If there is anything positive about this war in Ukraine, is that in the area of energy, it will speed up European development of alternative energy which presently is already quite advanced.
As to the Biden announced ban on Russian oil and gas sales into the US, while the US, which is completely self-sufficient, and a net exporter of these commodities, is somewhat puzzling. Just as puzzling as the reason for the high price, Americans are now forced to pay locally at the pump by the US oil and gas industry.
Read more at:
https://www.eu-digest.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label US Consumers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Consumers. Show all posts
3/8/22
9/10/19
China-US relations: Trump wants US businesses to cut all ties with China: why that’s a lose-lose plan - by Winston Mok
Donald Trump “ ordered” American companies by tweet to stop doing business with China. Even with the US president’s shifting whims, what if his wish were to come true?
In an extreme scenario, if US-China trade and US manufacturing in China were to grind to a halt – when US companies no longer had any business with or in China – what would be the implication for American consumers, its companies, workers and innovation?
"Without the Chinese supply chain and the vast China market, many US companies would be displaced by non-US rivals. In decoupling, the US would not be isolating China, but itself, from the global production
network". In an extreme scenario, if US-China trade and US manufacturing in China were to grind to a halt – when US companies no longer had any business with or in China – what would be the implication for American consumers, its companies, workers and innovation?
US consumers would suffer considerably, with a narrower selection of shoddier goods costing more, driving up inflation.
Had Trump not delayed tariffs for the not-yet-targeted Chinese goods until mid-December, US consumers would have had a foretaste of US-China decoupling this Christmas.
"Without the Chinese supply chain and the vast China market, many US companies would be displaced by non-US rivals. In decoupling, the US would not be isolating China, but itself, from the global production
Support EU-Digest, which has reported the news without any political affiliation since 2004, and opposes those who seek to discredit and even destroy news organizations who believe in the right of a free Press, by investing in an advertisement, or by giving a donation to keep our efforts going : to donate or advertise click on: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/hermes?token=8BP18304C1657151J&useraction=commit&mfid=1567106786154_8591ae1288ebf
3/6/15
Pharmaceutical Industry: Do U.S. Consumers Foot the Bill for Cheap Drugs in Europe and Canada? - not really !
In an an article under the heading U.S. Consumers Foot the Bill for Cheap Drugs in Europe and Canada Megan McArdle
wrote in the Bloomberg View. "
A few days ago, when I remarked that U.S. pharmaceutical prices subsidize much of the research that benefits the rest of the world, I got various forms of push back, so it seems worth running, briefly, through the logic:
1. Both critics and boosters of pharma agree that prices are higher here than elsewhere.
2. Therefore, the U.S. accounts for a disproportionate share of pharmaceutical profits for companies that develop new drugs.*
3. Profits provide both incentive to develop new drugs and the cash with which to do so.
4. Drug companies are, in fact, needed to bring large numbers of drugs to market.
5. New drugs are valuable.
That’s not a very interesting argument, though it is one we’ll surely be having over and over again. But there was an interesting question asked in the comments: How do we make Europe and Canada and Japan bear part of the costs of drug development? I’m going to sound like a Negative Nellie here, but the answer is, we don’t.
Let’s start by pointing out that the problem is not that we’re paying Canada’s “share” of development for the drugs we get. This is not how markets work. Drug companies charge what the market will bear for the drugs they make, both here and abroad. Here, where the market is largely private, that share is small. Abroad, where the “negotiation” consists of governments telling you what they are willing to pay, even as you know that they can always change the law to shorten your patent term so that other countries can manufacture your product, using your research for free.
There’s more to it than that, to be fair. Yet when negotiating with other governments, pharmaceutical companies operate at a severe disadvantage, not because the governments’ buying power is so vast (the national health-care systems of Canada and many European countries cover fewer people than Aetna), but because the people you’re negotiating with can change the rules under which your product gets sold. At any point they can say, like Lord Vader, “I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it any further.”
But if Canada started paying more, that wouldn’t mean we’d pay less. Drug companies are charging what they think we will pay. The result of Canadians and Europeans paying less is not that we pay more for drugs; it’s that fewer drugs get developed. To the extent that they are harming us, it is in hindering the development of cures or better treatments that we are missing, and don’t even know about.
Unfortunately, this is a classic case of Bastiat’s dilemma. It is easy for each country’s government to see the high prices that people are paying and intervene to lower them. It is hard for each country’s government, much less its citizens, to envision the new medical treatments that they might get if they paid more for drugs. So their incentives are heavily skewed toward controlling the price here and now, even if that means losing future cures.
Drug development is essentially a giant international collective-action problem. The U.S. has kept it from being a total disaster because we don’t have good centralized control of our insurance market, and our political system is pretty disorganized and easy to lobby. If that changes -- and maybe we just changed it! -- we’ll knock down the prices of drugs to near the marginal cost using government fiat, and I expect that innovation in this sector will grind to a halt. Stuff will still be coming out of academic labs, but no one is going to take those promising targets and turn them into actual drugs.
I don’t expect this to happen right away, but if the Affordable Care Act does result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness.
There are some promising alternatives. The main two that have been suggested are prizes and having the U.S. government get into the business of developing actual drugs, rather than just funding basic research. I’m in favor of trying both of these approaches. But so far, prizes have not proved themselves as ways to fund what is essentially commercial product development -- at least, not at the same level that patents do. Nor has the government. As we’ve just seen from the government’s attempt to develop a Travelocity-like site for health insurance, there are reasons to think that government might not be very good at that sort of thing. I don’t mean to slur the government -- governments absolutely have developed drugs in the past. But these are not the majority, and government processes often make it hard to do things that companies do easily."
Our take on this editorial in Bloomberg by Megan McArdle is that the headline and the facts in the story at times somewhat confusing because it gives the impression that all research is done in the US by US companies and institutions. Fact is that among the 10 top global pharmaceutical companies 5 come from the US and 5 from Europe.
These are: 1) Pfizer, USA 2) Novartis, Switzerland 3) Sanofi, France 4) Roche Holding, Switzerland 5) Merck & Co., USA 6) GlaxoSmithKline, UK, 7) AstraZeneca, UK 8) Eli Lilly & Co., USA, 9) Abbott Laboratories, USA 10) McKesson, USA
On the other hand one can fully agree with the statement on the Affordable Care Act, which notes "that if the Affordable Care Act result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness".
Anyway,at present, whatever way you look at it, the pricing structure differences between the US, Canada and Europe are abnormal, to say the least.
EU-Digest
A few days ago, when I remarked that U.S. pharmaceutical prices subsidize much of the research that benefits the rest of the world, I got various forms of push back, so it seems worth running, briefly, through the logic:
1. Both critics and boosters of pharma agree that prices are higher here than elsewhere.
2. Therefore, the U.S. accounts for a disproportionate share of pharmaceutical profits for companies that develop new drugs.*
3. Profits provide both incentive to develop new drugs and the cash with which to do so.
4. Drug companies are, in fact, needed to bring large numbers of drugs to market.
5. New drugs are valuable.
That’s not a very interesting argument, though it is one we’ll surely be having over and over again. But there was an interesting question asked in the comments: How do we make Europe and Canada and Japan bear part of the costs of drug development? I’m going to sound like a Negative Nellie here, but the answer is, we don’t.
Let’s start by pointing out that the problem is not that we’re paying Canada’s “share” of development for the drugs we get. This is not how markets work. Drug companies charge what the market will bear for the drugs they make, both here and abroad. Here, where the market is largely private, that share is small. Abroad, where the “negotiation” consists of governments telling you what they are willing to pay, even as you know that they can always change the law to shorten your patent term so that other countries can manufacture your product, using your research for free.
There’s more to it than that, to be fair. Yet when negotiating with other governments, pharmaceutical companies operate at a severe disadvantage, not because the governments’ buying power is so vast (the national health-care systems of Canada and many European countries cover fewer people than Aetna), but because the people you’re negotiating with can change the rules under which your product gets sold. At any point they can say, like Lord Vader, “I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it any further.”
But if Canada started paying more, that wouldn’t mean we’d pay less. Drug companies are charging what they think we will pay. The result of Canadians and Europeans paying less is not that we pay more for drugs; it’s that fewer drugs get developed. To the extent that they are harming us, it is in hindering the development of cures or better treatments that we are missing, and don’t even know about.
Unfortunately, this is a classic case of Bastiat’s dilemma. It is easy for each country’s government to see the high prices that people are paying and intervene to lower them. It is hard for each country’s government, much less its citizens, to envision the new medical treatments that they might get if they paid more for drugs. So their incentives are heavily skewed toward controlling the price here and now, even if that means losing future cures.
Drug development is essentially a giant international collective-action problem. The U.S. has kept it from being a total disaster because we don’t have good centralized control of our insurance market, and our political system is pretty disorganized and easy to lobby. If that changes -- and maybe we just changed it! -- we’ll knock down the prices of drugs to near the marginal cost using government fiat, and I expect that innovation in this sector will grind to a halt. Stuff will still be coming out of academic labs, but no one is going to take those promising targets and turn them into actual drugs.
I don’t expect this to happen right away, but if the Affordable Care Act does result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness.
There are some promising alternatives. The main two that have been suggested are prizes and having the U.S. government get into the business of developing actual drugs, rather than just funding basic research. I’m in favor of trying both of these approaches. But so far, prizes have not proved themselves as ways to fund what is essentially commercial product development -- at least, not at the same level that patents do. Nor has the government. As we’ve just seen from the government’s attempt to develop a Travelocity-like site for health insurance, there are reasons to think that government might not be very good at that sort of thing. I don’t mean to slur the government -- governments absolutely have developed drugs in the past. But these are not the majority, and government processes often make it hard to do things that companies do easily."
Our take on this editorial in Bloomberg by Megan McArdle is that the headline and the facts in the story at times somewhat confusing because it gives the impression that all research is done in the US by US companies and institutions. Fact is that among the 10 top global pharmaceutical companies 5 come from the US and 5 from Europe.
These are: 1) Pfizer, USA 2) Novartis, Switzerland 3) Sanofi, France 4) Roche Holding, Switzerland 5) Merck & Co., USA 6) GlaxoSmithKline, UK, 7) AstraZeneca, UK 8) Eli Lilly & Co., USA, 9) Abbott Laboratories, USA 10) McKesson, USA
On the other hand one can fully agree with the statement on the Affordable Care Act, which notes "that if the Affordable Care Act result in some form of pharmaceutical price controls, I think we’ll see the death of Big Pharma, after which we will realize, much to the surprise of folks such as Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, that they did a bit more than just printing pretty labels and inventing new cures for baldness".
Anyway,at present, whatever way you look at it, the pricing structure differences between the US, Canada and Europe are abnormal, to say the least.
EU-Digest
11/26/09
US Consumers: The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade still owns the city's biggest stage
For the complete report from the NY Daily News click on this link
The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade still owns the city's biggest stage - even after going off Broadway. Parade newbies like the Pillsbury Doughboy and Sailor Mickey today joined old-timers such as Kermit the Frog for the New York holiday spectacle that steered clear of Broadway for the first time in its 83-year history. The new 2.65-mile route took clowns, floats and bands from Central Park West to Seventh Avenue and into five sharp turns before winding into its Herald Square destination before thousands of tourists and balloon-loving New Yorkers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)