tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post852656154171752865..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: Astra Zeneca MergerMark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-86522890816964136322014-05-07T20:13:12.403+01:002014-05-07T20:13:12.403+01:00LF, these mergers are usually bad for shareholders...LF, these mergers are usually bad for shareholders in predator and good for shareholders in target. if you own shares in both companies, then you can be heartily indifferent. <br /><br />DBC, agreed actually on governments carrying out R&D, they pay for most of it anyway. Kj has expounded on this at length before.<br /><br />Tim Worstall made the point that governments are good at R&D, but rubbish at putting it to commercial use, which is easily fixed.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-87475503034510039762014-05-07T10:33:11.166+01:002014-05-07T10:33:11.166+01:00In the original article Iain Martin worries that M...In the original article Iain Martin worries that Miliband will go too far and press for nationalisation of drug development to be carried out by scientists free of the stimulus of competition.<br />But all competition achieves is mergers and acquisitions which begin to make money when they shed whole departments and make one back office do the work previously done by two (when they were competing with each other).As was pointed out by King Gillette yonks ago this shows that competition produces duplicate/parallel offices : competition increases bureaucracy.<br />The rationale of mergers undermines the whole myth of competition.<br />Moreover Professor Mariana Mazzucato "argues that the most risky and uncertain investments underlying most technological revolutions were undertaken by public sector agencies."<br />So lets hope Miliband does challenge the present laissez faire revival which is making the Tulip Mania seem grounded by comparison.<br />There is a negative rent seeking capitalism, you know ,as Adam Smith warned of those who " by keeping the market constantly understocked ,by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above their natural price".<br />Dean Baker whom Paul quotes shows the pharmaceutical industry regulates supply. DBC Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891849727783879145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-41429730254970030172014-05-07T10:06:11.876+01:002014-05-07T10:06:11.876+01:00GSK merger did not work well
http://www.telegraph....GSK merger did not work well<br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2888371/Sykes-my-fears-over-GSK-merger.html<br />"Sir Richard Sykes, the creator of GlaxoSmithKline, the world's second biggest pharmaceutical company, is unsure that it will ever create value for its shareholders. In an interview with The Telegraph, he said: "Is it going to be value enhancing to the shareholder? It's going to take a long time to get an answer to that.""<br /><br />I know it is from 2004 but has anything changed?<br />Of course it was the business's own decision so they can do what they want, whether it is wise or not is probably another matter.<br /><br />BTW I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry so had a vested interestL fairfaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12274756119129254373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-50685618271675888422014-05-06T22:27:45.377+01:002014-05-06T22:27:45.377+01:00@Stigler
Here are a few.
@Graeme. It is costly and...@Stigler<br /><a href="http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/intellectual_property_2004_09.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here are a few.</a><br />@Graeme. It is costly and the patent system itself is in part responsible for that. From the above report: "excessive marketing expenses, as firms seek to pursue the monopoly profits associated with patent protection...wasted research spending into duplicative drugs[estimates of up to two thirds of R&D]"<br /><br />Quite apart from "the neglect of research that is not likely to lead to patentable drugs and concealing research findings in ways that impede the progress of research, and <br />prevent the medical profession and the public from becoming aware of evidence that some drugs may not be effective, or could even be harmful". All much in evidence in recent years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-24237993335670204032014-05-06T19:55:06.654+01:002014-05-06T19:55:06.654+01:00paul - doesn't it rather show how costly it is...paul - doesn't it rather show how costly it is to bring new drugs to market? The regulatory hurdles and legal risks are such that the drug companies are consolidating their research programs.Graemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11007306140530173428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-10818195378686972452014-05-06T19:33:28.355+01:002014-05-06T19:33:28.355+01:00paulc156,
what's your alternative?paulc156,<br /><br />what's your alternative?Tim Almondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13369256383976094670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-31439537367173357122014-05-06T19:11:35.078+01:002014-05-06T19:11:35.078+01:00Certainly shows the gargantuan value of patent pro...Certainly shows the gargantuan value of patent protections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-91831538631214034912014-05-06T18:41:13.595+01:002014-05-06T18:41:13.595+01:00Glaxo-Wellcome-Smith-Kline-Beecham worked.
Why no...Glaxo-Wellcome-Smith-Kline-Beecham worked.<br /><br />Why not PfizerZeneca? If the shareholders are up for it then I'm not too bothered.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.com