(08-20-2023 10:15 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-20-2023 09:50 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-20-2023 09:43 PM)Vonz90 Wrote:  I have never worked in pharmaceuticals. I do however do R&D and launch new to the world products and understand the economics of it.

The point is not that pharmaceutical companies are nice guys. They are responding to the market incentives that the regulatory regime created. If you want to bring down prices, reduce the barriers to market entry.

BTW - I have launched product lines that sell with 80% margins. 13% isn't sh##.

It's double the margin of large companies that aren't pharmaceutical companies. Medication is critical to survival, and no other developed country in this world gets the shaft like us. Who cares that you've launched product lines that have a higher margin? It has no relevance and you have nothing to stand on.

Apologies, but I'm a UAB grad and we tend to look to research results. Let's ask JAMA:

In this cross-sectional study of 60 new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2009 to 2018, there was no association between estimated research and development investments and treatment costs based on list prices at the launch of the product or based on net prices a year after launch. . . . Findings of this study suggest that variation in drug prices could not be explained by research and development investments; drug companies should make further data available if they want to use this argument to justify high prices.

So: high drug prices are not repeat not justified by research costs.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanet...le/2796669

And with that tangent torpedoed and sunk, back to the topic of airports.

(08-20-2023 10:15 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-20-2023 09:50 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-20-2023 09:43 PM)Vonz90 Wrote:  I have never worked in pharmaceuticals. I do however do R&D and launch new to the world products and understand the economics of it.

The point is not that pharmaceutical companies are nice guys. They are responding to the market incentives that the regulatory regime created. If you want to bring down prices, reduce the barriers to market entry.

BTW - I have launched product lines that sell with 80% margins. 13% isn't sh##.

It's double the margin of large companies that aren't pharmaceutical companies. Medication is critical to survival, and no other developed country in this world gets the shaft like us. Who cares that you've launched product lines that have a higher margin? It has no relevance and you have nothing to stand on.

Apologies, but I'm a UAB grad and we tend to look to research results. Let's ask JAMA:

In this cross-sectional study of 60 new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2009 to 2018, there was no association between estimated research and development investments and treatment costs based on list prices at the launch of the product or based on net prices a year after launch. . . . Findings of this study suggest that variation in drug prices could not be explained by research and development investments; drug companies should make further data available if they want to use this argument to justify high prices.

So: high drug prices are not repeat not justified by research costs.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanet...le/2796669

And with that tangent torpedoed and sunk, back to the topic of airports.

You very seriously miss the point.

Price is not based on cost, that is a fundamental economic principle. So of course the price is not related to the cost - that is a fundamental economic truism.

If price is not enough above cost - plus enough return to justify the investment compared to other investments with equal risk - then no one will make that investment and you get fewer new products.

So since European countries have restricted profits they have choked off investment compared to what it would have been otherwise. That is exactly what economic theory suggests would happen and that is what the data says happened. Why replicate that here?

Simply put, if you reduce the potential ROI, you get less investment - duh. It isn't rocket surgery - you wouldn't keep investing your money if the return went to sh## - why do you expect others to do so?

Like I said, if you want to reduce the prices, reduce barriers to entry. Lower barriers to entry results in more competition and competition reduces price. I don't know why that bothers you, but truth is truth if you like it or not and economic reality applies to important things just as well as unimportant things. We don't have a different law of gravity for passenger airplanes either.

(08-20-2023 09:12 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says airports are more important than ever

I am very concerned about the attack on lead in avgas...what say you clt?

(08-20-2023 11:54 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(08-20-2023 09:12 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says airports are more important than ever

I am very concerned about the attack on lead in avgas...what say you clt?

Considering the latest divergence isn't even worth dignifying with a response (directed to the Big Pharma troll and not the FAU poster), I have to inform the board that jets and turboprops don't use avgas. I suspect crop duster pilots, and GA enthusiasts are up in arms.

Beyond that, it's useful to know that Memphis International is the second busiest cargo airport in the world behind Chek Lap Kok in Hong Kong. Unfortunately that doesn't translate to passenger flights. Thanks Delta.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-foot...on-reports

(08-20-2023 12:12 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  What I've learned from the realignment of the last 10 years is that when the writing is on the wall, the dominoes start to fall more or less accordingly.

What's the current writing on the wall? FSU, Clemson, ND, UNC, UVA, and probably VT are all gone to Big10/SEC. With Miami and Duke as outside shots.

Who does that leave? BC, GT, Louisville, NCST, Pitt, Cuse, Wake. That's 7.

The PAC4 + SDSU + SMU makes 6.

Getting to 16-20 and becoming the best of the rest conference would be the name of the game. Depending on the athletic success before this happens, I think Tulane, Memphis, USF would be pretty high up the list. Boise should obviously be up there but maybe won't. In the east maybe even a Temple, UCONN, Navy (+WSU), ECU(?), Army (+Zaga), UAB. In the west maybe Air Force, Colorado St, UNLV.

Other than joining an intact ACC, this would be probably the best option. Coast-to-coast conference with peer schools, could really break into an East/West so its really just 2 10 team conferences playing under a singular banner.

True

(08-21-2023 04:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(08-20-2023 12:12 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  What I've learned from the realignment of the last 10 years is that when the writing is on the wall, the dominoes start to fall more or less accordingly.

What's the current writing on the wall? FSU, Clemson, ND, UNC, UVA, and probably VT are all gone to Big10/SEC. With Miami and Duke as outside shots.

Who does that leave? BC, GT, Louisville, NCST, Pitt, Cuse, Wake. That's 7.

The PAC4 + SDSU + SMU makes 6.

Getting to 16-20 and becoming the best of the rest conference would be the name of the game. Depending on the athletic success before this happens, I think Tulane, Memphis, USF would be pretty high up the list. Boise should obviously be up there but maybe won't. In the east maybe even a Temple, UCONN, Navy (+WSU), ECU(?), Army (+Zaga), UAB. In the west maybe Air Force, Colorado St, UNLV.

Other than joining an intact ACC, this would be probably the best option. Coast-to-coast conference with peer schools, could really break into an East/West so its really just 2 10 team conferences playing under a singular banner.

True

I think that is eventually what happens. Or one or 2 of a multitude of variations of such. The question is when.

Meanwhile, if Calford doesn't crack the ACC, I think they rebuild with 2024 AAC and 2025 MWC teams. Unless Calford both go indy, then the last 2 might just melt into the MWC.

But there is still some equity in the Pac holdings.

(08-20-2023 09:19 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-20-2023 09:13 PM)T for Temple U! Wrote:  If the thread stayed on topic, more often, it probably wouldn't be so long.

Way too much off topic banter on this thread, imho.

I don't see how this banter in particular is on topic for this thread. It really has nothing to do with the AAC trying to add the PAC4. Why didn't you start a new thread to talk about how this thread veers off topic on occasion?

It is what it is. Have you noticed that every single thread with more than a handful of posts veers off topic?

File this reply to your reply in the irony category.

I remember about 15 years ago (my first foray into the world of sports message boards), I was on this soccer specific board and those Moderators didn’t play around, at the slightest sideways post, they'd send you to an off topic thread. Sometimes, I thought they were a little too vigilant with it..... I sure miss those Moderators.

FWIW, you'll never see me make another off topic post.
Okay, I'm done.

Monday looms large...

(08-21-2023 04:00 AM)Ourland Wrote:  https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-foot...on-reports

Thanks.

Takeaway:
1. Stanford and Cal to ACC not likely to work out
2. A vote was not taken last Friday which indicates lack of support for the additions.
3. "The next couple of days will be decisive"

(08-21-2023 06:35 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Monday looms large...

I surmise once the ACC issue is resolved, things will move quickly.

We can restart a main board realignment thread when more actual AAC-related news comes forward from a reputable source.

Reputable sources do not include:

MHver3 or OS_Beaver

You want to discuss their latest Twitter-gasm head over to here:

https://csnbbs.com/forum-637.html