Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OH
Posts
0
Comments
154
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Because they are a corporation that is actively littering LEO with hundreds of satellites, and fear economic retribution and/or responsibility as a consequence of this kind of information?

    You see how there might be something called "conflict of interest?"

    Having a conflict of interest does not mean they aren't competent at what they do - just that they have reason to be biased against information that may result in direct consequence.

  • Hey - I might have given the wrong impression - I'm a civvy and never served. Grew up in a navy fam, so I have some exposure to life and lingo, but I won't pretend to know shit. Stolen valor is fucked up, so I'm sorry if I gave you that vibe. Thank you for your service sailor.

  • Oh okay. No disrespect, but from your other posts, I get the feeling you're fresh out of boot camp. A sense of pride is healthy, but it can get you in trouble if you don't keep it in check - loose lips sink ships.

    Next time go with the euphemism for dropping a deuce, it's funnier.

  • It's always externalized exploitation because they're all multinational corporations.

    It's true that many of the big players are based in the US, e.g. Pfizer, J&J, Merck, AbbVie, Abbott, EliLily, etc.

    But there are plenty that aren't:

    • Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BioNTech, and Merck Group (MilliporeSigma in the US, distinct from Merck & Co) are headquartered in Germany.
    • AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline are in the UK.
    • Roche and Novartis are in Switzerland.
    • Novo Nordisk in Denmark.
    • Sanofi in France.
    • Takeda, Otsuka, and Astellas in Japan.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_biomedical_companies_by_revenue

    It's important to note that much of the R&D pharma relies on is publicly funded via academic grants in research carried out at universities. It's not to say that pharma doesn't also carry out clinical research, which of course does carry a cost, but a lot of the development dollars for a given drug are spent well before they make it into pharma's hands.

  • In the medical device and pharmaceutical industries, this more or less already exists in countries with socialized medicine. It's not as explicit as my formula, but the price of medications and devices are regulated. Industry needs to demonstrate the actual benefit of a new product over a prior product for the system to pay for it, and the price of the product is then set on the basis of the health economic value it brings.

    Some say it stifles innovation, but honestly, it eliminates the bullshit minor changes that are only made to continue justifying high prices and exclusivity.

    Anyway, I think the "Exodus of industry" argument is an empty threat the shareholder class makes when they feel threatened. A market is a market, and if they want to continue to sell in it, they have to follow the rules, even when they change.