That sounds true, but what does it have to do with my point.  Sure, they are spending a lot on R&D! They are spending more on buybacks.  They're just temporarily boosting their stock price.

So your point is that a Corporation isn't supposed to make money? Or that they are doing a good job of both bringing new products to the market AND earning profits for their shareholders? What exactly is your point, that we in America are still shouldering the majority of the costs for all the incredible drugs that are saving and improving lives all around the globe, and, just like with NATO, everyone else is shirking their "fair share"? Because if that last one is your point it's really the only one that makes any kind of sense.

My point is they'd still make enough money to maintain their R&D even if our country squeezed their margins.  Profits and buybacks aren't wrong, per se.  I'm a capitalist.  If the profit and margin came to be from voluntary exchange between competitive individual actors, it's very good! But that's not the case with big Pharma. Even if you decided to deconstruct Medicare so that people would all be free agents shopping for prescription medication, you still have the problem that most of the customers would pay any price to save their lives.
So, where typical means of setting prices fail, other means must be found.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So your point is that a Corporation isn't supposed to make money? Or that they are doing a good job of both bringing new products to the market AND earning profits for their shareholders? What exactly is your point, that we in America are still shouldering the majority of the costs for all the incredible drugs that are saving and improving lives all around the globe, and, just like with NATO, everyone else is shirking their "fair share"? Because if that last one is your point it's really the only one that makes any kind of sense.

My point is they'd still make enough money to maintain their R&D even if our country squeezed their margins.  Profits and buybacks aren't wrong, per se.  I'm a capitalist.  If the profit and margin came to be from voluntary exchange between competitive individual actors, it's very good! But that's not the case with big Pharma. Even if you decided to deconstruct Medicare so that people would all be free agents shopping for prescription medication, you still have the problem that most of the customers would pay any price to save their lives.
So, where typical means of setting prices fail, other means must be found.

Lol, and so you get to decide what constitutes "enough", hmmm?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

My point is they'd still make enough money to maintain their R&D even if our country squeezed their margins.  Profits and buybacks aren't wrong, per se.  I'm a capitalist.  If the profit and margin came to be from voluntary exchange between competitive individual actors, it's very good! But that's not the case with big Pharma. Even if you decided to deconstruct Medicare so that people would all be free agents shopping for prescription medication, you still have the problem that most of the customers would pay any price to save their lives.
So, where typical means of setting prices fail, other means must be found.

Lol, and so you get to decide what constitutes "enough", hmmm?

Me, no, but right now the manufacturers decide with no resistance or push back from the buyers.  Somebody has to push back.  
If there was a free, competitive market this wouldn't happen.
But there isn't, not for most prescription drugs.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol, and so you get to decide what constitutes "enough", hmmm?

Me, no, but right now the manufacturers decide with no resistance or push back from the buyers.  Somebody has to push back.  
If there was a free, competitive market this wouldn't happen.
But there isn't, not for most prescription drugs.

I guess we just need more government to make the market more free.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Me, no, but right now the manufacturers decide with no resistance or push back from the buyers.  Somebody has to push back.  
If there was a free, competitive market this wouldn't happen.
But there isn't, not for most prescription drugs.

I guess we just need more government to make the market more free.

You're misstating my point again.
Tell me where you get lost.

1) The government, in all cases, has to punish fraud, protect property rights, and enforce contracts for a market to exist. 
2) Once (1) happens, if there are multiple suppliers, they will compete and set an optimal, market price, and there is nothing left for the government to do but leave things alone.
3) (2) doesn't always happen.  Sometimes there is no competition and therefore no mechanism to set a fair price.  The government either has to break up the suppliers into smaller companies that compete with each other, or do something else to help set a fair price.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I guess we just need more government to make the market more free.

You're misstating my point again.
Tell me where you get lost.

1) The government, in all cases, has to punish fraud, protect property rights, and enforce contracts for a market to exist. 
2) Once (1) happens, if there are multiple suppliers, they will compete and set an optimal, market price, and there is nothing left for the government to do but leave things alone.
3) (2) doesn't always happen.  Sometimes there is no competition and therefore no mechanism to set a fair price.  The government either has to break up the suppliers into smaller companies that compete with each other, or do something else to help set a fair price.

I'm not lost, I see you for what you are. No matter how many words you write it's clear you don't favor a free market.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You're misstating my point again.
Tell me where you get lost.

1) The government, in all cases, has to punish fraud, protect property rights, and enforce contracts for a market to exist. 
2) Once (1) happens, if there are multiple suppliers, they will compete and set an optimal, market price, and there is nothing left for the government to do but leave things alone.
3) (2) doesn't always happen.  Sometimes there is no competition and therefore no mechanism to set a fair price.  The government either has to break up the suppliers into smaller companies that compete with each other, or do something else to help set a fair price.

I'm not lost, I see you for what you are. No matter how many words you write it's clear you don't favor a free market.

Do you?
Suppose the four remaining major airlines all want to merge into one big airline. They all have agreed to how the shares will be distributed. Free market right? No one should stop them, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm not lost, I see you for what you are. No matter how many words you write it's clear you don't favor a free market.

Do you?
Suppose the four remaining major airlines all want to merge into one big airline. They all have agreed to how the shares will be distributed. Free market right? No one should stop them, right?

What part of "free" don't you get?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Do you?
Suppose the four remaining major airlines all want to merge into one big airline. They all have agreed to how the shares will be distributed. Free market right? No one should stop them, right?

What part of "free" don't you get?

The part where it's not competitive anymore so there's little limit to prices.  Your view is consistent, but here you are departing from the market virtues Adam Smith described and progressing into a worldview that is not based on virtue.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sounds exactly like what would happen with nationalized healthcare and education.

Oops, it already did.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Sounds exactly like what would happen with nationalized healthcare and education.

Oops, it already did.

Both healthcare and education still have quite a bit of private competition.  While neither is completely a "free market" today, neither is "nationalized" either.  Both are somewhere in between

The free market is best, but, if there's no competition, it fails. 
The government has to intervene to either break up the monopoly, and restore the free competitive market, or supervise the process of setting prices.

Cable companies and electric companies are both examples of monopolies that can not be broken up.  At the end of the day, there is one wire to your house, and one company owns it. 
So the government supervises the prices.
In Florida your electric rates are supervised by the State Regulatory Commission.  Your cable rates are typically supervised at the city or county level.  Most of the money doesn't go to the government, but, the private owner has to demonstrate that they are acting in the public interest, or out of need, before they raise prices.
If we didn't do this, there would be no way to prevent the cable company or the electric company from charging you whatever they felt like charging you.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Healthcare and education have been exceptionally harmed because of federal government intervention.

Government certainly is not the expert to fix any industry at all. More often than not, they are better staying out.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I'm not lost, I see you for what you are. No matter how many words you write it's clear you don't favor a free market.

Do you?
Suppose the four remaining major airlines all want to merge into one big airline. They all have agreed to how the shares will be distributed. Free market right? No one should stop them, right?

Or in the case of your example, it took removing government control, not introducing it, to prosper. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. FYI, quasi airline mergers exist through alliances. Free market still dictates an airlines success whether legacy or upstart.

---

satellite radio

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I'm not lost, I see you for what you are. No matter how many words you write it's clear you don't favor a free market.

Do you?
Suppose the four remaining major airlines all want to merge into one big airline. They all have agreed to how the shares will be distributed. Free market right? No one should stop them, right?

Start your own new airline! 

Don't demand the government use their guns to give you a good rate.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

What part of "free" don't you get?

The part where it's not competitive anymore so there's little limit to prices.  Your view is consistent, but here you are departing from the market virtues Adam Smith described and progressing into a worldview that is not based on virtue.

I dont believe in virtue.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Do you?
Suppose the four remaining major airlines all want to merge into one big airline. They all have agreed to how the shares will be distributed. Free market right? No one should stop them, right?

Start your own new airline! 

Don't demand the government use their guns to give you a good rate.

In that example, it may still be possible for someone to start their own airline, especially by flying to airports that the monopolist airline isn't using heavily. 
What about the cable company?
What about the electric company?
What about the sewers?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Start your own new airline! 

Don't demand the government use their guns to give you a good rate.

In that example, it may still be possible for someone to start their own airline, especially by flying to airports that the monopolist airline isn't using heavily. 
What about the cable company?
What about the electric company?
What about the sewers?

Wow, you do a great job of pointing out all the instances where government intervention decides the winners and losers and the customers usually end up the latter! You're spitting truth like a nail gun! Keep it up, you'll get here eventually!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Start your own new airline! 

Don't demand the government use their guns to give you a good rate.

In that example, it may still be possible for someone to start their own airline, especially by flying to airports that the monopolist airline isn't using heavily. 
What about the cable company?
What about the electric company?
What about the sewers?

I agree. Those are monopolies regulated by local government. In some cases such control is necessary, and you always have the choice to move to another locality if your local government is not doing a good job. 

You also can choose to do without those services. Nowadays you can put up solar panels and a battery array and provide your own electricity. You can live in an area where septic tanks and wells are a viable alternative. You can choose DirecTV or another satellite provider, or just not watch TV, and you can access the internet through your phone service or just stay unconnected.

I'm not a fan of monopolies. A monopoly has no incentive to improve. That is the main problem with government services, they are monopolies. NASA has just coasted on its initial success, and has not developed anything significant* since the shuttle which was roughly 40 years ago. Expecting government, especially the Federal government, to fix a problem with a monopolistic corporation is just pushing control from one monopoly to another.


*  they have sent out some really great interplanetary probes, but the development was based on technological improvement by the private sector

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

In that example, it may still be possible for someone to start their own airline, especially by flying to airports that the monopolist airline isn't using heavily. 
What about the cable company?
What about the electric company?
What about the sewers?

Wow, you do a great job of pointing out all the instances where government intervention decides the winners and losers and the customers usually end up the latter! You're spitting truth like a nail gun! Keep it up, you'll get here eventually!

Do you think that someone with money is going to invest in a second set of power plants, power lines, and wires up to your home to save you if your electric company decides to gouge you?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.