History Headscratchers / JohnnyMnemonic

*** There's the possibility that PharmaKom could have created the cure. Treatment and the disease. Yes, Spidr says its information overload caused by the technology around them. But if that were the case, we'd be seeing something similar to it now. It makes more sense that the disease was also developed by PharmaKom and they released it, giving out false information as the cause of it. Just tossing that idea out there.

*** 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.

*** 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).

*** 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?

*** 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.

*** 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.

** [=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 don’t 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.

*** 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.

*** 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.

*** 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.

*** 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 $240 dollars-a-piece could just as well 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).

*** All of ^this is pretty much moot without a concrete explanation of ''how'' they would have determined 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 few people remaining who could possibly afford it die off, anyway.

*** 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 $240 dollars-a-piece would just as well 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).

*** All of ^this is pretty much moot without a concrete explanation of ''how'' they would have determined 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.

*** All of ^this is pretty much moot without a concrete explanation of ''how'' the treatments are 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.

*** 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 (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) can afford?! Chuck out any numbers you want. Selling a cure to merely 1 billion people for $240 dollars-a-piece would just as well 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).

*** 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 (less than 4% of all people who would have contracted NAS, based on 2017 global census data) can afford?! Chuck out any numbers you want. Selling a cure to merely 1 billion people for $240 dollars-a-piece would just as well 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).

*** 50% the entire global population is suffering from a deadly plague, and the only sense is in selling a medicine that only 10 million people can afford? Chuck out any numbers you want. Selling a cure to merely 1 billion people for $240 dollars-a-piece would just as well yield the same $240 billion in return.

*** All of ^this is pretty much moot without a concrete explanation of ''how'' the treatments are 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 maintain profitable returns if their consumer base can only ''shrink''?

* Why is the corporation even suppressing the cure in the first place? The "treating the disease is more profitable than curing it" rationale is totally flawed; if half the people in the world are victims to this plague yet the evil corporation can stand to reap one hell of a profit from a cure with a very low markup (as well as gain a ton of [[VillainWithGoodPublicity good PR]]--a Nobel Prize for Medicine, anyone?). TomCruise gets to make $20 million-per-movie just because he can get millions of people to pay $10 for a ticket--not by getting a dozen BillGates types to pay a million bucks each. That same logic would apply here; if 500 million people (likely a ''generous'' underestimate for what ''half'' the world population in Gibson's Sprawl universe would be) were suffering from NAS, and the evil corporation sold the cure for a $10 profit[[note]]On top of base fees for base materials, production, and taxes.[[/note]] per sale, the corporation would already have $5 billion in their pocket. Instead, [=PharmaKom=] sells on-going treatments at $2,000-a-pop. How many people out of HALF the entire planet would be expected to be able to pay that much money on a continual basis? [[YouFailEconomicsForever PharmaKom could be making an incredibly easy couple billion dollars by selling something everybody wants at a low price everybody can pay and afford, but instead they only try and sell something very few people could ever have a chance to pay for regularly.]] Again, '''you don't make billions of dollars in profits selling something only a handful of wealthy elites can afford.'''

** Why is the corporation even suppressing the cure in the first place? The "treating the disease is more profitable than curing it" rationale is totally flawed; if half the people in the world are victims to this plague yet the evil corporation can stand to reap one hell of a profit from a cure with a very low markup (as well as gain a ton of [[VillainWithGoodPublicity good PR]]--a Nobel Prize for Medicine, anyone?). TomCruise gets to make $20 million-per-movie just because he can get millions of people to pay $10 for a ticket--not by getting a dozen BillGates types to pay a million bucks each. That same logic would apply here; if 500 million people (likely a ''generous'' underestimate for what ''half'' the world population in Gibson's Sprawl universe would be) were suffering from NAS, and the evil corporation sold the cure for a $10 profit[[note]]On top of base fees for base materials, production, and taxes.[[/note]] per sale, the corporation would already have $5 billion in their pocket. Instead, [=PharmaKom=] sells on-going treatments at $2,000-a-pop. How many people out of HALF the entire planet would be expected to be able to pay that much money on a continual basis? [[YouFailEconomicsForever PharmaKom could be making an incredibly easy couple billion dollars by selling something everybody wants at a low price everybody can pay and afford, but instead they only try and sell something very few people could ever have a chance to pay for regularly.]] Again, '''you don't make billions of dollars in profits selling something only a handful of wealthy elites can afford.'''
*** Except that pricing the treatment highly ensures keeps poor people from getting it regularly. Maybe they're [[AnimalWrongsGroup environmentalists]] doing some PopulationControl.

*** This argument is trivially easy to counter. If they sell the treatments for $10 profit then they make the same money they would from the cure, but they make that money ''indefinitely.''