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.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (3469)	12/24/2007 4:20:43 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

What is it about the term "vastly reduce" that you don't understand? I understand the term perfectly. I'm saying there is no reason to expect such a vast reduction would actually happen. if you have great gross margins advertise the piss out of the product. Only if you need to advertise "the piss out of the product", in order to maintain margins, or increase total sales. Each market is somewhat different. Some products sell mostly by word of mouth, some have a backlog of orders that seemingly will never be met. There is no simple business rule that great margins always means you should spend a fortune on advertising, and certainly high advertising expenses don't always indicate great margins. The government or other institutions pay for almost all basic research. Testing and approving drugs is basic bureaucrat crap, not high on the 'intellectual property' scale. 1 - In between the two there is developing the researched compound in to a useable/sellable drug. 2 - Testing and approval might not be high on the intellectual property scale, but if so that fact isn't important. How intellectual the activity is, is unimportant. It still is very expensive, and without it you don't have a legal product to sell. If they have to rse prices in other markets to end the US subsidy, so be it. They often have little ability to do so. National monopsony buyers aren't examples of efficient markets. Of course they are... that's why drugs are cheaper in other countries. "Cheaper" and "efficient market", aren't the same thing. Subsidies make things cheaper, but they don't make markets more efficient. Price controls at least make the official selling price lower, but they don't make the market more efficient. in a world market where every our country does negotiate price. No as monopsony buyers, with regulatory power in reserve if they need it, they set prices more than they negotiate them. Government controlled prices don't amount to an efficient or free market.