| PeterB 2005-09-30, 1:15 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Big snip to prevent carpal tunnel syndrome.
>
>
> Many manufacturers have dropped out of the vaccine business for exactly
> that reason. Merck probably stays in it for reasons other than profit.
> Their financials look good, so they are not hurting. If that changes,
> watch how fast they drop vaccines.
Competition for static market share explains why there are fewer
vaccine makers. As for continuing with vaccine manufacture for reasons
"other than profit," don't make me laugh.
> Besides, the question is whether vaccine
>
> I reject the premise of that statement. In some cases, especially where
> the profit margin is small, some companies may even stay in the business
> because they feel an obligation to the overall medical community.
If that were true, they would be deriving favorable PR for it, and
that's not happening.
> I know
> you will disagree, as I do not picture you as seeing that a
> pharmaceutical company can have any degree of altruism.
The enormous profits of this industry are not attributable to altruism.
> So, whether the object of the drug makers is to
>
> You seem to be hung up on one particular model. You have had this
> explained to you elsewhere, and I will defer to that.
I think you mean it's been "poorly defended" elsewhere.
>
>
>
> See above wrt pharmaceutical altruism.
Yes, the ever-altruistic pharmaceutical companies. Does that mean I
really get a lake next time I take a sinus med, and a dog named Pete?
>
>
> Actually, quite relevant. Businesses drop income sources when the profit
> margin goes down.
Yet Merck continues to manufacture vaccine profitably, which makes your
argument fallacious.
>
>
>
> No it is not. It is true regardless of the relationship. Have you ever
> studied economics or business? Do you own your own business? If not,
> then you should spend some time learning how businesses operate.
Yes, I've owned my own business. Here's an example from the
real-world. Consider the revenues, margins, and profits derived on the
sale of each BMW automobile. These figures are different for each
vechicle they manufacture and sell. You would have us believe that BMW
would improve its business by eliminating all but their best performer?
That is what you are saying, is it not?
>
> As for vaccines, nothing else claims
>
> Pure non sequitur.
You obviously don't know what a non sequitur is.
>
Vaccines continue to be sold profitably, whereas lower margins don't
mean a loss.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No really, if you need the cash flow to finance something that will have
> a higher margin.
So why aren't vaccines passe?
PeterB
|