stevenash

But you have already stated that "something needs to be done about CEO pay at drug companies"

Just heard that the video of the shooting has been released

Please let me know how one defines "historical norms" and how those should be enforced. Following that, tell my why it is OK for Apple to make the profits they make. They have 250 billion in cash which is also well above "historical norms". I have no problem with public scrutiny and pushback, but I have a very large problem with a few bureaucrats making the final decision on what will be sold and at what price. It wasn't but a few years ago that the "evil" and "greedy" oil companies were making "obscene profits" and many wanted something done about it. The markets seem to have taken care of that pretty well.

For perspective on the national angst over drug prices, let’s pay a visit to the ballpark. The average Major League Baseball player earns an annual salary of more than $4 million (plus $100 a day in meal money)—far more than it takes to lead a comfortable, well-appointed life. Let’s say the team owners cut those salaries by half, to $2 million or so. Putting aside the union protections that the players enjoy, surely they would continue showing up to work. Almost certainly fans would continue to enjoy the same quality of play on the field. Now consider the parallel to top-selling pharmaceuticals. The high price tags on popular drugs allow pharmaceutical companies to earn revenue far in excess of the cost of developing those drugs. Even if prices were cut drastically, these drugs would continue to sell. The question, both in the ballpark and the drug lab, is what happens next season, and the season after that. For every successful Major Leaguer, there are hundreds of disappointed players whose careers end before they ever reach the big leagues. The promise of a big-league payoff must remain strong enough to continue to attract players to a career path with a high rate of failure. For the players of tomorrow, a drastic cut in the potential rewards of playing would encourage them to consider other sports, or even other careers. The 2014 Super Bowl-winning Seattle Seahawks quarterback, Russell Wilson, chose to enter the 2012 National Football League draft over spring training with the Colorado Rockies. In the same way, the return on capital invested in successful drugs must be enough to compensate for all the lost bets on failed drugs. The typical investor—even a professional—places both winning and losing bets; as in baseball, no one goes undefeated. Thus, the winning bets must produce enough “excess” wealth to offset the losses from betting on the losers. In baseball, the issue of player salaries faded long ago. The talent pool is deep, stadiums are full, beer and hot dog sales are brisk, and lucrative TV contracts keep owners flush. Equilibrium has been achieved. In drug pricing, the debate remains at full throttle. The big question: How much do we need to pay today to attract the investment that will keep drug discovery alive tomorrow? Economists have tried to answer from a variety of angles. In all cases, price reductions are associated with less innovation, although the magnitude varies. A 1% reduction in price reduces innovation—meaning the number of new drugs launched—by as little as 0.25% or as much as 4%. A 2015 study published in the RAND Journal of Economics found that it takes about $2.5 billion of additional expected pharmaceutical revenue to generate one additional new drug launch. This research demonstrates that prices matter, but it doesn’t answer the big question: What is the “right” price to guarantee innovation? Innovators should be able to share in the value they create for society, but how much? Economists Anupam Jena and Tomas Philipson have found that the manufacturers of new medical technologies have historically captured about 15% of the surplus they generated for society. Drugs and devices allowing companies to exceed this threshold tend to face the greatest pushback. For example, the biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences earns 20% to 40% of the total social value created by sales of Sovaldi, which is used to treat late-stage hepatitis-C patients. Insurers, politicians and advocates raised a ruckus in 2013 at Sovaldi’s hefty $1,000 per pill price tag. The pharmaceutical industry might find itself on safer ground politically if it remained closer to historical norms for the harvesting of social value. Such self-restraint may already be too late, given calls from President Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders for a crackdown on drug prices. The levers they could reach for—increased importation, regulation of advertising and competition, even price controls—have broad popular support. Economists agree that higher drug prices spur more drug discovery, but they still don’t know how much discovery is enough or how high prices need to be. What is clear, however, is that if pharmaceutical prices only covered R&D costs—with no surplus left over—then no one would want to play ball.

But that doesn't count because its a "cultural thing".

Newtobie is a Savant

And your point is?

Hmmmm- No comment from Tobie, Big Girl, PamFam, FeeDee?

Come on, Reagan. Just admit that the violence is due to videos and economic disenfranchisement.

as is #20

And they obviously supported Obama in 08 and 12

Then you can relax and rejoice. If you are correct, the Dems will control the House and Senate in 2 years and the Presidency in 4. Then you can have another glorious time like 2008-2016

Interesting that you don't assign that same statement to Mr. Trump.

You wont hear an answer until the Huffington Post or Thinkprogress.org has a "suggestion".

Yes and in the case of Lois Lerner, Mr. Obama found out about it in the newspaper just like the rest !

Nappy, can you tell me what situations regarding Mrs. Clinton have made it to court?

I've never cared for Mr. Rodman and I never will. But congratulations on your feeble effort to tell me what my thoughts are.

Does that make him a racist?

Once again, Tobie, PamFam, and Big Girl- What do you think about this list and what has been done?

[Hidden Content]

Somehow my guess is that, if this would happen, Mr. Pence would suddenly become a lying racist.

We cant trust the source unless its the Huffington Post.

I simply asked your opinion of the article.

The elections say otherwise