this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
488 points (99.6% liked)

News

23296 readers
3781 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fish@midwest.social 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

"In 2022, J&J made $17.9 billion in profits, and its CEO received $27.6 million in compensation. That year, the company spent $17.8 billion on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation, while the company spent just $14.6 billion on R&D, the report states. "In other words, the company spent $3.2 billion more enriching executives and stockholders than finding new cures," it concludes.

In 2022, Bristol Myers Squibb also spent $3.2 billion more on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation than R&D—$12.7 billion on executives and stockholders compared with $9.5 billion on R&D. That year, the company made $6.3 billion in profits, and its former CEO made $41.4 million in compensation."

It's pretty clear where these corporations' priorities lie. I wonder how much of their R&D was funded by US taxpayers.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I'm not going to defend the excess bonuses and buybacks etc, but it's difficult to say that they could have easily put that money into more cures.

You can't just throw excess money at things and suddenly it works out, there's diminishing returns and in the end you can just be throwing money into the incinerator vs doing any good.

The better option would be ditch the crazy bonuses and pay etc. and lower the god damn prices. The prices on some of these things are criminal.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They are rare diseases that dosen't get a buck spent on. They could start on those ones.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

The reason those don't have money spent on them is because they'll never be profitable, or have million+ dollar treatment costs because so few people have them.

They'd need to be altruistic to spend money on those, or face huge backlash from the costs if successful.

If they lowered prices that made these insane profits, they'd get good press and help millions of people, instead of help thousands and bad press.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You can't just throw excess money at things and suddenly it works out, there's diminishing returns and in the end you can just be throwing money into the incinerator vs doing any good.

How could this ever be worse than throwing the money into the incinerator that is shareholders? At least the money spent on R&D won't be used by rich assholes to manipulate politics and public opinion.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It could actually slow research down.

Bringing more researches onto the same project doesn't always make it faster. It's the whole 9 woman can't have a baby in 1 month problem. Some things can't be sped up with more people or money.

And if you have too many projects going, things start to get mismanaged.

Bureaucracy breeds inefficiency

Edit: also I don't think you read my OP as I said they should lower prices instead of all the nonsense.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It could also speed research up. It is incredibly unlikely that the current amount of money spent is exactly the best amount possible.

And even if research were to somehow slow down compared to now, the world would still be a better place, since fewer rich assholes would have undue influence.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you even understand what I'm saying?

The world isn't a better place if research slows down because they charge you $7100 but it's $650 elsewhere.

Lower the god damn prices.

Bam there's fewer rich assholes now and millions of individuals are better off.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you understand what I'm saying? Don't just lower prices, also increase investments in R&D. We are not at peak R&D efficiency, so don't ignore it completely.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If they truly believed they could spend more money and get more out of it, they would be, because that would give them billions more in bonuses.

These multi billion dollar companies run efficiently until they don't because they expanded too much too fast and the bureaucracy and size becomes the problem.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Why do you think that they can get more money with more efficient R&D? Sometimes less efficient solutions result in more money.