Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
sidicks said:
durbster said:
Companies making vast profits like this is exactly what they're objecting to. Their beef is with the poor legislation that allows companies to make vast profits, not with the companies themselves.
If a company provides a product or service that billions of people are prepared to pay for, why should they NOT make large profits?
+1 THIS

Profit is not the difference between the price and what-it-ought-to-cost, It's that portion of the added value that goes to the people who added the value.

Jockman

17,912 posts

159 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
Companies making vast profits like this is exactly what they're objecting to. Their beef is with the poor legislation that allows companies to make vast profits, not with the companies themselves.
And where do these profits go?

Either reinvested in the company (leading to growth and more jobs) - or they go into the hands of shareholders.

And who are shareholders?

Pretty much anyone - from those holding actual shares, to all those people who have investments that rely on shares (which is most private sector workers for a start).

Of course, some people, who's gold plated public sector pensions are guaranteed by the state (like Mr Corbyn) probably don't give a monkeys about this trifling detail.

98elise

26,376 posts

160 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
Moonhawk said:
Most kids have socialist ideals, because to date most have lived a socialist existence (i.e. spending other people's money). Who wouldn't want that!

It's only once they get into the big wide world that many realise their life isn't going to be funded by the grace of other people's money - and that's when many start to change their attitude (and voting intention).
This always comes up. What do you mean by "other people's money?".

Puggit said:
Companies making vast profits like this is exactly what they're objecting to. Their beef is with the poor legislation that allows companies to make vast profits, not with the companies themselves.

Edited by durbster on Saturday 24th June 20:24
"Other peoples money" means people want stuff but think someone else should pay. It's not a hard concept.

Why do you think Students suddenly mobilised and started voting? JC promised that the 50k their education will cost is going to be paid for by rich people and corporations.

Why is it that you think it's wrong that companies make profits? If a company is profitable then it's a success. That means bigger tax take, more jobs, and good pensions. Should we be hoping for vast losses?






Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
NorfolkInClue1 said:
However, I do have a big problem with companies that carry out things like medical research in order to provide life changing medicines only to massively inflate the price as they know the reliance people will have on them.
Do you know how expensive (and financially risky) it is to develop a new drug.......and what do you class as "massively inflating the price".

If you don't like drug companies making 'massive profits' on new drugs - don't use them, it's that simple. There are plenty of existing drugs that are off patent and therefore relatively cheap. Arguably current life expectancy based on all of the cheap drugs currently on the market is pretty good too - you get about 10 years on average more than somebody in the 1960 and early 1970s - why isn't that good enough - people in the 1960s seemed pretty happy with their lot.

If people stop buying their new drugs at "massively inflated" prices because everyone is happy with the current stock of generic drugs and their current life expectancy, these nasty, evil pharma companies will stop making profit - the companies will go bust - problem solved.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 25th June 07:31

LDN

8,905 posts

202 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
NorfolkInClue1 said:
However, I do have a big problem with companies that carry out things like medical research in order to provide life changing medicines only to massively inflate the price as they know the reliance people will have on them.
Do you know how expensive (and financially risky) it is to develop a new drug.......and what do you class as "massively inflating the price".

If you don't like drug companies making 'massive profits' on new drugs - don't use them, it's that simple. There are plenty of existing drugs that are off patent and therefore relatively cheap. Arguably current life expectancy based on all of the cheap drugs currently on the market is pretty good too - you get about 10 years on average more than somebody in the 1960 and early 1970s - why isn't that good enough - people in the 1960s seemed pretty happy with their lot.

If people stop buying their new drugs at "massively inflated" prices because everyone is happy with the current stock of generic drugs and their current life expectancy, these nasty, evil pharma companies will stop making profit - the companies will go bust - problem solved.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 25th June 07:31
People such as yourself like to paint the picture that it's all or nothing... that either these evil corps' make massive, unadulterated amounts of cash... or they go bust. What a simple world it would be if things weren't, in reality, more nuanced than that.

I believe in free markets and competition; but I also believe in a fair playing field; not talking about pharma now. If there are loopholes to exploit, then it's the obligation of any co. boss to find them. I have no issue with that. So it's about finding any loopholes deemed unfair and closing them. I've exploited a few in my time, and so I get both sides of the argument. This isn't black and white. But Starbucks et al, are NOT going to up sticks and leave if they find themselves subject to more, so called, fair tax laws.

Regarding Apple; I don't see the issue - they make the best phones / or at least the best OS; and are rewarded for it.

phone

Burwood

18,709 posts

245 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
NorfolkInClue1 said:
However, I do have a big problem with companies that carry out things like medical research in order to provide life changing medicines only to massively inflate the price as they know the reliance people will have on them.
Do you know how expensive (and financially risky) it is to develop a new drug.......and what do you class as "massively inflating the price".

If you don't like drug companies making 'massive profits' on new drugs - don't use them, it's that simple. There are plenty of existing drugs that are off patent and therefore relatively cheap. Arguably current life expectancy based on all of the cheap drugs currently on the market is pretty good too - you get about 10 years on average more than somebody in the 1960 and early 1970s - why isn't that good enough - people in the 1960s seemed pretty happy with their lot.

If people stop buying their new drugs at "massively inflated" prices because everyone is happy with the current stock of generic drugs and their current life expectancy, these nasty, evil pharma companies will stop making profit - the companies will go bust - problem solved.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 25th June 07:31
Norfolk, not an ad hom but you're clueless mate. Pfizer spend 10b on r&d. Pfizer has 170b assets employed and 60b net of loans. It earns a 15% return on those net assets. Hardly off the charts.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
NorfolkInClue1 said:
However, I do have a big problem with companies that carry out things like medical research in order to provide life changing medicines only to massively inflate the price as they know the reliance people will have on them.
Do you know how expensive (and financially risky) it is to develop a new drug.......and what do you class as "massively inflating the price".

If you don't like drug companies making 'massive profits' on new drugs - don't use them, it's that simple. There are plenty of existing drugs that are off patent and therefore relatively cheap. Arguably current life expectancy based on all of the cheap drugs currently on the market is pretty good too - you get about 10 years on average more than somebody in the 1960 and early 1970s - why isn't that good enough - people in the 1960s seemed pretty happy with their lot.

If people stop buying their new drugs at "massively inflated" prices because everyone is happy with the current stock of generic drugs and their current life expectancy, these nasty, evil pharma companies will stop making profit - the companies will go bust - problem solved.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 25th June 07:31


More than aware of the risk and costs involved, I was referring to the exploitation and over pricing of certain sections in the industry.
It's well known that companies continue to charge vast prices for life dependant medicines that cost a fraction to manufacture, prices that continue for longer than is needed. I agree that these companies need to profit and indeed cover costs but I am also not naive enough to think that by the very merit of the product they are making there is a huge opportunity to exploit, usually only exposed when issues such as cancer drug pricing within the NHS or supply to third world nations are reported on, that's when scum like Corbyn can come in and pull a few heartstrings to con some gullible muppet into thinking they care more.
I mentioned the pharmaceutical industry as it usually is held as an example.

dimots

3,013 posts

89 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
Here come the waves of capitalists flooding the debate with regurgitated corporate responsibility PR sound bites.

As ever, this forum refuses to engage in considered analysis of issues because the battlefield mentality negates any opportunity for meaningful debate.

Company profits in themselves are not the issue, of course, but the sustainability of profit-taking and the ethics of corporate behaviour are.

There are many examples of unfair profit making that have been addressed by fines, negative press and susbsequent share price falls - VW, Barclays, Rio Tinto, etc...

What we should be looking at is more heavily taxing companies that don't meet criteria such as those applied to the FTSE4Good Index so that we make irresponsible businesses less profitable.

Burwood

18,709 posts

245 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
Morning Dimots- so can you answer this. £10 for 16 yo kids. Good idea?

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
Sadly we are due to have a labour government , you can get away with about 2 tory terms and then the left start the the"rich",cuts unfair etc blah blah .. this infects the average voter with some daft idea. we then get a labour admin then mr and mrs average remember why they voted tory !!!
rinse and repeat .....

jmorgan

36,010 posts

283 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
Sadly we are due to have a labour government , you can get away with about 2 tory terms and then the left start the the"rich",cuts unfair etc blah blah .. this infects the average voter with some daft idea. we then get a labour admin then mr and mrs average remember why they voted tory !!!
rinse and repeat .....
Pretty much expected it, which is why I think May must go down in history as the biggest idiot ever.i

LDN

8,905 posts

202 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
jmorgan said:
May must go down in history as the biggest idiot ever.i
Yep. And I saw it coming a mile off. She is utterly utterly useless.

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
dimots said:
Here come the waves of capitalists flooding the debate with regurgitated corporate responsibility PR sound bites.
No, there's a few people suggesting that in a competitive market, a company making a profit because it provides a service / product that lots of people want to buy, is no bad thing.

You do understand the difference?

dimots said:
As ever, this forum refuses to engage in considered analysis of issues because the battlefield mentality negates any opportunity for meaningful debate.
Meaningful debate? Not sure what meaningful debate you think you were adding? Until you came in we were debating corporate profits and why high profits is not necessarily a bad thing.

dimots said:
Company profits in themselves are not the issue, of course, but the sustainability of profit-taking and the ethics of corporate behaviour are.
Company profits were exactly the issue that was being discussed, raised by someone on your 'side' of the argument!

dimots said:
There are many examples of unfair profit making that have been addressed by fines, negative press and susbsequent share price falls - VW, Barclays, Rio Tinto, etc...
No idea what your point is - who on here is supporting poor corporate behaviour?

dimots said:
What we should be looking at is more heavily taxing companies that don't meet criteria such as those applied to the FTSE4Good Index so that we make irresponsible businesses less profitable.
No need - it's a tremendously blunt and subjective tool.


Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
LDN said:
People such as yourself like to paint the picture that it's all or nothing... that either these evil corps' make massive, unadulterated amounts of cash... or they go bust. What a simple world it would be if things weren't, in reality, more nuanced than that.
I was being facetious.

If the person making the claim that these companies are making massive profits and inflating prices without qualifying what that actually means (i.e. what is an acceptable level of profit and what is an acceptable price point for a new drug) - then my reply doesn't have to be qualified either.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 25th June 08:55

dimots

3,013 posts

89 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
Burwood said:
Morning Dimots- so can you answer this. £10 for 16 yo kids. Good idea?
Personally I'm more inclined towards the universal living wage, but £10 minimum is progressive, as is extending it to 16 year olds...so I'm in favour of it.

dimots

3,013 posts

89 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
sidicks said:
Meaningful debate? Not sure what meaningful debate you think you were adding? Until you came in we were debating corporate profits and why high profits is not necessarily a bad thing.
You, as ever, were dancing on a pinhead, but the rest of the debate is far broader.

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
dimots said:
You, as ever, were dancing on a pinhead, but the rest of the debate is far broader.
Rather than your 'special' one liners and nonsense strawman arguments, try engaging in the debate!

dimots

3,013 posts

89 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
I did - I agreed with you that profit in itself is not a relevant issue.

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Sunday 25th June 2017
quotequote all
NorfolkInClue1 said:
More than aware of the risk and costs involved, I was referring to the exploitation and over pricing of certain sections in the industry.
It's well known that companies continue to charge vast prices for life dependant medicines that cost a fraction to manufacture, prices that continue for longer than is needed. I agree that these companies need to profit and indeed cover costs but I am also not naive enough to think that by the very merit of the product they are making there is a huge opportunity to exploit, usually only exposed when issues such as cancer drug pricing within the NHS or supply to third world nations are reported on, that's when scum like Corbyn can come in and pull a few heartstrings to con some gullible muppet into thinking they care more.
I mentioned the pharmaceutical industry as it usually is held as an example.
But a new drug cost isn't dictated by it's cost of manufacture (on the whole) - it's dictated by it's cost of development and the cost of maintaining the pharma company in a compliant state. It also has to cover the cost of all the hundreds or thousands of drugs that for one reason or another, fail to make it to market.

It takes 10 years (on average) to develop a new drug and market it. That's 10 years that drug makes no money whatsoever. When it is finally launched - the drug has to make it's development money back, plus make a profit, plus pay for all the drugs that didn't make it - all before it goes off patent.

Due to the way patent law works around drugs - this time can be quite short since the clock starts ticking as soon as the drug is patented, not when it is launched. If the drug is patented on discovery, it may only have 10 years to turn a profit before generic manufacturers jump in and undercut the company who invented it - massively reducing any further profit making opportunity.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 25th June 09:02

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED