Time: Why Hillary Clinton Is Right About Pfizer

[Godhumor]

Three cheers for Hillary Clinton and other politicians who are decrying Pfizer’s tax “inversion” deal that would allow it to take over an Irish pharma company and relocate there, thus saving $21 billion in American taxes. Tax inversion deals—mergers done pretty much for the sole purpose of saving tax money by moving to a foreign tax jurisdiction—have been on the rise for a while now. One of the many reasons they are so egregious is that the very firms that are most able to do them—including pharmaceutical and tech companies that have most of their value in intellectual property that can be easily relocated elsewhere—have also been the biggest beneficiaries of government help.

Pfizer and other such firms will argue that they need to pay lower taxes to fund the research that results in miracle drugs. But that is a myth. We credit the private sector for the innovation and growth in our economy. But a number of academics and policy thinkers, including University of Sussex economist Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, argue powerfully that it is the government (and thus taxpayers) rather than the private sector that deserves the credit for such innovation. “Every major technological change in recent years traces most of its funding back to the state,” says Mazzucato, who backs the claim up with powerful statistics and anecdotes in her book. Most parts of the smartphone that make it smart–GPS, touchscreens, the Internet–were advanced by the Defense Department. Tesla’s batteries came out of a Department of Energy grant. Google’s search algorithm was boosted by a National Science Foundation innovation.

Likewise, many new drugs that have made big money for firms like Pfizer have come out of NIH research. The National Institutes of Health have spent almost a trillion dollars since its founding on the research that created both the pharmaceutical and the biotech sectors—with venture capitalists only entering biotech once the red carpet was laid down in the 1980s.

...

The NIH invests $30 billion per year in research that enriches companies like Pfizer. Meanwhile, Big Pharma spends more on marketing than R&D, and is the leader, along with the tech and energy sectors, in share buybacks that make investors wealthy without creating any real growth or jobs. Clinton and others should keep the pressure on Pfizer and other such firms—and the next president should make both buybacks and inversions, which cheat the true economic makers in this country, illegal.

http://time.com/4125662/hillary-clinton-pfizer/

I have to say, I'm glad all three of our candidates are out ahead of this issue.

[Buzz Clik]

1. What say you, Berners?

Sadly, just the chirping of crickets in the distance.

[MineralMan]

2. Bernie's against it, too.

Probably Hillary is just echoing him, you know.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Triangulation at a bare minimum...

[mak3cats]

9. Yes, he is...

...but not all of his supporters feel compelled to say something snotty and snarky to everything posted about Hillary. It would be nice if everyone had such restraint - this forum would be a much nicer place to visit.

Pfizer CEO Ian Read, who has made no secret of his desire to lower Pfizer's tax bill, seems to have anticipated this. During a call announcing the merger, he said that the company had "assessed the legal, regulatory, and political landscape" and had decided that this inversion was the best call.

Then, in an interview with CNBC's Meg Tirrell on Monday, Read said that "this is a great deal for America."

But not everyone agrees. Sanders was first to condemn the move.

"The Pfizer-Allergan merger would be a disaster for American consumers who already pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement on Monday. "It also would allow another major American corporation to hide its profits overseas."

http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-on-allergan-pfizer-deal-2015-11

Edited to say that I added the bold print in the excerpt - forgot to do that.

[ibegurpard]

3. I don't believe she will.fight for any strict controls to prevent this

Her record is one of favoring deregulation. What she says in the moment is meaningless electioneering.

[MineralMan]

5. Uff da!

That's all I can say.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Yes, I forgot: among her other faults, she always lies.

I keep forgetting these details.

[rhett o rick]

7. Interesting that Time (big corp-media) gave the credit to Clinton in bold print

while not mentioning Sen Sander or O'Malley who also oppose the action. That kinda shoots a hole in the "poor Clinton is treated badly by media". Hello! Clinton is the corporate favorite and is loved by the Corp-Media as this article shows.

Another article: "Sanders Slams Merger of Drug Giants Pfizer and Allergan as Disaster for America"
http://www.alternet.org/economy/sanders-slams-merger-drug-giants-pfizer-and-allergan-disaster-america

[SunSeeker]

8. K & R