>>>>Yes, and they should be ashamed. The corporations should be free to sell a $0.11 drug at $250, if the market can take it.
>>>
>>>The very idea of free market includes price mechanism based on supply/demand. It means that some company can sell some product for, let say, $250 unless another company comes up with the similar product selling it for $200. At this point, the first company will have to cut prices.
>>>It is very amusing that I have to explain you these simple things.
>>
>>So why doesn't it happen? Why doesn't a competitor come up with a product? That the competitor is doing the same with other product is no excuse for the third or fourth one to keep them undisturbed... or are they all in a real socialist solidarity?
>>
>>Still doesn't explain why don't they boycott the Canadian and EU markets, where the conditions are so unfair and they lose so much profit. Why are they doing that? Playing loss leader with one or two products is one thing, playing that across the board is suicidal, and their stockholders should be told.
>
>Again you show some misses in general business terminology. Loss is something when total cost is higher than revenue, i.e. negative profit. On the contrary, losing part of profit is not a calamity as long as a company can keep some profits. You likely understand the advantages of mass production: additional cases can be produced at less cost than first ones.
>Please, be advised that your inability to figure out basic business settings does not necessarily mean that business is in fault. It might happen that you could learn certain things before accusing businesses in all kinds of crime.

Are you saying that the pharmaceutical companies are making profit in the Canadian and European markets?

By the decibels I got the impression they're losing their pants there.