To get a bit more economics-driven here, what the PMPRB is doing isn’t so much “setting” a price as negotiating it. In effect, the Canadian government is acting as a monopsony. By being the de facto purchasing agent, for the entire market - at least in the haggling stage - it given them leverage in price negotiations. A drug company could, if they wished, refuse to sell at the price the PMPRB said was “justified.” Their processes are more complicated than just arguing over the phone about price but that’s basically the effect.
An equivalently wealthy market with no one monopsonistic body will inevitably have higher prices.
Is there complete transparency about the prices that other nation-customers are actually paying for various medicines? Are the pharmaceutical manufacturers somehow obliged to disclose the price charged to their lowest-paying customer? If not, it’s going to be kind of hard to insist on getting that price if the buyer doesn’t know it, and the seller isn’t telling.
AFAIK, in the UK the initial price fix for new treatments to be approved as cost-effective for the NHS is treated as commercially confidential. But we know the basic principle is that it costs less than £20-30k for each additional year of life of reasonable quality that the treatment provides (as measured across the whole population, not in each individual case). Lots of wriggle room there, until you get to really expensive drugs that extend life for only a few, maybe miserable, months.
His MAGANUTS can send them (big pharma execs) pizzas.
With all the scathing commentary here on the Dope, the main office must be awash in pepperoni, mushrooms, olives, and sausage. Perhaps ham and pineapple too.
I’m waiting to hear what Wal-Mart says to his command that they “eat the tariffs”.
Seems like a bit of preying on the terminally stupid (as is all MAGA), by attempting to set Wal-Mart up as the bad guy if they raise prices rather than do the “patriotic” thing. This despite his dumb ass setting them up with higher costs in the first place.
They won’t do that. If they decide not to raise prices because of the autocratic bullying, then they’ll just not buy the stuff they would have to sell at a loss. Empty shelves is the expected result of price fixing.
I just feel the need to say that the purpose of a tariff is to raise the cost of imported goods, Either to protect the domestic production or (as Trump says he is trying to do) to incentivize equalizing the balance of trade. Both are accomplished because the foreign products cost more. If the importers do not pass the cost on to the consumers, what’s the point of the tariff?
I’m sorry, are you looking for some kind of logic from this administration? They also want a weak dollar to help exports, but will punish any country that sells dollars.
No, I’m looking for an honest response and analysis from the press.
Look, this isn’t some arcane analysis on how the microeconomic effects of raising the minimum wage from $10/hr to $20/hr has on National Security. This is Econ 101 stuff. You know, the easy class everyone took as Freshmen? Heck, it’s probably taught in High School now.
That may be the problem. Whether he realizes it or not, Trump wants a weaker dollar to improve exports, but also wants the US Dollar to remain the world’s reserve currency.
As with most issues MAGA, this contradiction isn’t what’s surprising. Those bozos would have no problem believing we have a weak dollar so we can sell more exports but we at the same time have a strong dollar so we can remain at the head of the world economic table.
What’s surprising is that the overall understanding of economics demonstrated by the press is nonexistent.
We’ve already seen that to them it does not compute that tradeoffs have to happen. They truly believe they can have an all-benefits, no-costs policy.
As with just about every subject matter where expertise is required. Specialty-field correspondents were among the first to go as press organizations started collapsing.
In this case, the importer is Walmart. If their profits drop because they eat the costs of the tariffs, they’re motivated to find other cheaper suppliers, which might be US manufacturers.
The problem with this is, Walmart’s whole business model is already “find the cheapest supplier”, so there almost certainly aren’t US suppliers who can meet the price point needed to keep things as cheap as they used to be.
As I understand the “logic” in play, if we put tariffs on some other country’s goods, then that’ll make them less attractive to US retailers/companies, who will in turn seek out US options. And then the country with the tariffs levied against it will go “Oh no! I have to buckle and agree to the US trade deal which is disadvantageous, because I’m losing all my business!”
None of which is strictly untrue, but it omits the fact that prices will rise, either due to unavailability of goods or because of the tariff costs being passed through, and consumers will undergo hardship as a result.
That’s why Trump’s saying Wal-Mart needs to “eat the tariffs”. If he says that and paints them as unpatriotic if they don’t, he’s basically pushing them to keep prices the same and bear the cost of the tariffs, or be considered at fault by his dumb-ass constituents. Meanwhile, he’s gambling that these tariffs will have the effects he wants before everything goes to hell and Congress changes during the midterms.
You mis-spelled ‘Trump administration’. This is no surprise from a guy that had… 5? bankruptcies? And drove casinos into the ground. How many lawsuits has he been involved in ? 3000? I may be missing a zero.