Hacker News
points by jmcqk6 1 day ago | 0 comments
> I would also add that you can't make any more money selling drugs to people you have killed.

That assumes that people are playing a long game. If you're looking for your payday and exit, and there are many people out there who are only looking for the next payday, this argument falls apart.

> Moreover, a relatively small number of dangerous flops will tank your reputation with consumers.

One success the anti-vax people have achieved is to muddy the waters around this. Your public reputation is no longer correlated to actual performance.

> Liability means that you are incentivized to be quite cautious in pushing a potentially dangerous product

There's a long list of people throughout history who do not have this caution at all.

You seem to be taking a theoretical economics approach. Reality is different. People are not perfectly rational actors, and consequences are not consistent.

Look at what actually happens in reality.

[–] estearum 1 day ago
The antivax people are still fringe and by and large people trust that the drugs they take are safe and effective.

Payday and exit is pretty hard in biotech as you need to conjure up billions of dollars in capital, which doesn't often flow to people who payday-and-exit.

What happens in reality is that people try really hard to make safe and effective drugs, they mostly fail, and the ones that are approved are generally safe and effective.

[–] ch4s3 16 hours ago
>That assumes that people are playing a long game

What are you talking about? Shareholders are looking for sustainable projections of growth. Killing a bunch of people will tank your stock which is how executives get paid. You really need to think beyond their first thought o nstuff like this.

> There's a long list of people throughout history who do not have this caution at all.

None of them run pharmaceutical companies.

>You seem to be taking a theoretical economics approach. Reality is different

No I'm describing reality and you're arguing from populism.

[–] fc417fc802 15 hours ago
> Shareholders are looking for sustainable projections of growth.

Then why are there so many examples of PE destroying things to make a (relatively) quick buck?

[–] ch4s3 11 hours ago
> so many examples of PE destroying

PE is short for PRIVATE equity, there are no public shareholders in PE, no share price. When I critique that people here often don't understand basic things about the economy this is what I mean.