Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[coley]

True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.

Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)

Financial Statements for Pfizer Inc. - Google Finance

That's a third of the yearly NHS cost?

That's a lot of profit, canny level of return on investment, pity about the poor sods denied treatment because of costs.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.

Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)

Financial Statements for Pfizer Inc. - Google Finance

That's a third of the yearly NHS cost?

That's worldwide though, including the fantastically lucrative US market. Do you see the NHS as a competitor there?

 

[two sheds]

Profits in big pharma can be somewhat shady though. I'd think part of the point in nationalising would be to properly regulate and publish trials, reward well-conducted research that leads nowhere, not try and find uses for drugs simply because there's a lot of money invested in their development...

Yes, totally.

It would also be a colossal undertaking unless you could simply take over an existing pharma giant.

Funding existing university research would be a good start rather than drug companies helping to fund it in exchange for the profits. But yes I'd imagine you'd want to do it gradually.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

 

[Cid]

True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.

Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)

Financial Statements for Pfizer Inc. - Google Finance

That's a third of the yearly NHS cost?

Also you're looking at revenue. You should be looking at operating income/net income.

 

[two sheds]

That's worldwide though, including the fantastically lucrative US market. Do you see the NHS as a competitor there?

I'm sure NHS drugs could be sold abroad at a profit.

There's also a fair bit of "tax efficient" money transferring going on.

 

[two sheds]

Also you're looking at revenue. You should be looking at operating income.

Ok - strange that it's called 'gross profit' though - what profit does that give?

 

[xslavearcx]

Thia kinda policy probably could be articulated in a fairly "safe" way within the confines of neoclassical orthodoxy. Ie that certain drugs such as new anti biotics are not being developed due to being relatively unprofitable ergo market failure for public good to be developed...... thus legitimate space for state intervention...

 

[Cid]

Ok - strange that it's called 'gross profit' though - what profit does that give?

sorry, yes - I thought you were talking about a different bit as I just scanned. Similar thing though - gross profit is profit before any expenses are taken into account.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

I'm sure NHS drugs could be sold abroad at a profit.

No doubt. Once it gets past the rather large hurdle of building its own development infrastructure on the scale of, say, GSK, of course. That'll be cheap to do.

 

[two sheds]

sorry, yes - I thought you were talking about a different bit as I just scanned. Similar thing though - gross profit is profit before any expenses are taken into account.

Phew

with R&D costs just under $10 billion for the year as a comparison

 

[xslavearcx]

No doubt. Once it gets past the rather large hurdle of building its own development infrastructure on the scale of, say, GSK, of course. That'll be cheap to do.

If only there was a nationalised bank to provide the capital for that... shit there was for a bit! Maybe just nationalise the assets of some pharma here with or without compensation ?

 

[xslavearcx]

Any good books on big pharma from a left perspective btw?

 

[Cid]

Phew

with R&D costs just under $10 billion for the year as a comparison

Sorry, I'm being slightly confusing - gross profit I think includes cost of manufacture of things profited from but doesn't include reinvestment (e.g in R&D). I think.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Maybe just nationalise the assets of some pharma here with or without compensation ?

That's not a plan that'll work, sadly.

 

[two sheds]

No doubt. Once it gets past the rather large hurdle of building its own development infrastructure on the scale of, say, GSK, of course. That'll be cheap to do.

From that article I quoted above that was trying to rubbish the idea but seeming (to me anyway) to fail dismally:

The MRC last year spent £506 million on research grants. Pfizer spent $6.6 billion (£4.8 billion).

It would mean greatly expanding that £506 million - and I'll bet drugs companies get a bloody good return on investment from the university research.

 

[two sheds]

Sorry, I'm being slightly confusing - gross profit I think includes cost of manufacture of things profited from but doesn't include reinvestment (e.g in R&D). I think.

Yes R&D comes out of that I think - about $10 billion as above.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Any good books on big pharma from a left perspective btw?

Dunno if it's really from a left perspective - it's from an aaaaarghhhh perspective really - but Goldacre's book is worth a read

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008PCVGKI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[xslavearcx]

That's not a plan that'll work, sadly.

Aye I think not respecting property rights would bring on big capital punishments! Guess such policies not being on agenda shows limitations to what's on offer with corbyn s brand of leftism...

 

[xslavearcx]

Dunno if it's really from a left perspective - it's from an aaaaarghhhh perspective really - but Goldacre's book is worth a read

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008PCVGKI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Cheers for that I've got in laws who work in big pharma and it would be good to know something about this for when the inevitable post brexit politics convo comes up ...

 

[two sheds]

That's not a plan that'll work, sadly.

I dunno - a bit of judicious retrospective legislation to (for example) offset previous profits against the sale price?

And we know the government can do that because IDS did it with jobseekers' ruling as I recall.

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling

 

[DotCommunist]

I dunno - a bit of judicious retrospective legislation to (for example) offset previous profits against the sale price?

And we know the government can do that because IDS did it with jobseekers' ruling as I recall.

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling

it'd cause massive capital flight, across all sectors. You take it by force and you'd better be prepared to go the whole hog.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

I dunno - a bit of judicious retrospective legislation to (for example) offset previous profits against the sale price?

The big pharma companies would just move all their UK operations if that was on the cards - they are hugely globalised as it is. GSK is Glaxo-Smith-Klein-Beecham I think, and some of those amalgamated companies were already amalgamated companies before they amalgamated.

So, how's everyone else's Saturday going? I'm sitting here in my underwear quacking on pointlessly on the internet. You?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ahh yes, just did a google.



Interesting that grade E seem relatively comfortable with immigration.

Not really interesting, just pragmatic. When you're at the bottom of the pile, you've got two choices: Pull together, or fall apart. Most of us go for the former.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Looks like they're enforcing a rule that only delegates who have been a member for 12 months are allowed to go to conference.

Not sensible. If any of the Noobs have any knowledge of Labour Party history, they'll just parallel-organise.

 

[two sheds]

Fuck me what a load of liberal wankers

"Come on lads, lets take over the means of production" "ooo I don't know drug research is a bit costly, their profits have to go to pay for lots of stuff you know. They wouldn't like it. Barricades next thursday? Noooo I'm washing my hair then".

Scratch a marxist you see a neoliberal apologist cunt

 

[gosub]

It's hard to find something I think is too snobbish even for 90% of actual Tories to think let alone say but here it is

He is right though you do get some right muppets street cleaning

Spoiler

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ah ok you mean this one:



What's wrong with funding medical research through the MRC rather than drugs companies? Sounds like it would be incredibly profitable to me given many drugs companies' profits. It would also reduce the huge drugs costs to the NHS.

You'd also be able to choose which research to fund rather than just having the research that will be most profitable to drugs companies. I read somewhere that many people are suffering in poor countries because they can't afford high drugs costs so it's not worth the drugs companies putting in the research.

You'd also be able to remove some of the obstacles that funding of research in academe throws up with regard to control over publication, and editorial control. Big Pharma has been implicated way too many times now of suppressing research and researchers whose work might interfere with the bottom line.

 

[two sheds]

So, how's everyone else's Saturday going? I'm sitting here in my underwear quacking on pointlessly on the internet. You?

Just given the door a wood treat now listening to the cricket

 

[irf520]

Thia kinda policy probably could be articulated in a fairly "safe" way within the confines of neoclassical orthodoxy. Ie that certain drugs such as new anti biotics are not being developed due to being relatively unprofitable ergo market failure for public good to be developed...... thus legitimate space for state intervention...

Yes. How much money can you make on a drug which people take for a week when they're actually ill, compared to drugs which you can push onto people to take for the rest of their lives whether they're sick or not under the pretence of 'preventative medicine' (e.g. statins) ?