Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (25540)	11/22/2007 2:05:48 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217631

ElM, if I had invested in and was now producing anti-AIDS drugs, I would be selling them like this. I would charge what the market would bear. Meaning, I would agree to supply each individual on a negotiated basis. A rich person worth $1 billion, I would ask for $900 million for a lifetime of treatment. That's unless there were competing products which might make me have to lower my price very dramatically to maintain market share. But let's assume there isn't much competition at all and it's my drugs or death. Somebody worth $10 million, I would ask for $7 million [any more and quite a few would think it better to die and give their money to their children, family or something]. Somebody worth $1 million, I would ask for $600,000 If they were only worth $100,000, I would ask for $40,000 and 30% of their income [the tax department would have to give tax credits for AIDS drugs so they could pay me]. If they had no assets, but earned $20,000 a year, I'd ask for $10,000 a year [or maybe 50%]. If they had no assets and no income, I'd require $5,000 a year from their family and friends, neighbours and others. If their families etc don't want to pay, then they are obviously not worth keeping alive to risk infecting other people. Maybe there would be a lower price for places like India and Brazil where governments keep them poor; a self-inflicted poverty, but poverty all the same = it's amazing how people vote to stay poor, decade after decade. See Richard Branson's comments to India recently about not letting him invest, forcing him to take his money elsewhere. Avoiding a black market in the drugs would be tricky, probably impossible. Maybe a fixed price is the way to go. Bad luck for those without friends or family to pay. Mqurice

To: elmatador who wrote (25540)	11/22/2007 6:58:45 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217631

In the lofty corridors of the World Health Organisation in Geneva That says a lot to me :O) I guess Brazil could have instituted some sort of consumption tax to build a fund to purchase the drugs at a more reasonable price after some hard negotiations.. maybe an ethanol tax LOL... OR I guess the Chinese could start a world software organisation ... :O) I fully understand the humanitarian aspect but when the end starts justifying the means we are on shaky ground... A simple example would be the current Canadian government on Income Trusts... they can dress it up any way they like to... but the fact remains that they are liars. blackie Edit: a truly humanitarian and worthwhile gesture would have been to divert the Iraqi war effort monies to drug research ... and providing affordable drugs.. Now that would have been leadership... imagine going down in history as the motivating force behind the irradiation of AIDS..