Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> 3. After they cured so many people, there was a much smaller market (success!). Revenue and margin both dropped a lot: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GILD/gilead-scienc....

This seems like a pretty clear example of why looking at revenue and margin like this is not a good way to manage this. Our goal here is clearly to eliminate the market for this product, and everyone ought to chip in to make that happen, not just the people who currently are at risk. The whole funding model is fundamentally broken.



> The whole funding model is fundamentally broken.

That's a totally reasonable point (and perhaps worth starting a separate top-level reply about), but it's not at all what the GP comment was arguing.


It depends on your definition of price gouging. You're defining price gouging as having the price reflect the marginal cost of the drug. I (and I think GP as well) would define price gouging a little more broadly and say simply that it's setting the price unreasonably high. Since marginal cost is not a reasonable pricing mechanism to achieve the desired goal, It's not a good basis for an argument that the price is reasonable and not gouging.


I think the term for what you're describing is "Supracompetitive pricing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supracompetitive_pricing

(I'm not sure whether the evidence justifies that claim either, but the claim is a lot stronger than gouging)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: