I’m sorry. but you’ve obviously never even heard of economic theory. Please shut up.
This is one of the stupidest statements I’ve seen on these forums, EVER. And that is SAYING something,
I wish I could disagree. I cannot.
Perhaps I’m ignorant on this subject then, hence why I said, think and unsure, rather know and for sure.
I guess, I’d like to know in a nut shell what those individuals add to the equation.
In all honesty, I’d suggest taking some serious business classes, or at least doing a lot of reading on business operation. There’s a LOT to it, even though they’re the people that get the brunt of all political rhetoric. There’s really not a good way to give a detailed overview in the space of a post IMHO.
Operations management–and business finance management–of large national and international business, which is exactly what the pharma company is, is extremely complicated. As bad a rap as your typical collegiate “business” major gets, the top notch business schools are almost as hard and competitive as law school or med school (yes, I just said that. But look at Wharton before you crucify me, along with a few other programs ).
Believe it or not, I actually run a small business. I want to get a degree in business and finance, and eventually maybe go to Navarra for Grad School, this is after I finish off my comp sci degree by the way.
I think your answer is kind of a cop out, what I’m saying about the pharm companies, is the pharmacists and the researchers make the product, the demand is always gonna be there, so perhaps so much business aspect in this sector is unnecessary.
Turning this into a quasi governmental endeavor would benefit it, you’d probably put an end to all the fake psychiactric treatment our fucked up system profits off of as well.[/quote]
You can think that all you want. It’s not an intentional cop-out. I am a scientist by trade, not a business man. My roommate has a finance degree, and although we’ve talked about various business and economic subjects and I have grown to appreciate the complexity of finance and operations problems, I would have a hard time giving you an adequately in depth answer simply from my conversations with him.
I am a biochem guy, and I’m telling you that although the product will always be in demand, the research department is incapable of dealing with the 1 billion dollar price tag on its own. Further they need people that are able to guide and communicate, and sell, the idea to the people who will ultimately pay the cost for doing research, in addition to guiding research.
As happens so often in hard sciences, the genius is not the one in charge because he often lacks the ability to communicate his ideas to people with the money to make it happen. A savvy entrepreneur can understand the science well enough to apply it and get investors. Furthermore the scientist most often has no experience or talent at managing the business aspect of a program, which is necessary to smooth operation of research. It is (verrry loosely) analogous to the idea of the “science writer” in mainstream publications–most scientists have a hard time breaking down gritty theory to lay people, but you take a person with good communication skills who can explain the basic theories in terms regular lay people can understand what’s going on.
Finally, without the pressure of competition you will never see speedy innovation. This is one of many reasons monopolies are bad (along with the obvious price gouging they allow) and are regulated against. The government is the very definition of monolithic, and as such does not deal well with competition. There is no competition. Or if they are competing against private operations, the private operations will generally win because they are more efficient (witness the human genome project).
Besides which, the gov’t does not adhere to budgets well at all. They always spend more than they have, and they always want to spend more. I suppose in the hypothetical event that there were a gov’t that adhered strictly to budget demands, did not deficit spend, and treated its income like a multi-national company’s, it might be possible to stick the gov’t in charge of a private company and do “ok”. However, all governments universally violate this requirement.
As such they are the last people I would stick in any position that required a)efficiency and b) rapid --and continued-- innovation. The only exception I can think of is the military, which is exceptionally good at killing things and breaking stuff. Still, the amount of innovation per dollar spent is pathetic, as is the global efficiency of many aspects of the military machine. They may be fantastic at warfare operations, but they are miserable at a wide variety of other tasks that a private company would run much smoother. My roommate is also a captain in the army, and I have heard at many junctures his bitching about various ineptitudes and inefficiencies of the Machine. He could probably write a book about them.