SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956_
Leading drug companies including Teva, Pfizer, Novartis and Mylan conspired to inflate the prices of generic drugs by as much as 1,000 percent, according to a far-reaching lawsuit filed on Friday by 44 states.
The industrywide scheme affected the prices of more than 100 generic drugs, according to the complaint, including lamivudine-zidovudine, which treats H.I.V.; budesonide, an asthma medication; fenofibrate, which treats high cholesterol; amphetamine-dextroamphetamine for A.D.H.D.; oral antibiotics; blood thinners; cancer drugs; contraceptives; and antidepressants.
"We all know that prescription drugs can be expensive," Gurbir S. Grewal, the New Jersey attorney general, said in a statement. "Now we know that high drug prices have been driven in part by an illegal conspiracy among generic drug companies to inflate their prices."
In court documents, the state prosecutors lay out a brazen price-fixing scheme involving more than a dozen generic drug companies and just as many executives responsible for sales, marketing and pricing. The complaint alleges that the conspirators knew their efforts to thwart competition were illegal and that they therefore avoided written records by coordinating instead at industry meals, parties, golf outings and other networking events.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 13 2019, @11:34PM (11 children)
>
>> Hypothesis: A perfect competitive market will maximise the amount of resource or service P you can get per unit Q.
>
> Counterexample ...
Fucksticks, you've hit max retard.
Have you ever heard of /reductio ad absurdum/? A statement that is known to be false and desired to be disproved is proposed, and deductions are made from it until a contradiction is reached, thus disproving it.
The rest of your post contains even more idiocy, but the above is the biggest case of fucknutitude.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday May 14 2019, @03:18AM (5 children)
The amateur logic exercise doesn't add anything to the discussion, such as bringing up near trivial straw man hypotheses that can easily be falsified with a little thought (reductio ad absurdum? yea right). Come on, up your game.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:47AM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 14 2019, @12:30PM (3 children)
Another useless reply. You want to have a rational discussion? I'm up for that. You want to say "bullshit" when you run out of things to say? Your choice.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:42AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:42AM (1 child)
Sorry, that wasn't simple logical deduction nor appropriate to the thread.
Nor has anyone, including you, bothered to work out this alleged error either.
Funny, how my problems involve you stepping up your game. It's almost like it's not me that is the problem here.
What I find particularly bizarre about the whole episode is the high level of condescension you bring to a "simple logical deduction". First, you repeatedly expound on the logic side as if that were important ("mathematical fact", "Have you ever heard of /reductio ad absurdum/?"). It's like the drunk looking for car keys at night. It's too much work to look in the dark where they dropped the keys, and the lighting is better over here so...
The big problem as I noted before is that the argument, logical as it may be, is irrelevant to the discussion. That's what a straw man argument is, after all. Your condescension doesn't change that your argument isn't adding anything to this discussion.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 15 2019, @09:52PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:05AM (4 children)
Note several important things about the context of that statement: a) you're not addressing the replier's concerns at all ("settle at a level that allows a marginal profit" is nothing like "maximise the amount of resource or service P you can get per unit Q" of the replier), b) if such a statement truly is already known to be false (probably even by the person you replied to - their emphasis on "allows a marginal profit" indicates that they're already allow for higher pricing of the good in question beyond what can be achieved via non-market methods), then it doesn't need to be disproved, and c) you don't even start to consider the lack of competition in the supply side versus the relatively high competition on the demand side. Increase in competition of a market where the supply side has weak competition and a large pricing advantage is likely to lower prices (unless you have some crazy non-market mechanisms at play).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 15 2019, @06:00AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:43AM (2 children)
And I was highlighting the irrelevance of your highlighting (plus the silliness of building some baroque logic argument when one can easily find real world counterexamples that illustrate the weakness of the straw man better). Sure, I too could choose to interpret your words in the worst possible light I can find or make up, then beat up the resulting straw man, Internet Tough Guy-style, but it wouldn't contribute anything more to the discussion than your original post did.
And I showed there are already real world subsidy systems that can price things well below the above minimization of the price. The initial assumptions rule out significant price minimization strategies, as already discussed.
Let us also note that you still have not considered the context which neuters your argument. There is limited competition for drug manufacturers, but far less limited competition for the consumers of those drugs (while there are big consumers like Medicare and insurance companies, there's also millions of small consumers too). Flipping point of view still doesn't change that there's a disparity in competitiveness of the two sides. Thus that the discussion of increasing competitiveness of the supply side is invariant of such viewpoint swaps.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 15 2019, @09:54PM (1 child)
That context was introduced into the thread by the post I was replying to.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:40PM
Indeed. So why ignore it?