The USA Pharmaceutical Industry

[Jackson]

I don't know this person of whom you speak. Let's just agree to disagree until we have that a beer when I'm in BA. As a new member I have over extended my discussion and am glad Jackson split the thread.

Best to you,

Tomas

Father Sky posted 12 political messages in his first two days as a member, then proclaimed his innocence when his political agenda was challenged, and then subsequently disappeared from the forum.

Interesting.

Jackson

[Wild Walleye]

Check out this story on Bloomberg. It's estimated $60 Billion in annual US tax revenues are lost to corporate income shifting. One senator is quoted saying "Transfer pricing is the corporate equivalent of the secret offshore accounts of individual tax dodgers".

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a7td7E8_4EeI

While the example is a pharma co. The practice is not limited to pharma. I would agree with the general thrust that it does not make sense to allow revenue earned in one jurisdiction to be allocated to another, unless there exists a corresponding, related cost center.

That said, if it is legal, why shouldn't a company avail themselves of this practice. I hope you didn't miss this passage.

"Companies try to extract as much tax benefit as possible from transfer pricing to protect shareholders' interests, proponents say, particularly in the U. S. Which imposes one of the world's highest tax rates on corporate income, 35 percent. "

[Esten]

Check out this story on Bloomberg. It discusses transfer pricing by corporations including several big pharma companies. This practice allows them to reduce income taxes by converting sales in one country to profits in another. An example is illustrated with Forest Laboratories, where revenues from US sales of the drug Lexapro are transferred to Amsterdam and then to Bermuda.

It's estimated $60 Billion in annual US tax revenues are lost to corporate income shifting. One senator is quoted saying "Transfer pricing is the corporate equivalent of the secret offshore accounts of individual tax dodgers".

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&sid=a7td7E8_4EeI

[Father Sky]

To you showing me the best BA brothel WW.

[Father Sky]

I don't know this person of whom you speak. Let's just agree to disagree until we have that a beer when I'm in BA. As a new member I have over extended my discussion and am glad Jackson split the thread.

Best to you,

Tomas

[Wild Walleye]

Father Ricardo is a phony. The irony of it all is that he is being paid with our tax dollars via TARP, to spew his propaganda on the internet. It is hard to believe that such a situation could come to pass but, hear we are. Our govt is paying people with room-temperature IQs to spew talking points on the web. The day this douche bag sees the inside of a Bs As brothel is the day monkeys fly out of my ass.

[Father Sky]

If you're not scared or angry at the thought of a human brain being controlled remotely, then it could be this prototype of mine is finally starting to work.

I like lively discussion and subscribe to Groucho Marx statement: "I don't want to join a club that will accept me as a member."

WW and I would probably have fun discussing the state of the world. We would disagree about many things but defend the other's right to think.

If he thought Nixon or Romney were socialists he would be right, as were Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama - National Socialists or fascists. Remember Mussolini said fascism should more appropriately called corporatism. This is the opposite of Democratic Socialism in the political sphere. The Corporatist downslide really began its acceleration under the most corrupt administration in US history, Ronald Reagan's.

Laugh at what you hold sacred, and still hold it sacred.

[Wild Walleye]

Bob told me to get a life, so one last response (although, I think Bob was just miffed at my crack about lawyers) Alas, at some point, shooting fish in a barrel gets boring.

I didn't say LA gets nothing I said the budget for renewables is $0, big difference. LA's budget is $2.2B this year.

Your original statement used the LA budget for renewables as a defense of your argument that big-pharma is the evil one here, totally underwritten by the tax payer. I pointed out that DOE will spend $2.3B on renewables, soundly buttressing my argument renewables are in fact hugely subsidized by the tax payer. Further, the renewable industry would not exist were it not for the government's perpetual expropriation and misuse of the citizens' private property, in contrast to the pharma industry which is highly profitable. I am not sure which is more telling, the fact that LA gets none of DOE renewables budget or that you are somehow affiliated with the lab.

As to the rest of your silly response, you are, of course entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts; which you have so generously tried to supply us. You write from a set viewpoint and try to cram the datum into a particular mold, when it does not fit you tell us to ignore the stuffing hanging out.

Pot, meet kettle.

You attempt to put things in my writing I did not write nor imply (very like the Lush Bimbo, Glen Dreck, Faux News archetype. And, like the above stated archetype, your convoluted attempt at logic doesn't work either.

I neither implied nor attempted anything. I am happy to hear that Limbaugh, Beck and Fox are archetypes in your eyes. I am surprised that we don't get along better.

As to the cost of research, the entire infrastructure is funded by taxes, from campus, buildings, labs, salaries, utilities, equipment, education (an advanced degree for anyone has a large subsidy even from private schools) and much more.

Is it possible that there might be some labs contained within the corporate campuses as opposed to the academic campuses? If you don't believe this, I'll be your wingman for a mongering venture in New Brunswick, NJ. In between stops, I will personally gain you entrance to no fewer than 6 private, pharma labs. As for the academic labs, do you really think big pharma gets all this for free?

The pharmaceutical industry contributes pennies (like lobbyists and campaign contributions) and rakes in billions.

Given you lack of business acumen, I can now see clearly why you might be on an oversight board for a government lab.

Although I am highly skeptical of your claim given that it is out of character for people associated with that lab (one I know well) to broadcast their affiliation on a forum geared to finding prostitutes in Argentina.

Your statement:

"The taxpayer should not get any return on funds invested on its behalf by the government, because the money invested should never have been taken from the tax payer in the first place. He should make his own investment decisions."

Is prima facie ludicrous.

Au contraire (I like using them foreign words, makes me feel all fancy) a plurality (albeit slim) of the US populace believes otherwise.

We, as a society, make joint decisions all the time.

We do no such thing, except when voting and ostracizing David Hasslehoff.

Many of them are flawed (usually those to which benefit goes mostly to a small group of oligarchs who play the corrupt system well. If one of those (investment) decisions results in a discovery of magnitude a more equitable return should return to the society which funded the research. I do not suggest nationalization but a more balanced equation. Better contracts not written by those about to go through the revolving door to the industry involved. If it doesn't bother you a small group of people are reaping the entirety of the benefits of your (willing or unwilling) investment you are sound asleep. Oh, that's right, you dozed off in civics class.

Dozed off? I skipped it. My time is valuable, if I waste it, I can't get it back.

Look Ricardo, see a few providers in Bs As, it might relieve the pressure all that built up sperm is putting on your brain stem. Then, write a couple of reports on the providers. Then, meet me in the political forum, or better yet at Newport and we can discuss any topic you want.

[Father Sky]

I didn't say LA gets nothing I said the budget for renewables is $0, big difference. LA's budget is $2.2B this year.

As to the rest of your silly response, you are, of course entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts; which you have so generously tried to supply us. You write from a set viewpoint and try to cram the datum into a particular mold, when it does not fit you tell us to ignore the stuffing hanging out.

You attempt to put things in my writing I did not write nor imply (very like the Lush Bimbo, Glen Dreck, Faux News archetype.) And, like the above stated archetype, your convoluted attempt at logic doesn't work either.

As to the cost of research, the entire infrastructure is funded by taxes, from campus, buildings, labs, salaries, utilities, equipment, education (an advanced degree for anyone has a large subsidy even from private schools) and much more. The pharmaceutical industry contributes pennies (like lobbyists and campaign contributions) and rakes in billions.

Your statement:

"The taxpayer should not get any return on funds invested on its behalf by the government, because the money invested should never have been taken from the tax payer in the first place. He should make his own investment decisions."

Is prima facie ludicrous. We, as a society, make joint decisions all the time. Many of them are flawed (usually those to which benefit goes mostly to a small group of oligarchs who play the corrupt system well. If one of those (investment) decisions results in a discovery of magnitude a more equitable return should return to the society which funded the research. I do not suggest nationalization but a more balanced equation. Better contracts not written by those about to go through the revolving door to the industry involved. If it doesn't bother you a small group of people are reaping the entirety of the benefits of your (willing or unwilling) investment you are sound asleep. Oh, that's right, you dozed off in civics class.

[Father Sky]

Or Diderot:

Mankind will never be free until the last king (despot) is hung by the entrails of the last priest (minister).

[Wild Walleye]

We would disagree about many things but defend the other's right to think.

I agree.

If he thought Nixon or Romney were socialists he would be right, as were Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama - National Socialists or fascists. Remember Mussolini said fascism should more appropriately called corporatism. This is the opposite of Democratic Socialism in the political sphere. The Corporatist downslide really began its acceleration under the most corrupt administration in US history, Ronald Reagan's.

On second thought, f-ck Voltaire (he was French anyway)

[Wild Walleye]

No one here is going to politically convert anyone else here.

I am just an unfrozen caveman finance-guy. I am not familiar with your modern ways.

[Miami Bob]

HIS SPECIALITY is a tongue-in-cheek mock be-school analysis.

Of any subject you might imagine--sometimes it is spot on and many times a almost satirical of abuse of the type of analysis one might employ in anaylzing a almost too strictly from a business point of view subjects that might be far too complex for strictly such a narrow analysis. This is done in a humorous and thoughtful manner and Provokes thought. I dout that he would suggest that he should be making social policy--he is too busy making money and doing his own work and living his own life. From this type of point of view, Richrad Nixon or Mit Romney might be seen as a socailist. Don't get bent out of shape, but enjoy the discussion in the political forums or stay out of them--like I do.

No one here is going to politically convert anyone else here. Many times the political / economic discussions are lively and fascinating--sometimes they descend into name calling--unfortunately this might reflect what is going on in the usa today---division rather than dialog and compromise over the last ten to fifteen years.

Bob out--if you have the opportunity, party with Walley!

[Father Sky]

Found this site yesterday as I was researching and pre-planning a three month excursion to BA. I have the north of SA but not the southern cone so I will be taking a freighter from Galveston around the horn and back then jump ship in BA for a few months before heading to NM. I have appreciated Wally's comments (I spent WAAY to long here before I signed up. I haven't even had a chance to read everything WW wrote back, and won't till later.

I'll PM and get everything taken care of. When someone misquotes me, or twists my meaning, and presumes I am a bleeding heart my instinct and pattern is to keep on with the discussion (too many years in grad school. If it's the wrong place I'm happy to move.

I do look forward to getting there.

[Miami Bob]

Walley has provided very good mongering info--on this board and through back channels-- and, whether or not you agree with his point of view, he at least thinks about what he writes and has a sense of humor.

Walley--make some time and get your butt down TO BA