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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (4641)	2/19/2008 6:03:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

US companies receive 48% of world wide revenue does not mean that all 48% comes from within the US. The data was that 48% of the revenue comes from the US, not that 48% of it is recieved by American companies. "The US accounts for just under 48% of world sales" not "American companies account for just under 48% of world wide sales". You said, " Nothing specious about the idea that if nearly half the income comes from one country that it accounts for the lions share of the incentive for investments in R&D and testing. Investments are made in order to get a positive return. " Yes and that doesn't equal or even resemble or imply that "the drug industry funds all pharmaceutical research. A lion's share to me indicates more than 50%. The lion's share is meerly the biggest piece. If two or three or even four are getting a piece, the lion's share is probably above 50%, but if dozens are (or technically hundreds when you consider all the smaller countries) than 48% going to one is reasonably considered "the lions share". If you still really object to that term its not really important to the argument. "You could substitute "the biggest piece", or "a plurality", "or a vital and disproportionately large piece". But to continue to insist that the rest of the world is getting a free ride from the US is nothing but jingoism. I've said multiple times they aren't really getting a free ride but rather "a cheap ride". They get lower drug prices, without having a massive loss in new drug innovation, because of the higher prices that Americans pay. They are getting a "free ride" on the difference, but since they do pay something perhaps "a cheap ride" is a better term (except for the fact that people will understand what's meant by "free ride" quicker).