History Headscratchers / JohnnyMnemonic

9th May '17 10:35:00 AM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** What's this have to do with [=PharmaKom=] not making a cure they created available to themselves, even if they didn't want anybody else to have it? Nevertheless, this here is an entirely moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford to give her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.

to:

*** What's this have to do with [=PharmaKom=] not making a cure they created available to themselves, even if they didn't want anybody else to have it? Nevertheless, this here is an entirely moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford to give her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their overpriced treatments possibly remain be profitable if their consumer base can only drastically ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few wealthy, privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford pay for them die off, anyway.
9th May '17 10:29:06 AM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** 50% the entire global population is suffering from a deadly plague, and the only economic sense is in selling a medicine that only 10 million people[[note]]This number would comprise less than 4% of the total number of people who would have contracted NAS, if we'd base population figures on 2017 global census data[[/note]] can afford?! Chuck out any numbers you want. Selling a cure to merely 1 billion people for just $240 dollars-a-piece could yield the same $240 billion in return (as well as preserve the lives of 990 million more people to sustain broader socio-economic human productivity around the world, opposed to limiting the scope of humanity to the comparative size of just a single densely populated metropolitan area).

to:

*** 50% the entire global population is suffering from a deadly plague, and the only economic sense is in selling a medicine that only 10 million people[[note]]This number would comprise less than 4% of the total number of people who would have contracted NAS, if we'd base population figures on 2017 global census data[[/note]] can afford?! Chuck out any numbers you want. Selling a cure medicine to merely 1 2 billion people for just $240 dollars-a-piece 1% of the $240,000 figure you're putting out could just as well yield the same $240 billion twice as much cash in return (as well as preserve help the lives of 990 million more 200x as many people to sustain broader socio-economic human productivity around the world, opposed to limiting the scope of humanity to the comparative size of just a single densely populated metropolitan area).
9th May '17 10:21:45 AM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Could one even ''find'' 10 million people who can pay out nearly a quarter-of-a-million bucks for any sort of routine expense every year? $240,000 would be nearly the entire annual income for the top 1.5% wealthiest households, based on current US tax brackets. The rich gotta eat and have to meet other essential expenses, too, you know?

to:

*** Could one even ''find'' 10 million people who can pay out nearly a quarter-of-a-million bucks for any sort of routine expense every year? $240,000 would still be nearly a very significant slice of the entire annual income for even the top 1.5% wealthiest households, based on current US earners in the highest income tax brackets.brackets in the United States and other developed countries (even comprising more than half of the US President's annual salary). The rich gotta eat and have to meet other essential expenses, too, you know?
8th May '17 3:28:58 PM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Could one even ''find'' 10 million people who can pay out nearly a quarter-of-a-million bucks for any sort of routine expense every year? $240,000 would be nearly the entire annual income for the top 1.5% wealthiest households, based on current US tax brackets. The rich gotta eat and have to meet other essential expenses, too, you know?
8th May '17 8:55:57 AM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** All of this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford to give her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.

to:

*** All of What's this have to do with [=PharmaKom=] not making a cure they created available to themselves, even if they didn't want anybody else to have it? Nevertheless, this here is a an entirely moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford to give her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.
7th May '17 7:23:01 PM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** All of this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.

to:

*** All of this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford to give her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.
7th May '17 7:21:04 PM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** [=PharmaKom=] didn't even make the cure for NAS available to their own employees and staff to make sure that they couldn't get the disease themselves, as evidenced in Takahashi's storyline with his daughter. What's the point in a company using their own money and resources in researching and creating a cure for a disease if they're not even going to inoculate '''''themselves''''' and are just going to sit on it? Creating the cure was an entirely pointless venture for them.
*** It is actually quite common for corporations to hedge their bets rather than putting everything in one basket. They created both the treatment and the cure, then performed a careful economic analysis and determined the treatment was more profitable than the cure. But they keep the cure around in case economic conditions change and the cure becomes more profitable (for instance, if a competitor is about to find the cure, making the treatment valueless, they can suddenly reveal the cure themselves and still make a big profit). They donít use the cure on their own employees because word could get out and people would know they had the cure.
*** All of ^this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.

to:

**
*
[=PharmaKom=] didn't even make the cure for NAS available to their own employees and staff to make sure that they couldn't get the disease themselves, as evidenced in Takahashi's storyline with his daughter. What's the point in a company using their own money and resources in researching and creating a cure for a disease if they're not even going to inoculate '''''themselves''''' and are just going to sit on it? Creating the cure was an entirely pointless venture for them.
*** ** It is actually quite common for corporations to hedge their bets rather than putting everything in one basket. They created both the treatment and the cure, then performed a careful economic analysis and determined the treatment was more profitable than the cure. But they keep the cure around in case economic conditions change and the cure becomes more profitable (for instance, if a competitor is about to find the cure, making the treatment valueless, they can suddenly reveal the cure themselves and still make a big profit). They donít use the cure on their own employees because word could get out and people would know they had the cure.
*** All of ^this this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.anyway.
7th May '17 3:56:30 PM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** All of ^this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Raising the price won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.

to:

*** All of ^this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Raising the price Even raising their prices won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.
7th May '17 3:55:33 PM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** All of ^this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes that both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Raising the price won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.

to:

*** All of ^this is a moot point without a ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' an economic analysis actually reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes that both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people already struggle to afford them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Raising the price won't solve anything because the treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford them die off, anyway.
7th May '17 3:54:56 PM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** All of ^this is a moot point without a concrete explanation for ''how'' they could have done so to ''actually'' determine the treatments would actually more profitable. The film itself establishes that both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people simply cannot afford it, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter, someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who could afford her the best possible access to the treatments, still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Raising the price can't solve anything because the treatment is already unaffordable to the majority of people who desperately need it, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford it still die off, anyway.

to:

*** All of ^this is a moot point without a concrete ''concrete'' explanation for ''how'' they could have done so to ''actually'' determine the treatments would an economic analysis actually more profitable. reaches such a conclusion. The film itself establishes that both that (1) the prices for treatments are so exorbitantly high that millions of people simply cannot already struggle to afford it, them, and (2) even Takahashi's daughter, someone daughter--someone with a wealthy/important enough parent who could ''could'' afford her the best possible access to the treatments, still treatments--still dies from the disease. How could their treatments possibly remain profitable if their consumer base can only ''shrink''? Raising the price can't won't solve anything because the treatment is treatments are already unaffordable to the vast majority of people who desperately need it, them, and the very few privileged elites remaining who could possibly afford it still them die off, anyway.
This list shows the last 10 events of 267. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.JohnnyMnemonic