Pfizer halts Alzheimer's and Parkinson's research, uses Tax Scam money to buy back stock

[Vociferous]

The ones doing significant drug research and related research are generally non-profit - that was the point.

I'm pretty sure the point was lost right out of the gate.
What countries with not-for-profit healthcare systems are developing significant new drugs?

That would be 'create new jobs or give out bonuses, no? In most cases.

Perhaps, if you're only speaking short-term.

There's already so much cash swimming around in the American economy, and so much cheap credit, that it's hard to see how a tax break would have much effect on investment - beyond the usual bias toward return on capital rather than labor.

What is a "return on labor"?

But very easy to make pronouncements about the overall rich people's income and lifestyle impact: http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/2018/01/beyond_satire.html

http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/2018/01/beyond_satire.html
Sounds like jealousy. Instead of thinking "I am better off than I once was", some people are miffed that others may be even better off. Story as old as time.
http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/2018/01/beyond_satire.html

The rightwing canard: tax something you get less of it, reduce taxes you get more of it. By reducing taxes on profit-taking and on return to capital, one encourages taking profits and investing for capital return. Not hiring employees.

Were taxes cut on capital gains or dividends?

 

[iceaura]

What countries with not-for-profit healthcare systems are developing significant new drugs?

Now you are just gone into the weeds completely. "Countries" don't develop drugs, healthcare systems source gear and the like from all over the world, profit from drugs is almost independent of the healthcare system involved, you are losing track of the role of research universities, all first world countries - even the US (VA, Medicare) - have large nonprofit healthcare systems in place, and so forth.
Here's a preliminary take, missing the word "significant" and also missing the central role of research universities: https://www.xconomy.com/seattle/201...-excel-in-creating-new-drugs-its-complicated/
and here's a takehome observation from it

3) With the advent of the biotechnology industry in the 1980s, why is there such a large decrease in the number of NCE’s during the 1990s when biotechnology products really began to enter the marketplace in large numbers?

But even in that context, notice that Switzerland has been punching above its weight for decades now, and the US pre-eminence has come from the more severe reduction of product by other countries in the aftermath of globalization and US tax breaks under Reagan - the rise of biotech compaies, multinational enterprises that normally drew talent and resources from the Universities who were the fountains of new drugs - and still are, for the most part, although diminished.
You can make a case for Reagan's tax breaks, deregulation, and injuries to the US research university system, having damaged the entire planet's drug development efforts.
As far as where in the world and within the US the significant drug research is being done: https://www.quora.com/What-countrie...-during-the-time-period-between-1995-and-2014
I'm not sure where the first for-profit entity shows up, but it's not in the top twenty in the US - let alone the world.

Were taxes cut on capital gains or dividends?

Nope. They're already low - hence the hedgefund loophole, which was kept.

Sounds like jealousy. Instead of thinking "I am better off than I once was", some people are miffed that others may be even better off. Story as old as time.

Sounds infantile. It's also mentally dubious - it's a common response from those afflicted with many mental disorders involving ego or image related compulsions (anorexia, most famously, but plastic surgery and binge shopping and gambling addictions and the like as well).
If you're picking up a mood, it isn't jealousy - it's contempt.
And notice: if it were jealousy, it would still be true. The idea that giving rich people tax cuts will help an economy stuffed with cash can only be sold to people who have no idea who the rich are and what they do with their money - and lack a basic education in economics, of course.
For example:

What is a "return on labor"?

Google is your friend

 

[Vociferous]

Now you are just gone into the weeds completely. "Countries" don't develop drugs, healthcare systems source gear and the like from all over the world, profit from drugs is almost independent of the healthcare system involved, you are losing track of the role of research universities, all first world countries - even the US (VA, Medicare) - have large nonprofit healthcare systems in place, and so forth.
Here's a preliminary take, missing the word "significant" and also missing the central role of research universities: https://www.xconomy.com/seattle/201...-excel-in-creating-new-drugs-its-complicated/
and here's a takehome observation from it

Profit from drugs is almost independent of healthcare system involved? So primarily public funded healthcare systems don't use price-setting? And that price-setting has little effect on profit? Seems farfetched.

Are the VA or Medicare developing new drugs? Seems irrelevant.

Seems to buoy my point.

Nope. They're already low - hence the hedgefund loophole, which was kept.

US has 6th and 9th highest cap gains and dividend taxes, respectively.
Those aren't the hedge fund loophole. The loophole is basically the lesser taxed profits of the middleman money managers, not the cap gains and divs of investors.

Sounds infantile. It's also mentally dubious - it's a common response from those afflicted with many mental disorders involving ego or image related compulsions (anorexia, most famously, but plastic surgery and binge shopping and gambling addictions and the like as well).
If you're picking up a mood, it isn't jealousy - it's contempt.
And notice: if it were jealousy, it would still be true. The idea that giving rich people tax cuts will help an economy stuffed with cash can only be sold to people who have no idea who the rich are and what they do with their money - and lack a basic education in economics, of course.

Yes, jealousy is infantile. Reminds me of a story I heard somewhere.

Say your boss comes in, thanks you for all your years of hard work, and gives you a bonus worth half your yearly salary. You'd be overjoyed, right? Who wouldn't be? Now you go to your coworkers to share your elation. You find out that everyone got a bonus, and that if anyone is dissatisfied all the bonuses will be lost. Are you any less happy with your own?
Now you find out that everyone else got a bonus worth their full yearly salary. Are you dissatisfied enough to both cost yourself half your yearly salary and cost all your coworkers their bonuses?

How people would answer says a lot about their character.

Why does anyone care what others do with their money? Seems like a busybody.

For example:

Google is your friend

If you're claiming "return on labor" is a standard economics term, please show me a concise definition.
From your google search, it seems to be a mostly Marxist or HR notion. What economic theory espouses it?

 

[iceaura]

Yes, jealousy is infantile

So is the accusation of it, as a defense of decadence and worthless squandering of the wealth of a community. It's a symptom - you need to grow up.

US has 6th and 9th highest cap gains and dividend taxes, respectively.

They're too low, for the US economy.

Profit from drugs is almost independent of healthcare system involved? So primarily public funded healthcare systems don't use price-setting? And that price-setting has little effect on profit? Seems farfetched.

There is only one system that does not cap drug prices, or even allow market factors to curb them in many cases: the US. So I said "almost". Drug companies of course make and sell globally.

Are the VA or Medicare developing new drugs? Seems irrelevant.

Are you expecting me to take that as an honest response? Seems unlikely. So you're trolling, now.
You asked about for-profit healthcare systems of entire countries: there aren't any, at least in the First World. I was just pointing that out.
The most important source of new drugs on the planet has been the great research Universities of the United States, especially the land grant Universities run by State governments. Other countries with excellent University systems have also contributed significantly. The advent of for-profit biotech corporations in the US and globally correlates with a drop in the productivity of these Universities, and thus in the discovery and development of new drugs generally.

Why does anyone care what others do with their money?

Because what the rich do with their money contradicts the claim that cutting their taxes will help the US economy, create jobs, etc.
It also undermines any justification of their wealth as earned, as deserved, as a reward for productivity, and so forth - the moral or ethical argument for opposing taxation of their incomes.

From your google search, it seems to be a mostly Marxist or HR notion. What economic theory espouses it?

Every capitalist macroeconomic theory since Adam Smith. Happy reading.

 

[Vociferous]

So is the accusation of it, as a defense of decadence and worthless squandering of the wealth of a community. It's a symptom - you need to grow up.

Just an observation of someone "feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages."
How do you justify the community owning the wealth?
I don't seem to be the one here acting defensive.

They're too low, for the US economy.

According to you.

There is only one system that does not cap drug prices, or even allow market factors to curb them in many cases: the US. So I said "almost". Drug companies of course make and sell globally.

That's true. Alloying an otherwise free market with public funding, that ensures demand regardless of price, does pervert natural market pressures. Same thing has happened to the cost of higher education.

Are you expecting me to take that as an honest response? Seems unlikely. So you're trolling, now.
You asked about for-profit healthcare systems of entire countries: there aren't any, at least in the First World. I was just pointing that out.
The most important source of new drugs on the planet has been the great research Universities of the United States, especially the land grant Universities run by State governments. Other countries with excellent University systems have also contributed significantly. The advent of for-profit biotech corporations in the US and globally correlates with a drop in the productivity of these Universities, and thus in the discovery and development of new drugs generally.

That seems like a straw man, seeing as I asked about not-for-profit healthcare systems, nor qualified it as being wholly unalloyed.

Because what the rich do with their money contradicts the claim that cutting their taxes will help the US economy, create jobs, etc.
It also undermines any justification of their wealth as earned, as deserved, as a reward for productivity, and so forth - the moral or ethical argument for opposing taxation of their incomes.

What do you think the rich do with their money?
How do you think they earn it?

Every capitalist macroeconomic theory since Adam Smith. Happy reading.

Seems like needless verbiage just to say "wages". Now I think you may be trolling, since you couldn't even clarify such a simple term. Maybe just some sort of ego display. Look, I'm just a loud primate. I only worry about clubs and stones.

 

[iceaura]

Just an observation of someone "feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages."

You mean contempt. I did leak a bit of that mood.

-They're too low, for the US economy. -
According to you

Yep. As seen in the top-heavy accumulation of the nation's wealth, which now impedes economic growth and advance. Physical proof.

Alloying an otherwise free market with public funding, that ensures demand regardless of price, does pervert natural market pressures.

There was never a free market in drugs, and can never be one. The natural pressures of a market cannot exist unless carefully arranged and restricted. The demand for many drugs is almost entirely inelastic - the only price barrier is actual inability to pay. That's why all sane countries cap drug prices, rather than protecting rent-seeking.

That seems like a straw man, seeing as I asked about not-for-profit healthcare systems, nor qualified it as being wholly unalloyed.

And I responded to that, both in the earlier post and the second one. For the third time: They are all significantly not-for-profit.

Seems like needless verbiage just to say "wages".

I linked you to an adequate supply of educational resources. I'm not the guy telling us about "natural market pressures" and throwing around words like "Marxist" without any idea what a return to labor is.

 

[Vociferous]

You mean contempt. I did leak a bit of that mood.

Venting your spleen. Sure. Reasons.

Yep. As seen in the top-heavy accumulation of the nation's wealth, which now impedes economic growth and advance. Physical proof.

How? Is an economy a zero-sum game? Is there no class mobility?

There was never a free market in drugs, and can never be one. The natural pressures of a market cannot exist unless carefully arranged and restricted. The demand for many drugs is almost entirely inelastic - the only price barrier is actual inability to pay. That's why all sane countries cap drug prices, rather than protecting rent-seeking.

Natural market pressures cannot exist without artificial restrictions? Sounds contradictory.
Is healthcare a right? If so, does that justify coercing providers?

I linked you to an adequate supply of educational resources. I'm not the guy telling us about "natural market pressures" and throwing around words like "Marxist" without any idea what a return to labor is.

Sure. I'm just used to calling it "wages".

 

[Kittamaru]

Is healthcare a right? If so, does that justify coercing providers?

At one time there was a concept of the social contract and a responsibility for a wealthy society to take care if it's vulnerable members.

 

[Vociferous]

Is healthcare a right? If so, does that justify coercing providers?

At one time there was a concept of the social contract and a responsibility for a wealthy society to take care if it's vulnerable members.

Sure, voluntary work typically done by churches.

 

[iceaura]

Natural market pressures cannot exist without artificial restrictions? Sounds contradictory.

It's not.
Economics - it's kind of interesting, to many people. Those who have taken no interest in it are somewhat handicapped in these discussions.

Sure. I'm just used to calling it "wages".

Which helps explain your not knowing what it is, although it does not account for your aberrant use of "Marxist" et al.

How? Is an economy a zero-sum game? Is there no class mobility?

How what?
The economy is not a zero sum game.
There is some class mobility, although much less in the US than formerly. Not only is the wealth concentrating inefficiently at the top, but the turnover in the people of that upper echelon is slowing down. With the abolition of inheritance tax and reduction of income tax, it will slow even more in tandem with the wealth concentration.

I provided you with a netsearch page, for catching up on the basics.

 

[Kittamaru]

Sure, voluntary work typically done by churches.

Certainly - after all, why should the mega-wealthy elites have to pay a pittance more of their excess when we can instead force it on the backs of those who are already barely scraping by (or failing to, in many cases). I'm sure that the churches are up to the task of caring for everyone else.

 

[Vociferous]

It's not.
Economics - it's kind of interesting, to many people. Those who have taken no interest in it are somewhat handicapped in these discussions.

Which helps explain your not knowing what it is, although it does not account for your aberrant use of "Marxist" et al.
More ego displays?

How what?
The economy is not a zero sum game.
There is some class mobility, although much less in the US than formerly. Not only is the wealth concentrating inefficiently at the top, but the turnover in the people of that upper echelon is slowing down. With the abolition of inheritance tax and reduction of income tax, it will slow even more in tandem with the wealth concentration.

I provided you with a netsearch page, for catching up on the basics.

How does it impede economic growth and advance?
If an economy isn't a zero-sum game, then wealth can be generated and accumulated without harming the economy.

Certainly - after all, why should the mega-wealthy elites have to pay a pittance more of their excess when we can instead force it on the backs of those who are already barely scraping by (or failing to, in many cases). I'm sure that the churches are up to the task of caring for everyone else.

Sounds like more jealousy.

 

[iceaura]

How does it impede economic growth and advance?

By taking large piles of wealth out of economic circulation and best investment, by reducing demand below what is best to encourage investment and innovation, by bestowing control over the community's wealth upon those without demonstrated competence or well-founded judgment or personal interest in important investment issues (such as schooling for poor children) etc. Lots of ways.

There's an interesting correlation between average height (a good proxy for prosperity) and economic inequality - it's strongly negative, planet wide and throughout history.

If an economy isn't a zero-sum game, then wealth can be generated and accumulated without harming the economy.

Of course it can. Just avoid having too much of it accumulate at the top.

 

[Kittamaru]

Sounds like more jealousy.

So it is jealousy that prompts good folk to want to see their neighbors healthy?
It's jealousy that causes honorable citizens to desire their friends and family have access to affordable healthcare?
It's jealousy that prompts a mother to weep when she has to choose between putting food on the table for her child, or picking up the prescription that enables her to function?

No, to me, it sounds like greed that prompts such despicable and deplorable responses from one such as yourself. You got yours, why should anyone else have it better! I guess you feel they simply haven't pulled on their bootstraps hard enough?

Then again, you sound like someone who's parents did all the hard work for them...

 

[Vociferous]

By taking large piles of wealth out of economic circulation and best investment, by reducing demand below what is best to encourage investment and innovation, by bestowing control over the community's wealth upon those without demonstrated competence or well-founded judgment or personal interest in important investment issues (such as schooling for poor children) etc. Lots of ways.

There's an interesting correlation between average height (a good proxy for prosperity) and economic inequality - it's strongly negative, planet wide and throughout history.

Of course it can. Just avoid having too much of it accumulate at the top.

Best investment? What are those?
Out of circulation? Do you think they have vaults they swim around in, like Scrooge McDuck? Reducing demand? These sound like a zero-sum economy.
Bestowing control? Without demonstrable competence? Who's bestowing such control, and how did incompetent people get rich?
They're not as charitable as you'd like?

Height? Too much accumulation in a non-zero-sum economy?
Man, I'm glad I'm just a primate.

So it is jealousy that prompts good folk to want to see their neighbors healthy?
It's jealousy that causes honorable citizens to desire their friends and family have access to affordable healthcare?
It's jealousy that prompts a mother to weep when she has to choose between putting food on the table for her child, or picking up the prescription that enables her to function?

No, to me, it sounds like greed that prompts such despicable and deplorable responses from one such as yourself. You got yours, why should anyone else have it better! I guess you feel they simply haven't pulled on their bootstraps hard enough?

Then again, you sound like someone who's parents did all the hard work for them...

No, the jealousy is in who you demand pay for your desired charity.
Lack of charity does not cause poor health or poor mothers. Bad habits and choices do that.

So this poor ape is now greedy, deplorable, and despicable? Do you really think I'm rich, or even middle class?
Just some more ego displays I guess. If someone doesn't agree, try to brow beat them with morality.
But I'm just a loud primate. The only things that brow beat me are clubs and stones.

 

[Kittamaru]

No, the jealousy is in who you demand pay for You haveyour desired charity.

Ah, so now it is charity (a hand out) for basic health insurance and other basic standards of living. Thank you for clarifying your standpoint on this matter.

Lack of charity does not cause poor health or poor mothers. Bad habits and choices do that.

Oh, really? Bad habits and choices are the root cause?
Tell that to all the healthy mothers, who have done everything by the book, don't smoke, exercise et al that have had to deal with a stillbirth.
Tell that to the folks who are trying to help loved ones with cancer - folks who have never smoked a day in their life.
Tell that to the young lady who's husband is killed overseas by a roadside bomb and now has to try and raise two kids on her own.

So this poor ape is now greedy, deplorable, and despicable?

If the shoe fits, wear it

Do you really think I'm rich, or even middle class?

I don't think it rightly matters what you are - you have made your stance clear. So long as you get yours, you don't give a damn about anyone else.

Just some more ego displays I guess. If someone doesn't agree, try to brow beat them with morality.
But I'm just a loud primate. The only things that brow beat me are clubs and stones.

Ah, and now you reveal yourself as the troll you are. That didn't take long, did it You've got nothing more than the usual broken and discredited Talking Points(tm), so now you are pulling the pity card. Woe is you.

 

[Vociferous]

Ah, so now it is charity (a hand out) for basic health insurance and other basic standards of living. Thank you for clarifying your standpoint on this matter.

You didn't really answer my question on whether healthcare was a right. When the social contract prevailed, healthcare for the poor was charity, administered by churches. So I don't understand your surprise at the description "charity". You're the one who brought up a time when churches were the only aid to the poor.

More ego displays. Does that do something for you? It doesn't do much for apes.

Oh, really? Bad habits and choices are the root cause?
Tell that to all the healthy mothers, who have done everything by the book, don't smoke, exercise et al that have had to deal with a stillbirth.
Tell that to the folks who are trying to help loved ones with cancer - folks who have never smoked a day in their life.
Tell that to the young lady who's husband is killed overseas by a roadside bomb and now has to try and raise two kids on her own.

Move goalposts much?
Do people not know the likelihood of cancer?
Oh, anecdotes to emotionally justify general policy.

Neat game.

If the shoe fits, wear it

Wow. Some humans require a lot of ego support.
This ape doesn't understand, but whatever floats your boat.

I don't think it rightly matters what you are - you have made your stance clear. So long as you get yours, you don't give a damn about anyone else.

I guess you don't think personal, voluntary charity is a thing.

Ah, and now you reveal yourself as the troll you are. That didn't take long, did it You've got nothing more than the usual broken and discredited Talking Points(tm), so now you are pulling the pity card. Woe is you.

Don't pity me. Brow beating doesn't hurt me at all. Remember? Clubs and stones.
Is it trolling when you don't let some moralizing person get your goat? Sorry, I just thought that was the mature thing to do.

But what do I know? I'm just a loud primate.

 

[spidergoat]

Sure, voluntary work typically done by churches.

Would it bother you if that work was unreliable and tainted with religious bias? Or if those poor people were destined for mass graves?

 

[Vociferous]

Would it bother you if that work was unreliable and tainted with religious bias? Or if those poor people were destined for mass graves?

Can you show they would be, with our modern medicine?

 

[spidergoat]

Can you show they would be, with our modern medicine?

I can point to Catholic hospitals refusing critical care for religious reasons. Let's not leave it up to them.