There is no spinning this. Trump will try to use some other method of implementing tariffs. Even ignoring what they say. He has too much ego invested in it.

comment by Keep It Greasy - Music is the BEST (U1396)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Michael Scofield (U11781)
posted 15 minutes ago
BREAKING: Elon Musk leaves Trump administration role

End of an era
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is he going to work out why his rockets & cars keep on exploding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope he can't

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 7 hours, 40 minutes ago
Think rosso’s basically saying that it’s a piiiisstake that these corporations benefit massively from public funding, whilst pretending they’ve done it all themselves - there’s no transparency in these industries regarding how much they’ve relied on the public purse - for them to then rip consumers off, not paying any tax, massively increasing the wealth inequality across the world and destroying the livelihoods of millions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s basically it. The blame, of course, largely lies with our political representatives, as well as industry.

In the simplest (I hope) terms possible:

THE AS-IS

1. Basic research and now, in many industries, product development is largely (sometimes primarily) funded by the public purse.

2. That ownership/benefits of that basic research is transferred at below cost price (often at zero cost) to the private sector.

3. The private sector also widely benefits from grants, tax relief, and interest free loans from the public sector to help it pay for applied research, product development, compliance, and even commercialisation.

4. All of this huge public support enables commercial successes, often next to none of the direct financial benefits of which are returned to the public purse.

5. We maintain a collective lie that the private sector is burdened with both huge R&D costs and with great risk, whereas actually the private sector is (understandably) far more actively risk averse than the public sector. (We can measure, for example, how and where university departments spend their money versus where venture capital tends to enter the value chain.)

THE SHOULD-BE

1, 2, 3. The public sector can continue to both perform and bankroll basic research, applied research, and, hell, even product development and commercialisation. It can continue to deliver IP directly into the hands of industry. It can continue to ‘pick winners’ and offer grants and loans to everything from start-ups to large, established businesses.

2. Where it does so, we should recognise the full value being created by the investment being made by taxpayers, and ensure that a fair share of the eventual proceeds of that investment are returned to taxpayers. That could happen in (any combination of) many different ways. For me, personally, I’d like to see as a general rule, transparent agreements between the public (funding) entities and the private (beneficiary) entities which deliver tangible, direct financial benefits back to the public purse when profits are turned* for the benefits of a) future funding and b) the wider public good. *This, it is important to recognise, is nothing revolutionary - it’s how all contracts are written between private entities.

5. We should be open and honest about who actually funds R&D; who actually carries risk; who actually fills the funding void that venture capital will not touch; and who has benefitted from all of the above.

And we should talk about the fact that this state intervention in the markets (and that’s exactly what it is) isn’t necessarily a bad thing - there’s no shaming here, it’s just fact that public money sometimes has to do things that private money can’t or won’t - but that some of the benefits of that intervention should be shared back with taxpayers, instead of it all being handed to shareholders or spent on buybacks by companies registered in zero tax jurisdictions.

Mars removes all Titanium dioxide from products.

This has been illegal in the EU since 2022, but is still legal in the UK because we’ve managed to take are country bak.

I won’t be having Skittles anytime soon either way.

Mars removes from all *US products

Another angle on the same matter:

Americans spend a lot of time talking about how proud they can be of tech entrepreneurship and the value to the nation of the great successes of the geeks and investors of Silicon Valley.

They *should* spend a lot of time talking about how proud they can be that *the US state* designed and created Silicon Valley, and that the *US state* created almost every single one of the technological building blocks of that success.

They’re good at collating talent.

Load Photoshop and you’ll see most of the software writers have Indian names for example

https://news.sky.com/story/this-gravely-ill-girl-has-been-ordered-to-leave-the-us-by-the-white-house-but-doctors-say-she-could-die-within-days-13376246

Trump you cant

A speech on Palestine by…. Malcolm X

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4s14EHXCg5Y&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD

That’s from 1965.

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted about an hour ago
Not sure why saying bringing pharmaceuticals more into the public sector domain is so crazy. A fair few countries do this already, but the UK doesn’t to the same degree, despite the NHS playing a large role in regulation.

There used to be list of tips on the old BBC 606, and one of those was try and make sure you know what you’re talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The regulations for development and approval of pharmaceutical manufacture for new products is done by the MHRA, not the NHS. The NHS is not involved in that process.

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 9 seconds ago
A speech on Palestine by…. Malcolm X

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4s14EHXCg5Y&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD

That’s from 1965.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great man, it’s still astounding him and Martin Luther King never crossed paths despite fighting for the same cause

comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted about an hour ago
Not sure why saying bringing pharmaceuticals more into the public sector domain is so crazy. A fair few countries do this already, but the UK doesn’t to the same degree, despite the NHS playing a large role in regulation.

There used to be list of tips on the old BBC 606, and one of those was try and make sure you know what you’re talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The regulations for development and approval of pharmaceutical manufacture for new products is done by the MHRA, not the NHS. The NHS is not involved in that process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah I know, but the NHS does directly influence regulation in a number of ways.

The point being that there are countries that have successfully intertwined the public and private sector in pharmaceutical production to not only create cheaper medicines for themselves but also to sell abroad.

Swedens APL is a great example of this, so to see know nothings (not you) simply laugh at the suggestion makes me think those people are pretty clueless on the subject. There are other examples too such as India.

We don’t have to deal in absolutes here, but considering we spend nearly £20bn annually on pharma through the NHS, and with the NHS being such a burden financially as a whole, I’m suggesting there is a better way of doing this, because there is.

comment by Keep It Greasy - Music is the BEST (U1396)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Michael Scofield (U11781)
posted 15 minutes ago
BREAKING: Elon Musk leaves Trump administration role

End of an era
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is he going to work out why his rockets & cars keep on exploding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

He couldn't work his way out of a wet paper bag.

And why is he allowed to use tax payer's money to conduct his televised fireworks exhibition at (according to the habitual fantasist) $100m a pop, littering the globe with hazardous materials?

comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted about an hour ago
Not sure why saying bringing pharmaceuticals more into the public sector domain is so crazy. A fair few countries do this already, but the UK doesn’t to the same degree, despite the NHS playing a large role in regulation.

There used to be list of tips on the old BBC 606, and one of those was try and make sure you know what you’re talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The regulations for development and approval of pharmaceutical manufacture for new products is done by the MHRA, not the NHS. The NHS is not involved in that process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah I know, but the NHS does directly influence regulation in a number of ways.

The point being that there are countries that have successfully intertwined the public and private sector in pharmaceutical production to not only create cheaper medicines for themselves but also to sell abroad.

Swedens APL is a great example of this, so to see know nothings (not you) simply laugh at the suggestion makes me think those people are pretty clueless on the subject. There are other examples too such as India.

We don’t have to deal in absolutes here, but considering we spend nearly £20bn annually on pharma through the NHS, and with the NHS being such a burden financially as a whole, I’m suggesting there is a better way of doing this, because there is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are NHS manufacturing hubs in the north east. Their used to be NHS pharmaceutical manufacturing sites, but alot of them are now privately owned. Torbay Pharma near me is an example of where this has happened.

The NHS is actually pretty good at keeping pharma costs down due to its supply chain. They tend to buy generics rather than brands and it is a lot cheaper to buy most from a mass producing contract manufacturer than it is to run a facility to make your own.

There is space to use partnerships with pharmaceutical companies to develop medicines, but the manufacture of medicines is high risk for a government to take on and requires a huge amount of investment.

comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted about an hour ago
Not sure why saying bringing pharmaceuticals more into the public sector domain is so crazy. A fair few countries do this already, but the UK doesn’t to the same degree, despite the NHS playing a large role in regulation.

There used to be list of tips on the old BBC 606, and one of those was try and make sure you know what you’re talking about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The regulations for development and approval of pharmaceutical manufacture for new products is done by the MHRA, not the NHS. The NHS is not involved in that process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah I know, but the NHS does directly influence regulation in a number of ways.

The point being that there are countries that have successfully intertwined the public and private sector in pharmaceutical production to not only create cheaper medicines for themselves but also to sell abroad.

Swedens APL is a great example of this, so to see know nothings (not you) simply laugh at the suggestion makes me think those people are pretty clueless on the subject. There are other examples too such as India.

We don’t have to deal in absolutes here, but considering we spend nearly £20bn annually on pharma through the NHS, and with the NHS being such a burden financially as a whole, I’m suggesting there is a better way of doing this, because there is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are NHS manufacturing hubs in the north east. Their used to be NHS pharmaceutical manufacturing sites, but alot of them are now privately owned. Torbay Pharma near me is an example of where this has happened.

The NHS is actually pretty good at keeping pharma costs down due to its supply chain. They tend to buy generics rather than brands and it is a lot cheaper to buy most from a mass producing contract manufacturer than it is to run a facility to make your own.

There is space to use partnerships with pharmaceutical companies to develop medicines, but the manufacture of medicines is high risk for a government to take on and requires a huge amount of investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually hate to do this, but this is something the Tories got right

The VPAG scheme is actually superb, but it only runs until 2028. I’m suggesting building on that.
Myra there is risk with new pharma development, but as said we don’t need to deal in absolutes and the public and private sector don’t have to be at such odds. There’s a middle ground imo, and it’s a resource in terms of export that I feel the public sector is missing out on.

Germany and Switzerland are two countries which have publicly-owned, large scale drug manufacturing operations, I believe.

comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 47 seconds ago
Germany and Switzerland are two countries which have publicly-owned, large scale drug manufacturing operations, I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Impossible! It can’t be done! Laughable!

comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
Germany and Switzerland are two countries which have publicly-owned, large scale drug manufacturing operations, I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IG Farben?

Here are some of Prof Mazzucato’s words on public involvement in the pharma industry:

‘While the private sector is… crucial in bringing cutting edge medicines to the market, its entrenched short termism and misalignment with public interest are equally striking.

Firstly, companies prioritise “blockbusters” at the expense of commercially unappealing medicines that are hugely important to public health.

Secondly, the pricing of these medicines does not take into account the contribution by other actors, including public institutions. [What I’ve been banging on about above.]

Thirdly, patents are often abused, being too upstream, wide, and strong, and high prices can persist even as generic competition kicks in, as a result of occasional cases of inefficient competition.

Fourthly, high prices are driven by and in turn fuel the over-financialisation of parts of the industry, where share buybacks are outpacing R&D. These prices also lead to a drive to cut costs by outsourcing manufacturing capabilities overseas, at the expense of local capacity.

The state should therefore govern the drug innovation process more like a market shaper: steering innovation, getting fair prices, ensuring that patents and competition work as intended, setting conditions for reinvestment…’

She’s facking brilliant on this, IMO, and I cannot recommend her books highly enough.

The government is proposing to raise the Statutory Scheme payment rate for newer branded medicines from 15.5% to 32.2% of subject companies' NHS sales in the second half of 2025

https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2025/march/uk-set-to-demand-a-third-of-pharmaceutical-company-revenue-in-second-half-of-2025/

I don’t think anybody is talking about wholesale nationalisation of the pharma industry.

What we very much should be talking about, though, is a recognition and *strategic, targeted and costed* expansion of existing state intervention in the market where there are gaps to be filled to the benefit of the public purse, and to public health and interests more widely.

comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 15 minutes ago
Germany and Switzerland are two countries which have publicly-owned, large scale drug manufacturing operations, I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually think only Sweden have a state owned pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Europe. Other nations might have small scale manufacture like the UK do, but I can't find large scale.

Switzerland is actually a hub for a lot of privately owned pharmaceutical companies.

comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 15 minutes ago
Germany and Switzerland are two countries which have publicly-owned, large scale drug manufacturing operations, I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually think only Sweden have a state owned pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Europe. Other nations might have small scale manufacture like the UK do, but I can't find large scale.

Switzerland is actually a hub for a lot of privately owned pharmaceutical companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies; I meant Sweden, not Switzerland

Just seen that journalists have started asking Trump about TACO trade, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out'.

comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 6 minutes ago
Just seen that journalists have started asking Trump about TACO trade, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll start raging about Corona again