Are Tabletop RPGs becoming more liberal?

[...You Lost Me]

The Sun will rise tomorrow

As a Heliocentrist I have to point out the TRUTH is that the horizon will recede. All praise to the prophet Copernicus.

You are my hero.

[kzt]

Barriers to entry aren't "government regulations", they are obstacles that make it difficult to enter a given market. In the absence of government regulations, private and corporate entities can and will create and enhance these barriers to entry. We know this because they do that anyway and smaller fish take the bigger fish to court over it, all the time. Without those regulations, anti-competitive practices would be larger and more flagrant.

So you don't consider the minimum average cost of $4 billion it takes to get a drug approved in the US by the Federal Government (Which is pretty essential if your business plan doesn't include "we get arrested and sent to prison. The end.") to be a significant barrier of entry?

[Taishan]

So you don't consider the minimum average cost of $4 billion it takes to get a drug approved in the US by the Federal Government (Which is pretty essential if your business plan doesn't include "we get arrested and sent to prison. The end.") to be a significant barrier of entry?

I don't think that's what that article says (rather, its says the same as you're saying but its wrong in its conclusions). I think it says that they spend X amt of dollars and have Y number of approved drugs. That's not the same as saying each drug cost X/Y dollars.

They don't say how many drugs were not approved, and how far they got. For all you know, they had 1000 drugs get to phase 3 testing and not pass. That means that to get to phase 3 testing, they spent an average of $4 million, which is totally do-able in today's pharma.

Additionally, they don't tell you how much was actually spent on R&D, before FDA trials. That can vary quite a bit, depending on your approach, and how much you trust computational chemists.

I'm not saying they are but it wouldn't surprise me they were adding in the marketing costs to that number as well. It takes quite a bit to convince doctors they should use your drug instead of the cheap generic one that has years of research and testing on its side-effects. Well, that and the free lunches for the doctors and their offices. Those help a lot.

As to your actual argument, yes $4 billion is a significant barrier to entry. But 1) it protects the public and 2) will often protect the pharma in the long run by detailing side-effects before marketing, therefore preventing lawsuits. Significant barrier but not a meaningless barrier. How much of that barrier is due to marketing to convince doctors to use my drug and not some competitors?

[rasmuswagner]

Here's the counter-intuitive truth: The only way to get anything approaching a "free market" is by FUCKLOADS of regulation. Laissez faire economics leads to monopolies and opaque markets.

There is nothing inherent to the market economy that creates monopolies, because a real monopoly that actually matters is a grant of privilege by the State that legally restricts competition --

Oh bullshit. Read some fucking history, would you? sure, government-backed monopolies are worse than market dominance monopolies and price-fixing cartels, but that doesn't mean Pol Pot wasn't an asshole just because stalin was worse.

THAT is the counter-intuitive truth, NOT the bullshit proposition you obviously pulled out of some anti-market textbook written by bureaucrats and economic cranks. And if monopolies are so bad why do you think the state is so great? Because yo, the state is a monopoly. So shut the fuck up until you can address that basic problem.

Monopolies are a problem in the market. Not every service needs to be a market issue. Health care is a great example, because "no health care" is not a choice any rational actor would make ever (once food and shelter are secured).

Monopolies held by institutions that are (on some level, depending on the country in question, YMMV) accountable to the population in general are one thing. Monopolies held by institutions that are legally required and systematically built to fuck anyone who isn't a shareholder are another thing entirely.

[K]

Barriers to entry aren't "government regulations", they are obstacles that make it difficult to enter a given market. In the absence of government regulations, private and corporate entities can and will create and enhance these barriers to entry. We know this because they do that anyway and smaller fish take the bigger fish to court over it, all the time. Without those regulations, anti-competitive practices would be larger and more flagrant.

So you don't consider the minimum average cost of $4 billion it takes to get a drug approved in the US by the Federal Government (Which is pretty essential if your business plan doesn't include "we get arrested and sent to prison. The end.") to be a significant barrier of entry?

Did you even read the article? The $4 billion cost is in research dollars to develop and research a new drug, not "money the Federal government requires us to spend."

Researching new drugs is super-expensive and a small proportion of that is the clinical trials necessary to make sure that a drug doesn't kill people and has any beneficial effect at all. Hell, a part of the actual $1 billion mentioned in the article to bring a drug to market also mentioned part of the price as being things like fucking manufacturing, so buying equipment and property to actually make the stuff.

I don't know about you, but I really don't mind if drug companies are required to spend a few hundred million on trials so make sure that the drug they make doesn't kill people and actually does even some of what they say it does.

That being said, the costs are self-reported and there is no reason to think that they are true. For example, there are studies that say that the Big Pharma numbers are grossly inflated and that it costs $55 million to do all the trials. This means that less than 5% of the cost is the actual government regulation, and for drugs that costs $4-12 billion to research, the percentage of the trial costs compared to the research cost is even smaller.

But yes, there is a $55 million dollar pricetag that the government adds to the $1-12 billion dollars it takes to invent a new drug if you want to sell it to people, and that's the minimum cost to make sure that it does anything at all and doesn't kill people.

As a side note, much of the $1-12 billion is publicly financed research through universities and the like, so Big Pharma should really just shut the fuck up and be happy with the crazy profits they live on.

[Username17]

That's not what most radical skeptics actually think, though. The majority of arguments based on radical skepticism of which Descartes' demon hypothesis: the hypothesis that there is nothing about our conscious experience that contradicts a demon determining our every thought and perception, so therefore we have no way of actually knowing anything; is probably the most famous, aren't dependent on probability. Hume's critique of induction is partly dependent on exactly what you just described, but Hume's critique doesn't have a great deal in common with other radically skeptical hypothesis. Descartes' hypothesis is exactly what you claimed radical skepticism isn't: that it is impossible to have evidence for anything, since all our evidence is based on an unjustified assumption, namely that we know that there isn't a demon controlling our every thought and so on. That's not to say that most radical skepticism is anything other than unfalsifiable wankery, but if you accept some radically skeptical theories to be true then you do, in fact, have to take everything on faith.

This is stupid and you should feel stupid. First of all, the Sunrise example is actual Hume, who is the only coherent philosopher of radical skepticism. He's saying that Inductive Reasoning is not Logically Valid, meaning that it is always possible that some black swan could make your Inductive leap wrong.

But you know what? That doesn't mean that Induction is faith based. The evidence still exists. You can bring up Descartes' Demons if you want to, but again the fact that it is theoretically possible that your sense data does not correspond to you actually sitting in a real chair does not mean that you have no evidence that such a chair exists. It just means that there is some extremely tiny but not actually zero chance that your "chair interpretation" is incorrect.

But again and still: if I perceive myself with my eyes and sense of touch as picking up a pencil, then it is not with faith that I declare that there is a pencil in my hand. I have real, and fairly strong, evidence of the pencil's existence. I could be hallucination, and by extension it is possible the pencil does not in fact exist. But I do have evidence that it does, and my assertion that I am holding a pencil is therefore evidence-based knowledge and not a faith-based declaration.

It is a “barrier” to my ability to compete in the fantasy RPG business because WotC has more money, more brand recognition, and famous designers like Mike Mearls. They can make deals with the gaming stores because they’ve got clout and old relationships. Would you say WotC is “monopolistic” for this reason? Honestly, I think you would.

You're stupid. No. Those are real barriers to entry. In order to compete with WotC in the fantasy RPG market in any real way, I would need to produce a significant number of books (requiring multiple writers), filled with professional quality art (requiring multiple artists), that are edited and typeset (requiring at least one editor and typesetter), that are printed and distributed (which could be done in-house or contracted with other firms that do those things). That all has costs in money and time. Tens of thousands of dollars and more time than I have. Without that kind of investment, I cannot seriously compete with WorC. And even then, I would have to market my product quite cleverly, because I am swimming upstream competing with a company that has decades of brand recognition.

And those are all reasons why the Libertarian dream of products competing and the best surviving is a load of horse shit. But it's not the real horror of an unregulated market. In an unregulated market, WotC would be making deals with game stores to give the game stores a discount (or even just on-time delivery of new products) in exchange for not letting new companies get their products on shelves at all. In an unregulated market, even if I put in all the investment to get a product to compete with WotC's D&D it wouldn't matter - because I wouldn't be able to get retail space unless I could offer bribes to game stores of sufficient magnitude as to get them to break their exclusivity contracts with WotC.

And before you tell me it wouldn't work that way, allow me to remind you that in the United Kingdom it actually does. Retail space in game stores is primarily retail space in Games Workshop stores (who achieved their monopoly ironically by getting exclusive UK distribution rights for D&D back in the 70s). If Games Workshop doesn't want to give shelf space to their competitors, they just don't.

Now, tell me how you think that isn't a barrier to entry that is created by the market, and how you think it isn't a problem.

-Username17

[Korgan0]

That's not what most radical skeptics actually think, though. The majority of arguments based on radical skepticism of which Descartes' demon hypothesis: the hypothesis that there is nothing about our conscious experience that contradicts a demon determining our every thought and perception, so therefore we have no way of actually knowing anything; is probably the most famous, aren't dependent on probability. Hume's critique of induction is partly dependent on exactly what you just described, but Hume's critique doesn't have a great deal in common with other radically skeptical hypothesis. Descartes' hypothesis is exactly what you claimed radical skepticism isn't: that it is impossible to have evidence for anything, since all our evidence is based on an unjustified assumption, namely that we know that there isn't a demon controlling our every thought and so on. That's not to say that most radical skepticism is anything other than unfalsifiable wankery, but if you accept some radically skeptical theories to be true then you do, in fact, have to take everything on faith.

This is stupid and you should feel stupid. First of all, the Sunrise example is actual Hume, who is the only coherent philosopher of radical skepticism. He's saying that Inductive Reasoning is not Logically Valid, meaning that it is always possible that some black swan could make your Inductive leap wrong.

But you know what? That doesn't mean that Induction is faith based. The evidence still exists. You can bring up Descartes' Demons if you want to, but again the fact that it is theoretically possible that your sense data does not correspond to you actually sitting in a real chair does not mean that you have no evidence that such a chair exists. It just means that there is some extremely tiny but not actually zero chance that your "chair interpretation" is incorrect.

But again and still: if I perceive myself with my eyes and sense of touch as picking up a pencil, then it is not with faith that I declare that there is a pencil in my hand. I have real, and fairly strong, evidence of the pencil's existence. I could be hallucination, and by extension it is possible the pencil does not in fact exist. But I do have evidence that it does, and my assertion that I am holding a pencil is therefore evidence-based knowledge and not a faith-based declaration.

-Username17

Hooray, Frank called me stupid! I can die happy now.

The thing that I don't think you're realizing is that Hume and Descartes are advocating radically different kinds of radical skepticism. Hume is a skeptic about induction, but only with what he calls "matters of fact," which are propositions about things out there in the world. Hume totally thinks that you can have a priori knowledge about things that only exist in the mind, like maths and stuff. As such, Hume totally thinks that the cognitive processes that we use, i.e. our own minds, are incorrigible. As such, if you pick up a pencil, you do have some evidence that you have a pencil in your hand since you have reliable sense-data, although the essential problems of induction prevent you from being totally certain about it, just like you claimed. As such, you can go on more than faith that you have a pencil in your hand.

For Descartes, on the other hand, you can't even be certain that you have sense-data in the first place. Since it's your own cognitive processes, not the conclusions of those cognitive processes, that are in doubt, as you have no way of knowing that there isn't a demon projecting sense-data into your consciousness. When you see the pencil in your hand, you don't have evidence for anything, as having evidence is predicated on the assumption that you have reliable perceptions and cognitive processes, which, according to Descartes, is an unjustified assumption. As such, if you accept Descartes' radical skepticism, then any statement about anything except "cogito ergo sum" is going to be totally unjustified, and will have to be grounded on faith.

Interestingly enough, Descartes has a way of getting out of his radically skeptical hole, but it's hilariously bad and totally doesn't work.

[rasmuswagner]

Doesn't matter how many philosophers you namedrop, radical skepticism is still wankery and faith =/= evidence.

[Kaelik]

Hume is a skeptic about induction, but only with what he calls "matters of fact," which are propositions about things out there in the world. Hume totally thinks that you can have a priori knowledge about things that only exist in the mind, like maths and stuff. As such, Hume totally thinks that the cognitive processes that we use, i.e. our own minds, are incorrigible.

This is completely wrong.

Hume's radical skepticism extends as far as the self. He is skeptical of mental processes and sense to the same extent that he is skeptical of induction.

He just doesn't come at it from the stupid Descartes angle that presupposes a mental being, he comes at it from first learning that we come to invalid conclusions about the world, and then extrapolates back to show that we also come to a bunch of invalid conclusions about our mind.

[RobbyPants]

Hi, newbs! It's totally awesome of you guys to still be posting here with a positive attitude. On the topic of religion, though, the Den's OGs will beat you down until you shut up because they hate it. You could go to pretty much any neo-atheist site that hates religion (mostly specifically Catholicism, but it bleeds into a broad generalism about how religion - not people - are evil and suck ass) and copy/paste all their arguments here. They bow to the feet of Dawkins and confuse having a reason with using it.

So save your breath, close your eyes, and call them fuckwits in your head. Then move along. They really don't care what you post.

Wow. How very dismissive of any actual argument. You didn't even post any arguments you have a problem with. You just... made a broad generalization about what's said here.

"It doesn't matter what they say in their arguments. Other people have said these arguments, and they might have read it from Dawkins, so just call them names in your head and ignore them."

BTW, I've never read Dawkins. I just realized after nearly thirty years that I couldn't get it to make sense anymore.

[sabs]

The problem is that there is nothing that makes Christianity more right than any other Religion alive and dead today.

Hell, Christianity is less than 2000 years old. It's a podunk upstart. So why is it somehow more right than Buddhism?, Hinduism?, Shintoism? and the other 100 religions running around.
And really, there is /nothing/ about the Spaghetti Monster, Hallowed be his Alfredo, that makes it any less likely than JudeoChristianity.

And even if we grant you that God created the universe, and he really did send his Son to die for our sins. Which, hello that's fucked up. Even if we grant all that. Where do we go from there?
Catholocism, Islam, Baptists, Black Baptists, Southern Baptists, Church of England, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Born Again, Jehova's Witness, Mormons, Awalaits, Sunni, Shiite. I mean the list is fucking endless. And you expect us to believe that 1 of those groups is right, and everyone else, including Agnostics, Atheists, Norse worshippers, Pagans, Druids, Jews are all wrong?

Do you even LISTEN to the crap that comes out of your mouth.

What's that Islamic sect that believes that their guy was the 2nd coming of Jesus? Christians go all ballistic about Islam, but you do understand that most islam actually believes Jesus was the Son of God. They just think Mohammed was a Prophet after him.

[FatR]

Wow. How very dismissive of any actual argument.

If I say "GitP forums atmosphere is hostile to rational and reasoned discussion of RPGs because they all enforce hugbox mentality and confuse politeness with elimination of disagreement" that is broadly generalising and dismissive of any actual argument too. But true enough for me to not go discuss RPGs there, mostly. I'm not going to discuss religion on TGD for much the same reason.

[nockermensch]

This is total History Fail. Every industry has barriers to entry, and in any technically advanced field, major players in any industry can and will do things that increase those barriers to entry. Without huge government anti-trust actions, the major players will make it essentially or even actually impossible for smaller firms to even enter the market. What pharmacy is going to carry your drugs if signing a delivery contract with Pfizer is mutually exclusive with doing so? What incentive does Pfizer have to not make such brutal, competition busting demands on pharmacies?

I am afraid the Fail is all yours. Interesting how you use PFIZER, which benefits from tremenedous monopolistic advantages that comes FROM THE STATE’s REGULATION (for example, drug patents). But putting that aside, what is a barrier to entry? I am saying it is a restriction on the legal right to compete in a given field. So a firm being “big” and negotiating exclusive deals with a distributor is not a barrier to entry, and is not an inherent problem. Being a big firm largely because of the ability to use the political system to create legal and regulatory advantages for your firm IS a problem, but it is not a problem created by MARKETS.

A problem for who, exactly? I can only understand what you said as "Government issued monopolies make baby Hayek cry. He's alright with trusts, tho."

Can you show the homework explaining why a government issued monopoly is a problem, while the forming of trusts and cartels by companies aren't, without a priori assumptions like "anything that comes down from a government is bad". Support your work with real world examples.

You'll notice that Frank has been posting factual data to support his assertions. Do you have any real world data to support your libertarian views? Because if you don't, you're actually acting on faith. And faith is a bad word here.

[Voss]

And before you tell me it wouldn't work that way, allow me to remind you that in the United Kingdom it actually does. Retail space in game stores is primarily retail space in Games Workshop stores (who achieved their monopoly ironically by getting exclusive UK distribution rights for D&D back in the 70s). If Games Workshop doesn't want to give shelf space to their competitors, they just don't.

They in fact haven't since the late 80s/early 90s- GW stores don't sell non-GW products, at all [At least not in the US or UK]. Indie game stores do exist in the UK, but they usually aren't on the High Streets, and most of the ones I've shopped in are small and terrible. There are some well-known ones that do draw customers, but they are generally in more disadvantaged locations so they can afford to have things like gaming space to actually draw customers in.

GW's current way of dealing with competing with indie stores is their release policy: GW stores get new product on the release date. Other places get new product shipped out a 1-3 days before the release date. And since the release date is a saturday, and you've been causing problems, your shipment doesn't go out until friday and well... you don't get the new stuff until the following week. So sorry. Shipping companies these days, right?

[RobbyPants]

Wow. How very dismissive of any actual argument.

If I say "GitP forums atmosphere is hostile to rational and reasoned discussion of RPGs because they all enforce hugbox mentality and confuse politeness with elimination of disagreement" that is broadly generalising and dismissive of any actual argument too. But true enough for me to not go discuss RPGs there, mostly. I'm not going to discuss religion on TGD for much the same reason.

I see where you're going with that, but one key difference is that at GitP, there is a moderation policy set up to punish anyone not playing nice by their hugbox mentality. So, as soon as a real, reason-based debate starts, one side can quickly insulate themselves in their hugbox, and anyone trying to get past that gets moderated. Their policy encourages agree-to-disagree stalemates where rational discourse fully stops at that point.

Here, there is no such policy. Your arguments stand or don't stand on their own merits.

Now, I can certainly say why it may not be comfortable or fun to discuss religion here, but that's a different matter entirely.

[rasmuswagner]

Wow. How very dismissive of any actual argument.

If I say "GitP forums atmosphere is hostile to rational and reasoned discussion of RPGs because they all enforce hugbox mentality and confuse politeness with elimination of disagreement" that is broadly generalising and dismissive of any actual argument too. But true enough for me to not go discuss RPGs there, mostly. I'm not going to discuss religion on TGD for much the same reason.

Because, as a (presumably) American Christian, the "hugbox mentality" is so ingrained in your expectations, you can't even see it if you wanted to.

[Stubbazubba]

Here, there is no such policy. Your arguments stand or don't stand on their own merits.

Yeah, and the fundamental issue here is that faith, by definition, is not something that can be argued to the point of persuading someone into it, so it's wholly unsuited for an internet forum. Now, a person can be persuaded to join a church based on external factors (threat of force, or strength of community, or free meals), but actual faith cannot.

Also, note from an earlier post: The Old Testament has a lot of stuff that Christ specifically contradicts and re-writes in the New, he introduces the 'higher law,' so it's actually internally consistent to have many examples in the bible of things that Christianity no longer supports; remember that half the book was written by the sorts of people who ended up killing Christ.

[Voss]

Also, note from an earlier post: The Old Testament has a lot of stuff that Christ specifically contradicts and re-writes in the New,

Yeah... no. Jesus, if he existed at all, specifically wasn't around in 325 during the Council of Nicea for the big 'what do we actually believe' conference. He didn't write or re-write shit.

remember that half the book was written by the sorts of people who ended up killing Christ.

Village elders who don't like radical preachers wandering around, kicking over shit in the temple and generally disrupting life? Yeah, how dare they sit in judgement just because it was part of their fucking job.

[Kaelik]

remember that half the book was written by the sorts of people who ended up killing Christ.

Except the part that you are missing is that the half written by the people who "killed" him, (I see no compelling evidence that he ever existed as a specific person, but moving one,) is the New Testament.

Because it was the Romans that killed him, and it was the Romans who wrote the New Testament. (Or at least, who decided which documents then in existence count as real, and which are fake heresies. And since we know for a fact that half the ones they choose as real are written by someone other than the claimed author, not much reason to believe they got the other half right, or were correct in weeding out all the heresies that said Jesus wasn't even really human, but was just a manifestation, ect.)

[Maj]

you do understand that most islam actually believes Jesus was the Son of God

No.

Islam believes Jesus was a prophet and they believe he is the messiah, but Allah "begetteth not, nor is He begotten" (112:2). The fact that Christians believe Jesus is Allah's son is anathema to Islam and one of their cardinal sins - shirk.

[Duke Flauros]

Also, note from an earlier post: The Old Testament has a lot of stuff that Christ specifically contradicts and re-writes in the New, he introduces the 'higher law,' so it's actually internally consistent to have many examples in the bible of things that Christianity no longer supports; remember that half the book was written by the sorts of people who ended up killing Christ.

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven -Matthew 5:18-19

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. -Romans 7:6

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. -Luke 16:17

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. -Galatians 5:18

[Winnah]

Sin is the focus of many religions; the idea that morality stems from divinity, rather than the individual, biology or culture.

nWoD vices are a list of Christian sins categorised by some guy I don't care about, a long time ago. I don't think that adding a vice selection to the game fixes the overt theist overtones. The idea that an individual is fundamentally flawed and must constantly rail against their base impulses and behavior.

I understand that while nearly every White Wolf game includes these themes to various degrees, the Christian overtones have never been as overt as in the most recent game. At least in previous iterations of Vampire you had the option of totally abandoning 'human' morality and taking up a Road that reflected your progress along an alien philosophy and mindset...If you even bothered to use those rules to the fullest extent, instead of playing a dark superhero game or something.

[Pedantic]

Also, note from an earlier post: The Old Testament has a lot of stuff that Christ specifically contradicts and re-writes in the New, he introduces the 'higher law,' so it's actually internally consistent to have many examples in the bible of things that Christianity no longer supports; remember that half the book was written by the sorts of people who ended up killing Christ.

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven -Matthew 5:18-19

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. -Romans 7:6

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. -Luke 16:17

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. -Galatians 5:18

Contradictions? In the Bible?!

[kzt]

That being said, the costs are self-reported and there is no reason to think that they are true. For example, there are studies that say that the Big Pharma numbers are grossly inflated and that it costs $55 million to do all the trials. This means that less than 5% of the cost is the actual government regulation, and for drugs that costs $4-12 billion to research, the percentage of the trial costs compared to the research cost is even smaller.

The number Forbes used is self reported. Just like your taxes, everything on a company 10-Q etc is self-reported. And just like your taxes, if you lie the feds will drop in to have a talk to you. Followed by arresting the CEO, CFO and probably the board these days. So really large companies that have tens of thousands of employees and get covered by WS analysts don't typically do that.

And if they did, the logical thing would be to under report costs. The market favors companies that have low costs, like low R&D. They really don't like high investments in R&D, however it's pretty obvious even to most CFOs that being a drug company that is not investing in future drugs most likely won't work out well in even the medium term. Well it does if you are a generic drug manufacture, because they don't have to do any R&D or FDA studies.

And the Light and Warburton "study" is mostly, though not wholly, crap. Did you read the comments to that Slate article you cited? You should. An analysis of the idiocy is here:

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... buttal.php
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... figure.php

[K]

That being said, the costs are self-reported and there is no reason to think that they are true. For example, there are studies that say that the Big Pharma numbers are grossly inflated and that it costs $55 million to do all the trials. This means that less than 5% of the cost is the actual government regulation, and for drugs that costs $4-12 billion to research, the percentage of the trial costs compared to the research cost is even smaller.

The number Forbes used is self reported. Just like your taxes, everything on a company 10-Q etc is self-reported. And just like your taxes, if you lie the feds will drop in to have a talk to you. Followed by arresting the CEO, CFO and probably the board these days. So really large companies that have tens of thousands of employees and get covered by WS analysts don't typically do that.

I laughed pretty hard at this part of your post.

Do you actually think that the Fed magically knows when corporations are cooking the books? I'd bury you under an avalanche of links about major corporations with thousands of employees who did just that until they went bankrupt or an insider ratted them out, but I don't even see the point.

You faith in the precognitive power of government is as adorable as it is baseless.

And if they did, the logical thing would be to under report costs. The market favors companies that have low costs, like low R&D. They really don't like high investments in R&D, however it's pretty obvious even to most CFOs that being a drug company that is not investing in future drugs most likely won't work out well in even the medium term. Well it does if you are a generic drug manufacture, because they don't have to do any R&D or FDA studies.

And the Light and Warburton "study" is mostly, though not wholly, crap. Did you read the comments to that Slate article you cited? You should. An analysis of the idiocy is here:

You over-report costs as a way of not paying taxes in high tax countries/states, then report your profits in low-tax areas. It's a classic tax-avoidance tactic that's almost impossible for the Fed to prove is being done. Feel free to look it up and be prepared to laugh at the funny names for tax-avoidance strategies (my favorite is the Double Irish, but only because it sounds like a sex act).

They also over-report costs to get more government handouts in the form of grants, in particular for research. It's a variation on a Going Galt gambit that lobbyists have been doing for decades in a huge variety of industries.

Have you considered reading the Wall Street Journal or the Economist or something so that you know anything at all about how business works?

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... buttal.php
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... figure.php

Sorry, but I don't accept unknown bloggers over the word of respected scientists. By the same token, I don't accept the Comments section of any article when there are major corporations who spend billions in marketing dollars to shape public opinion and who can literally hire a pair of unpaid teenage interns for nothing and then give them the job of trolling the Comments section of anyone who says unflattering things about them.

Secondly, those blogs are horrible. They aren't logical arguments, offer no proof or supporting evidence, admit ignorance of the key financial aspects like taxes, are completely biased and rather bitchy about it, and don't offer the slightest solid reason to not believe the Slate article with it's supporting research studies and decently-crafted arguments.

The author of those blogs resorts to the kind of bland muddying of the waters and baseless assertions that is the last refuge of the incompetent and the uninspired who are desperate to fill 500 words.

Third, this still doesn't prove your point that government regulation stifles drug innovation in any way. Hell, even the blogger seemed to confuse the cost of trials for the costs of development and research, so I'm not even sure if he actually read the Slate article or if he just has really low reading comprehension.

On a personal note, you do realize that Random Low-level Researcher #4 Who Blogs On A No-name Site has no credibility, right? He may have worked in a few labs, but that doesn't mean that he knows anything about the finances of a major corporation or even the finances of his department. For all we know, he was a glorified glassware washer with a PhD.