 times more information on a drug from trade publications than an ad would provide. And guess what, if a pharma company wanted to promote something new, trade advertisements are relatively cheap. Of course they'd have to keep the army of hot babes who flirt with the doctors up and running but I suspect that's fairly cheap compared with running national ads.I thought the threat of reduced R&D was what was supposed to keep everybody on board with being raped by the pharmaceutical companies. Now it's advertising and quality of management? Why don't you tell us that 10's of thousands of advertising jobs would be lost if they tightened their belts. Because it would be absurd. Honestly, who besides the advertisers would care? And as for the quality of management, it tops out at about 2x my salary. Beyond that, there's a strong correlation with self promoting douchebags. (Note that I've kept open the possibility of high level execs not being douchebags - it's just rare.)Profit is what's left over after all unavoidable costs are met. I think the pharmaceutical companies are at least smart enough to see that R&D is their future (then again, given the short term thinking I've seen in a variety of corporations, maybe I'm being too kind). Advertising is somewhat mutable and so is executive compensation although I'm sure if the feeding trough allows, these guys will get all they can. If there's not enough profit left over after whatever costs they deem unavoidable are met, they shouldn't sell to the Europeans.You're a fucking moron if you think I said that R&D is an expendable coast and advertising isn't. I said all costs count, you proposed the inane idea that they don't need to recover their advertising costsYou're a fucking moron if you think that R&D is an expendable cost and advertising isn't.
Industry stats are of dubious value. You just hate business and love government. The point is that Europe only allows them to capture their direct costs and a portion of their indirect costs, they don't allow them to capture the full cost. So prices are higher in the US because of that.My estimate of manufacturing and R&D being about 20% of a pill cost is probably fairly accurate considering I have access to those costs in several industries. If the Europeans have negotiated a price of 50% of what we pay, there's still plenty of slop to allow full R&D and then some advertising, some profit and even some executive compensation - just not the exorbitant amounts that our broken system provides.
My point is clear, stop being a dumb ass
You know that's not going to happen though. It's only because OUR system is so screwed up - in no small part because of their lobbying - that they can make a killing here. They're probably terrified that we might wake up someday.
Right, you have an anti-Corporate Marxist list of sweeping unsubstantiated allegations. And ridiculous assumptions like that cutting advertising won't have an affect on sales and that reducing executive compensation won't affect the quality of the management they can hire, so let's go ahead and fuck every company in the industry because you don't like them
I'll explain this in your native language, simpleton.
Advertising is done by companies to grow revenue
If you advertise less, you sell less
That means the R&D per pill goes up, not down
So that does what to the price of each pill?
LOL, what a dumb ass. How do you know nothing about business, I mean seriously? Drool, dar, why do companies advertise? I don't get it? Isn't that just spending money?