U.S. News: Why the GDP-Jobs Split? Look to AI

“The economy is either booming or on the brink of recession. Honestly, you could make the case for either.

 

The broadest measure of economic output, inflation-adjusted gross domestic product, grew at a blistering annual rate of 3.8% in the third quarter, a Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta model predicts.

 

Yet employment and hours worked barely grew in the three months through August. September data weren't released Friday because of the government shutdown. Payroll processor ADP estimates private payrolls shrank in September.

 

GDP and employment occasionally go in different directions, but rarely by this much.

 

There are several possible explanations. First, consumption, investment and trade data that go into GDP, and employment data, for past months might be wrong and could be revised.

 

Second, the gap is anomalous, and will probably close -- through slower GDP growth, more jobs, or both. Neil Dutta of Renaissance Macro Research said consumer spending has been driven by an unsustainable drop in savings and, according to credit-card data, has already softened in September.

 

The third possibility is the most intriguing: A productivity boom might be in the works, which means the economy could grow faster with less inflation.

 

Increased output with no increase in hours means labor productivity grew around 3.5%, annualized, a robust pace.

 

Because the divergence between GDP and employment likely won't be sustained, neither will that productivity performance. Even so, including that third-quarter estimate, productivity has grown about 2% annualized for two years now. That's a decent pickup from the 1%-to-1.5% rate that prevailed in the decade before the pandemic and hints that something is going on.

 

That something very likely has to do with technology. One candidate is generative artificial intelligence, embodied in large language models, or LLMs, such as ChatGPT, released less than three years ago. Adoption has been remarkably fast: In June, Gallup found that 19% of employees used AI a few times or more a week. Walmart recently said it would keep employment flat in the next three years as AI would transform "literally every job."

 

Still, it took decades for electricity and computers to transform business and the economy, and the same might be true of AI.

 

One widely cited report published by Nanda, an AI initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that 95% of 52 organizations surveyed had a zero return on their AI initiatives. This suggests AI has yet to make enough impact to raise the economy's aggregate productivity.

 

But LLMs are building on existing investments in e-commerce, software, big data, cloud computing and machine learning. A recent Goldman Sachs analysis found that the pickup in productivity has been concentrated in technology and related sectors such as scientific research, engineering and consulting. It's also more evident among the fastest-growing "superstar" companies.

 

"While it is probably premature to ascribe all of the acceleration to AI, these industries have some of the strongest use cases for AI technology," Goldman noted.

 

The vast sums spent by companies such as Oracle, Amazon.com and Meta Platforms on the microprocessors, data centers and power generation needed to run AI look to many like a bubble. But bubbles can still generate genuine productivity benefits.

 

That was certainly true of the internet-tech boom a generation ago. Economists at Citigroup recently compared the two episodes. The prior boom began in 1995 with the initial public offering of Netscape and the full commercialization of network infrastructure developed by the National Science Foundation.

 

In the first five years of the boom, annual internet-related investment rose by a massive 1.25% of GDP, Citi found. Annual productivity growth averaged 2.9% from 1995 to 2004, double the rate of the prior two decades. At that rate, per capita incomes double in 24 instead of 47 years. The productivity boost lifted annual economic growth to 3.3%.

 

Citi estimates annual spending on AI equipment has risen by 0.9% of GDP a year since 2023, a bigger surge than at the equivalent point of the 1995-2004 boom.

 

Nathan Sheets of Citi said GDP growth has been boosted by the demand-side fuel of all that AI investment, not by its supply-side productivity benefits. Still, mapping today's investment to the internet era suggests a productivity boom "within the next few years," Citi said.

 

Several academics have estimated AI's boost to productivity by measuring how many tasks AI could automate and the resulting cost savings. Citi concludes from those estimates that AI could raise productivity growth by 0.5 to 1.5 percentage points a year -- less than the internet except in the most bullish scenario.

 

That would not only boost growth, it could put downward pressure on inflation by reducing companies' labor costs. But a recent report by economists at Deutsche Bank throws cold water on that prospect.

 

They note that the tech-driven 1990s productivity boom wasn't the only thing holding down inflation. Baby boomers and women were still flooding into the labor force. The end of the Cold War, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations had lowered trade barriers, squeezing goods' price inflation.

 

"The shift towards de-globalization of the U.S. economy will reverse this earlier disinflation," Deutsche Bank economists predict. Meanwhile, "an aging global population along with a turn away from immigration flows. . .will lead to tighter US labor markets and structurally higher cost pressures from labor."

 

That shift could explain another part of today's data puzzle: A weak labor market and rising productivity haven't done much to reduce inflation.” [1]

 

1. U.S. News: Why the GDP-Jobs Split? Look to AI. Ip, Greg.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 04 Oct 2025: A2.  

JAV naujienos: Kodėl BVP ir darbo vietų skaičiai rodo priešingus dalykus? Pažvelkite į DI

 

„Ekonomika arba klesti, arba yra ant recesijos ribos. Sąžiningai, galima būtų argumentuoti abiem atvejais.

 

Plačiausias ekonomikos rodiklis – infliacijos pakoreguotas bendrasis vidaus produktas – trečiąjį ketvirtį augo stulbinamu 3,8 % metiniu tempu, prognozuoja Atlantos federalinio rezervo banko modelis.

 

Vis dėlto užimtumas ir dirbtų valandų skaičius per tris mėnesius iki rugpjūčio vos išaugo. Rugsėjo mėnesio duomenys penktadienį nebuvo paskelbti dėl vyriausybės darbo uždarymo. Darbo užmokesčio tvarkytoja ADP prognozuoja, kad rugsėjį privačių įmonių darbo vietų skaičius sumažėjo.

 

BVP ir užimtumas kartais juda skirtingomis kryptimis, bet retai tiek daug.

 

Yra keletas galimų paaiškinimų. Pirma, vartojimo, investicijų ir prekybos duomenys, įtraukiami į BVP, ir užimtumo duomenys už praėjusius mėnesius gali būti neteisingi ir gali būti peržiūrėti.

 

Antra, atotrūkis yra anomalinis ir tikriausiai išnyks – dėl lėtesnio BVP augimo, daugiau darbo vietų arba abiejų. Neilas Dutta iš „Renaissance Macro Research“ teigė, kad vartotojų išlaidas lėmė netvarus santaupų sumažėjimas ir, remiantis kredito kortelių duomenimis, jos jau sumažėjo rugsėjį.

 

Trečioji galimybė yra įdomiausia: gali būti, kad gresia produktyvumo bumas, o tai reiškia, kad ekonomika galėtų augti sparčiau, esant mažesnei infliacijai.

 

Padidėjusi produkcija nedidinant valandų skaičiaus, darbo produktyvumas, per metus išaugo apie 3,5 % – tai tvirtas tempas.

 

Kadangi skirtumas tarp BVP ir užimtumo greičiausiai nebus ilgalaikis, neišliks ir produktyvumo rodikliai. Nepaisant to, įskaitant trečiojo ketvirčio įvertį, produktyvumas per pastaruosius dvejus metus augo apie 2 % per metus. Tai nemažas padidėjimas, palyginti su 1–1,5 % tempu, kuris vyravo dešimtmetį iki pandemijos, ir rodo, kad kažkas vyksta.

 

Tas kažkas labai tikėtina susijęs su technologijomis. Vienas iš kandidatų yra generatyvinis dirbtinis intelektas, įkūnytas dideliuose kalbos modeliuose arba LLM, tokiuose kaip „ChatGPT“, išleistuose mažiau nei prieš trejus metus. Priėmimas buvo stebėtinai greitas: birželį „Gallup“ nustatė, kad 19 % darbuotojų naudojosi dirbtiniu intelektu kelis ar daugiau kartų per savaitę. „Walmart“ neseniai pareiškė, kad per ateinančius trejus metus užimtumo lygis išliks nepakitęs, nes dirbtinis intelektas pakeis „tiesiogine prasme kiekvieną darbą“.

 

Vis dėlto prireikė dešimtmečių, kol elektra ir kompiuteriai transformavosi. verslas ir ekonomika, ir tas pats gali būti pasakytina ir apie dirbtinį intelektą.

 

Vienoje plačiai cituojamoje „Nanda“, Masačusetso technologijos instituto dirbtinio intelekto iniciatyvos, paskelbtoje ataskaitoje nustatyta, kad 95 % iš 52 apklaustų organizacijų negavo jokios grąžos iš savo dirbtinio intelekto iniciatyvų. Tai rodo, kad dirbtinis intelektas dar nepadarė pakankamai poveikio, kad padidintų bendrą ekonomikos produktyvumą.

 

Tačiau teisės magistro studijos remiasi esamomis investicijomis į elektroninę prekybą, programinę įrangą, didžiuosius duomenis, debesų kompiuteriją ir mašininį mokymąsi. Neseniai atliktoje „Goldman Sachs“ analizėje nustatyta, kad produktyvumo augimas buvo sutelktas technologijų ir susijusiuose sektoriuose, tokiuose kaip moksliniai tyrimai, inžinerija ir konsultavimas. Tai taip pat labiau pastebima tarp sparčiausiai augančių „superžvaigždžių“ įmonių.

 

„Nors tikriausiai per anksti visą pagreitį priskirti dirbtiniam intelektui, šios pramonės šakos turi vienus stipriausių dirbtinio intelekto technologijų panaudojimo atvejų“, – pažymėjo Goldmanas.

 

Didžiulės sumos, kurias tokios įmonės kaip „Oracle“, „Amazon.com“ ir „Meta Platforms“ išleidžia mikroprocesoriams, duomenų centrams ir elektros energijos gamybai, reikalingiems dirbtiniam intelektui valdyti, daugeliui atrodo kaip burbulas. Tačiau burbulai vis tiek gali duoti realios produktyvumo naudos.

 

Tai tikrai buvo tiesa, kalbant apie interneto technologijų bumą prieš kartą. „Citigroup“ ekonomistai neseniai palygino šiuos du epizodus. Ankstesnis bumas prasidėjo 1995 m., kai buvo išleista pirminė „Netscape“ akcijų emisija ir visiškai komercializuota Nacionalinio mokslo fondo sukurta tinklo infrastruktūra.

 

„Citi“ nustatė, kad per pirmuosius penkerius bumo metus metinės su internetu susijusios investicijos išaugo net 1,25 % BVP. Metinis produktyvumo augimas nuo 1995 iki 2004 m. vidutiniškai siekė 2,9 %, t. y. dvigubai didesnis nei per du ankstesnius dešimtmečius. Tokiu tempu pajamos vienam gyventojui padvigubėja per 24, o ne per 47 metus. Produktyvumo padidėjimas padidino metinį ekonomikos augimą iki 3,3 %.

 

„Citi“ apskaičiavo, kad metinės išlaidos dirbtinio intelekto įrangai nuo 2023 m. išaugo 0,9 % BVP per metus, t. y. didesnis padidėjimas nei atitinkamu 1995–2004 m. bumo laikotarpiu.

 

Nathanas Sheetsas iš „Citi“ teigė, kad BVP augimą skatino visų šių investicijų į dirbtinį intelektą paklausos pusės variklis, o ne jų produktyvumo nauda pasiūlos pusėje. Vis dėlto, susiejant šiandienos investicijas su interneto era „Citi“ teigimu, tai rodo produktyvumo bumą „per ateinančius kelerius metus“.

 

Keletas akademikų įvertino dirbtinio intelekto produktyvumo augimą, išmatuodami, kiek užduočių dirbtinis intelektas galėtų automatizuoti ir kiek su tuo susijusių išlaidų būtų sutaupyta. Remdamasi šiais vertinimais, „Citi“ daro išvadą, kad dirbtinis intelektas galėtų padidinti produktyvumo augimą 0,5–1,5 procentinio punkto per metus – mažiau nei internetas, išskyrus pačius optimistiškiausius scenarijus.

 

Tai ne tik paskatintų augimą, bet ir sumažintų infliaciją, sumažindama įmonių darbo sąnaudas. Tačiau neseniai „Deutsche Bank“ ekonomistų ataskaitoje kalbama apie šią perspektyvą.

 

Jie pažymi, kad technologijų skatinamas produktyvumo bumas 1990-aisiais nebuvo vienintelis dalykas, stabdęs infliaciją. Kūdikių bumo karta ir moterys vis dar plūdo į darbo jėgą. Šaltojo karo pabaiga, Šiaurės Amerikos laisvosios prekybos sutartis ir Urugvajaus raundas pasaulinės prekybos derybos sumažino prekybos barjerus, sumažindamos prekių kainų infliaciją.

 

„JAV ekonomikos deglobalizacijos poslinkis pakeis šią ankstesnę disinfliaciją“, – prognozuoja „Deutsche Bank“ ekonomistai. Tuo tarpu „senstanti pasaulio populiacija kartu su nusigręžimu nuo imigracijos srautų lems griežtesnes JAV darbo rinkas ir struktūriškai didesnį darbo jėgos sąnaudų spaudimą“.

 

Šis poslinkis galėtų paaiškinti kitą šiandienos duomenų dėlionės dalį: silpna darbo rinka ir didėjantis produktyvumas nelabai padėjo sumažinti infliaciją.“ [1]

 

1. U.S. News: Why the GDP-Jobs Split? Look to AI. Ip, Greg.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 04 Oct 2025: A2.  

Pfizer's Pricing Deal Went Down to the Wire

“Over a weekend in late September, the team of Pfizer officials working with the Trump administration on drug prices got a message: Clear your schedules.

 

Negotiations were reaching a tipping point. CEO Albert Bourla and Chris Klomp, head of Medicare, who was leading negotiations for the administration, had met in Washington and reached a handshake agreement on the contours of a drug price deal. A deadline to avoid tariffs was looming, and there were still a few things to iron out.

 

All the major pharmaceutical companies had been told they needed to come up with a plan to lower prices and manufacture in the U.S., or face consequences including tariffs.

 

Pfizer wanted to make sure that if the company agreed to a deal, it would secure a reprieve on levies and its manufacturing investments could focus on younger and future products rather than infrastructure for drugs about to go generic, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

Talks intensified in the week of Sept. 20. The final deal came together in the wee hours of the morning before a deadline President Trump had set for imposing tariffs. It was signed by Bourla and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just ahead of the announcement on Tuesday, according to people familiar with the deal.

 

What was revealed that day in the Oval Office, as Bourla stood near Trump, Kennedy and others while giving each other smiling glances, was a win for both parties. Trump got to announce a deal cutting drug prices and a start on a new direct-to-consumer platform dubbed TrumpRx. And Pfizer avoided tariffs with a strategy that would be a minimal hit to its bottom line.

 

The deal was built not just on the team negotiations, but on the longstanding relationship between Bourla and Trump, cultivated over dinners at Mar-a-Lago and regular catch-ups over the phone between the president and chief executive. Bourla recently suggested that Trump's Operation Warp Speed, which was launched to quickly develop Covid-19 vaccines, was the kind of accomplishment that "would typically be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize." At Tuesday's announcement, Bourla thanked Trump for his friendship and hugged Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz.

 

It was a moment of triumph for Bourla that has brought on ire from other executives. During a 90-minute call on Wednesday with executive members of PhRMA, the trade group representing the pharmaceutical industry, some other CEOs were angry and felt blindsided, according to people familiar with the meeting. Genentech's CEO Ashley Magargee discussed whether Bourla should be removed as chair, one person said.

 

A Genentech spokesman declined to comment.

 

Bourla pushed back, telling the executives that Trump made clear he wanted better pricing for the public and that the deal showed how companies could avert tariff threats and have certainty to invest in their businesses.

 

"We are in constant dialogue with the U.S. government and have been working with the administration on a number of issues where we share the president's commitment to addressing devastating disease and making medicines more affordable," a Pfizer spokesman said.

 

White House officials said the goal was to preserve innovation while also getting lower drug prices for people.

 

The deal has lifted beleaguered drug stocks by pointing a way for companies to remove the threat of tariffs and deal with U.S. pricing pressures. Shares of Pfizer have surged 14.8% since the deal was announced. Shares of other big drugmakers including Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca also have risen sharply, on the expectation that other companies might strike similar deals that spare them more onerous outcomes.

 

Trump's goal of reshaping how drugs are priced in the U.S. started in his first presidential term, but it wasn't until his second term that he gained momentum.

 

His proposals for pharmaceutical tariffs and a May executive order calling for "most favored nation" pricing -- whereby the U.S. government pays the same as the lowest prices for drugs that other wealthy countries pay -- eventually brought pharmaceutical companies to the negotiating table like never before.

 

Several drugmakers, including Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson, announced plans to spend tens of billions of dollars on U.S. manufacturing and research in the coming years as a show of cooperation. Pfizer took a different approach -- waiting to secure a deal before committing to spending billions of dollars more in the U.S.

 

Drugmakers opposed most-favored-nation pricing, arguing that it would deprive them of funding needed to develop future medicines and that it could jeopardize the billions in the recently announced planned investments. At the time, some industry leaders didn't put much stock in an executive order signed by Trump because it seemed the government didn't have the authority to impose the terms.

 

Still, the most-favored-nation proposal kicked off a series of meetings between administration officials and drugmakers, including Pfizer, to hash out the details. Health Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Oz delegated the negotiations to a small team led by Klomp.

 

The initial meetings were cordial, but they hadn't yet dug into substantive issues, and Pfizer had made no commitments, Bourla told an investor conference in June.

 

That month, Pfizer held several meetings with CMS officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

The company's takeaway: The Trump administration wanted to negotiate with companies individually, rather than with a powerful trade group like PhRMA. That meant Pfizer and other companies wouldn't be able to discuss their talks with each other to avoid antitrust violations.

 

Some companies started to take small steps toward fulfilling some of the goals outlined by Trump. In July, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which co-market the widely used blood thinner Eliquis, announced they would sell the drug at a discounted cash price through a direct online purchasing service.

 

But Pfizer and other drugmakers weren't budging on broader price cuts. By summer, there was little progress in the negotiations. "We stalled," Oz said at a White House press conference Tuesday.

 

Trump, a Republican, turned up the pressure. In late July he sent letters to the CEOs of 17 drugmakers, including Pfizer, demanding action within two months. He outlined four main goals, including extending most-favored-nation pricing to Medicaid and to newly launched drugs. He demanded that drugmakers return increased revenue from abroad if higher prices could be negotiated in other countries, and that companies participate in direct-to-patient sales of high-volume drugs at lower prices.

 

The letters were notable because they didn't propose applying MFN prices across the board to include commercial insurance or Medicare. This was more limited in scope than what had seemed to be on the table in May.

 

In the letter to Pfizer, Trump crossed out "Dr. Bourla" in the salutation and wrote "Albert" with a marker, a sign of their familiarity. He did the same for his letter to Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks.

 

The letter "asks a lot of us," Bourla told analysts in early August. He said he was having active discussions with Trump, Kennedy and Oz about the letter.

 

"You know that the president is impatient, so he wants the results quickly," Bourla said.

 

The week before Trump's Sept. 29 deadline, he posted that he would implement 100% tariffs on pharmaceuticals on Oct. 1, but that companies that were actively building new U.S. manufacturing capacity would be exempt.

 

The threat of tariffs motivated behaviors and "clearly motivated ours," Bourla said at the White House news conference announcing the deal.” [1]

 

1. Pfizer's Pricing Deal Went Down to the Wire. Whyte, Liz Essley; Rockoff, Jonathan D; Loftus, Peter.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 04 Oct 2025: A1.  

„Pfizer“ kainodaros susitarimo derybos baigėsi sėkmingai

„Per savaitgalį rugsėjo pabaigoje „Pfizer“ pareigūnų komanda, dirbanti su Trumpo administracija vaistų kainų klausimais, gavo žinią: sutvarkykite savo tvarkaraščius.“

 

Derybos artėjo prie lūžio taško. Generalinis direktorius Albertas Bourla ir Chrisas Klompas, „Medicare“ vadovas, vadovavęs administracijos deryboms, susitiko Vašingtone ir susitarė dėl vaistų kainų susitarimo kontūrų. Artėjo terminas, per kurį buvo galima išvengti tarifų, ir dar buvo keletas dalykų, kuriuos reikėjo išspręsti.

 

Visoms pagrindinėms farmacijos įmonėms buvo pasakyta, kad jos turi parengti planą, kaip sumažinti kainas ir gaminti JAV, kitaip susidurs su pasekmėmis, įskaitant tarifus.

 

„Pfizer“ norėjo įsitikinti, kad jei bendrovė sutiks su susitarimu, ji gaus mokesčių atidėjimą, o jos gamybos investicijos galės būti sutelktos į naujesnius ir ateities produktus, o ne į infrastruktūrą vaistams, kurie netrukus taps generiniais, teigia su šiuo klausimu susipažinę asmenys.

 

Derybos suintensyvėjo rugsėjo 20 d. savaitę. Galutinis susitarimas buvo sudarytas ankstyvą rytą prieš prezidento Trumpo nustatytą terminą. buvo nusistatęs tarifų įvedimą. Pasak su susitarimu susipažinusių šaltinių, jį pasirašė Bourla ir sveikatos apsaugos sekretorius Robertas F. Kennedy jaunesnysis prieš pat paskelbimą antradienį.

 

Tai, kas tą dieną paaiškėjo Ovaliajame kabinete, kai Bourla stovėjo šalia Trumpo, Kennedy ir kitų ir šypsojosi vienas į kitą, buvo abiejų šalių pergalė. Trumpas paskelbė apie susitarimą, kuriuo sumažinamos vaistų kainos ir pradedama kurti nauja tiesioginio vartojimo platforma, pavadinta „TrumpRx“. O „Pfizer“ išvengė tarifų, taikydama strategiją, kuri minimaliai paveiktų jos pelną.

 

Susitarimas buvo sudarytas ne tik remiantis komandinėmis derybomis, bet ir ilgalaikiais Bourlos ir Trumpo santykiais, puoselėtais per vakarienes „Mar-a-Lago“ ir reguliariais prezidento bei generalinio direktoriaus pokalbiais telefonu. Bourla neseniai užsiminė, kad Trumpo operacija „Warp Speed“, kuri buvo pradėta siekiant greitai sukurti COVID-19 vakcinas, buvo pasiekimas, kuris „paprastai būtų vertas Nobelio taikos premijos“. Antradienį paskelbdamas pranešimą, Bourla padėkojo Trumpui už draugystę ir apkabino Medicare ir Medicaid paslaugų centrų administratorių Mehmetą. Oz.

 

Tai buvo Bourlos triumfo akimirka, kuri sukėlė kitų vadovų pyktį. Trečiadienį vykusio 90 minučių trukmės pokalbio su farmacijos pramonei atstovaujančios prekybos grupės „PhRMA“ vadovais metu kai kurie kiti generaliniai direktoriai buvo supykę ir jautėsi užklupti netikėtai, teigia su susitikimu susipažinę asmenys. Vieno asmens teigimu, „Genentech“ generalinė direktorė Ashley Magargee aptarė, ar Bourla turėtų būti pašalintas iš pirmininko pareigų.

 

„Genentech“ atstovas atsisakė komentuoti.

 

Bourla atkirto, sakydamas vadovams, kad Trumpas aiškiai pasakė, jog nori geresnių kainų visuomenei ir kad susitarimas parodo, kaip įmonės gali išvengti tarifų grėsmių ir būti tikri, kad investuos į savo verslą.

 

„Mes nuolat palaikome dialogą su JAV vyriausybe ir dirbame su administracija sprendžiant daugelį klausimų, kuriais pritariame prezidento įsipareigojimui kovoti su niokojančiomis ligomis ir padaryti vaistus prieinamesnius“, – sakė „Pfizer“ atstovas.

 

Baltųjų rūmų pareigūnai teigė, kad tikslas buvo išsaugoti inovacijas ir kartu sumažinti vaistų kainas žmonėms.

 

Sandoris padidino sunkumų patiriančių vaistų atsargas, nurodydamas įmonėms būdą pašalinti grėsmę. tarifus ir susidoroti su JAV kainų spaudimu. Nuo sandorio paskelbimo „Pfizer“ akcijos šoktelėjo 14,8 %. Kitų didelių vaistų gamintojų, įskaitant „Eli Lilly“ ir „AstraZeneca“, akcijos taip pat smarkiai išaugo, tikintis, kad kitos bendrovės gali sudaryti panašius susitarimus, kurie joms padėtų išvengti sunkesnių pasekmių.

 

Trumpo tikslas pakeisti vaistų kainodarą JAV prasidėjo per pirmąją jo prezidento kadenciją, tačiau tik po antrosios kadencijos jis įgavo pagreitį.

 

Jo pasiūlymai dėl farmacijos tarifų ir gegužės mėnesį priimtas vykdomasis įsakymas, kuriame raginama taikyti „didžiausio palankumo šalies“ kainodarą – pagal kurį JAV vyriausybė moka tiek pat, kiek ir už mažiausias vaistų kainas moka kitos turtingos šalys – galiausiai privertė farmacijos bendroves prie derybų stalo kaip niekada anksčiau.

 

Keletas vaistų gamintojų, įskaitant „Eli Lilly“ ir „Johnson & Johnson“, paskelbė planus ateinančiais metais išleisti dešimtis milijardų dolerių JAV gamybai ir tyrimams, kaip bendradarbiavimo demonstravimą. „Pfizer“ pasirinko kitokį požiūrį – laukė, kol bus sudarytas susitarimas, prieš įsipareigodama išleisti milijardus dolerių daugiau gamybai JAV

 

Vaistų gamintojai priešinosi palankiausio statuso kainodarai, teigdami, kad tai atimtų iš jų finansavimą, reikalingą būsimiems vaistams kurti, ir kad tai galėtų kelti grėsmę milijardams neseniai paskelbtų planuojamų investicijų. Tuo metu kai kurie pramonės lyderiai nelabai tikėjosi Trumpo pasirašytu vykdomuoju įsakymu, nes atrodė, kad vyriausybė neturi įgaliojimų nustatyti sąlygų.

 

Vis dėlto palankiausio statuso pasiūlymas pradėjo virtinę susitikimų tarp administracijos pareigūnų ir vaistų gamintojų, įskaitant „Pfizer“, kad būtų aptartos detalės. Sveikatos apsaugos sekretorius Kennedy ir CMS administratorius Oz pavedė derybas nedidelei komandai, vadovaujamai Klompo.

 

Pradiniai susitikimai buvo draugiški, tačiau juose dar nebuvo gilinamasi į esminius klausimus, o „Pfizer“ neprisiėmė jokių įsipareigojimų, birželį investuotojų konferencijoje sakė Bourla.

 

Tą mėnesį „Pfizer“ surengė kelis susitikimus su CMS pareigūnais, teigia su šiuo klausimu susipažinę šaltiniai.

 

Bendrovės išvada: Trumpo administracija norėjo derėtis su įmonėmis individualiai, o ne su tokia galinga prekybos grupe kaip PhRMA. Tai reiškė, kad „Pfizer“ ir kitos įmonės negalės aptarti savo derybų tarpusavyje, kad išvengtų antimonopolinių pažeidimų.

 

Kai kurios įmonės pradėjo žengti nedidelius žingsnelius siekdamos įgyvendinti kai kuriuos Trumpo iškeltus tikslus. Liepos mėnesį „Pfizer“ ir „Bristol-Myers Squibb“, kurios kartu parduoda plačiai naudojamą kraujo skystinamąjį vaistą „Eliquis“, paskelbė, kad pardavinės šį vaistą su nuolaida grynaisiais per tiesioginę internetinę pirkimo paslaugą.

 

Tačiau „Pfizer“ ir kiti vaistų gamintojai nenuleido rankų dėl platesnio kainų mažinimo. Iki vasaros derybose pažanga buvo menka. „Mes įstrigome“, – antradienį Baltuosiuose rūmuose vykusioje spaudos konferencijoje sakė Ozas.

 

Respublikonas Trumpas padidino spaudimą. Liepos pabaigoje jis išsiuntė laiškus 17 vaistų gamintojų, įskaitant „Pfizer“, generaliniams direktoriams, reikalaudamas imtis veiksmų per du mėnesius. Jis išdėstė keturis pagrindinius tikslus, įskaitant palankiausios šalies kainodaros išplėtimą į „Medicaid“ ir naujai į rinką išleistus vaistus. Jis reikalavo, kad vaistų gamintojai grąžintų padidėjusias pajamas iš užsienio, jei kitose šalyse pavyktų susitarti dėl didesnių kainų, ir kad įmonės dalyvautų tiesiogiai pacientams parduodant didelius kiekius vaistų mažesnėmis kainomis.

 

Laiškai buvo išskirtiniai tuo, kad juose nebuvo siūloma taikyti palankiausios šalies kainas visiems, įskaitant komercinį draudimą ar „Medicare“. Tai buvo labiau ribota apimtimi nei tai, kas, regis, buvo svarstoma gegužę.

 

Laiške „Pfizer“ Trumpas kreipinyje išbraukė „Dr. Bourla“ ir žymekliu parašė „Albert“ – tai ženklas, kad jie yra gerai susipažinę. Tą patį jis padarė ir savo laiške „Eli Lilly“ generaliniam direktoriui Davidui Ricksui.

 

Laiške „iš mūsų daug klausiama“, – rugpjūčio pradžioje analitikams sakė Bourla. Jis teigė aktyviai diskutuojantis su Trumpu, Kennedy ir Ozu dėl laiško.

 

„Žinote, kad prezidentas nekantrus, todėl nori rezultatų greitai“, – sakė Bourla.

 

Savaitę prieš Trumpo nustatytą terminą rugsėjo 29 d. jis paskelbė, kad spalio 1 d. įves 100 % farmacijos produktų tarifus, tačiau įmonės, kurios aktyviai kuria naujus gamybos pajėgumus JAV, bus atleistos nuo šių tarifų.

 

Tarifų grėsmė motyvavo elgesį ir „aiškiai motyvavo mūsų“, – Baltuosiuose rūmuose vykusioje spaudos konferencijoje, kurioje buvo paskelbta apie susitarimą, sakė Bourla. [1]

 

1. Pfizer's Pricing Deal Went Down to the Wire. Whyte, Liz Essley; Rockoff, Jonathan D; Loftus, Peter.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 04 Oct 2025: A1.  

"Older people have the best memories"

"The view of aging is far too negative," says brain researcher Martin Korte. He has good news for employees over 50, offers tips on how to stay mentally sharp—and explains why early retirement can be very harmful.

 

Mr. Korte, is the impression correct that the brain begins to decline around the age of 50?

 

In fact, brain aging progresses more rapidly in two phases. One is between 45 and 50, and the other between 60 and 65. But the brain already begins to age around the age of 25, when it has reached its maximum number of connections, nerve cells, and supporting cells. We just don't notice this for decades because brain performance remains stable in terms of speed and also in terms of what the nerve cells have to perform.

 

Life is particularly hectic around the age of 50. What impact does this have?

 

A fifty-year-old brain is much more challenged than a young brain because For example, at this age, you know many more people, have accumulated much more knowledge, and have to be active in many more life situations than in younger years. Therefore, it becomes more obvious that there are deficits in one area or another. And once you're in this state of observation that everything is getting worse, you also focus on it – individuals, companies, and society focus too much on the deficits of old age and too little on what remains stable, what is even improving, and what can be improved with training.

 

First, the unpleasant part – what exactly is getting worse?

 

It becomes more difficult for memory to access information precisely; it takes us longer to find details, and it's harder for us to find them. This is partly due to the mechanics of the brain; it has a slower clock speed in older people. The axons – the cables that transmit information – are surrounded by oligodendrocytes, supporting cells. The better the axons are surrounded, the faster they transmit information. But these sheaths develop holes, the first time. Some around the age of 50, and then even more around the age of 65; after that, it steadily increases. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that memory is getting worse; it just takes longer. And many don't have the patience to wait calmly to find information.

 

What else is there?

 

To access detailed information, we need the hippocampus, and it ages particularly rapidly. This thumb-sized structure below the temporal lobe is important for storing information; it's important for short-term memory, which deteriorates, and for compiling information. New neurons are constantly being formed in the hippocampus, but the rate of formation slows with age—computing capacity declines.

 

Older people, on the other hand, have much more life experience. How does this affect the brain and memory?

 

The brain of a fifty-, sixty-, or seventy-year-old has a much larger data storage capacity, a larger memory volume, compared to a young brain. You've met a hundred times more people, you've stored a thousand times more knowledge, you've learned a thousand times more names. And in fact, it takes longer and becomes less precise to access information in such a vast data space. Older people actually have the best memories on the planet because they have the largest.

 

That sounds motivating. What about creativity? Can older people still be creative at work?

 

Older people are somewhat less flexible in their thinking. They find it harder to abandon habits of perception, thinking, and acting and explore new paths. They are less likely to take risks. The myth that older people are no longer creative is, however, untrue, even if it has some basis. The fact that it's harder to adapt to new situations is because the brain has become so effective at thinking quickly in familiar ways—which is also a positive thing. And because older people have stored so much knowledge, they can intuitively assess an incredible number of situations quickly and accurately. They can also separate important from unimportant information more quickly.

 

How does this affect their careers?

 

Many older employees are better at assessing complex situations than younger ones. - because they know what they don't need to pay attention to. They focus on the important variables. However, this can also be misleading if the situation is completely new. Then you analyze the wrong things with your knowledge systems and may come too quickly to the conclusion that you've already experienced something. But that's not true if something is completely new, disruptive. Then you have to encourage older employees to deviate from their usual ways of thinking. However, in normal working life, older employees are more productive than younger ones because they have this vast wealth of knowledge.

 

That's a really positive perspective on aging.

 

There's more: Memory doesn't just deteriorate—our language and verbal memory improve. Older people are more likely and better able to summarize and remember a story. They have spent a lifetime listening to and speaking language, training their language memory and language skills. They are also better at describing something precisely.

 

Do you have any more good news?

 

I do. "Fluid intelligence," the pure mechanics, does deteriorate, but "crystallized intelligence," namely our expert knowledge in a field, can increase at least until the age of 80. That's why it's important to stay active in your job, to question things, and to always be willing to learn new things.

 

What about emotions?

 

Older people are better in this regard, too. They have experienced, analyzed, and evaluated ten thousand times more social interactions and are therefore better able to assess what others think and feel, and which arguments they are more receptive to. And because I can better assess the emotions of others, I can also better assess and control my own.

 

In teams, older colleagues are often more relaxed, while younger ones have such drive. Are mixed-age teams recommended?

 

This diversity is precisely the strength of young-old teams, which I highly recommend – under certain conditions: Older people must be sympathetic to the strengths of younger people; just because you've been in the job longer and earn more doesn't make you better or smarter. And younger people must put aside their prejudices against older people. When I visit companies, I repeatedly experience that older people have invisible stripes on their shoulders and think they should say more in meetings. Hierarchical teams are evaluated less favorably than teams in which the hierarchy levels are as invisible as possible and where communication doesn't always focus on one person.

 

Back to creativity: Can it be learned, or is it innate?

 

You can't learn creativity from books or PowerPoint slides; yet, creativity requires knowledge. This explains why older people can still be creative. To be able to think of new things, you have to know a lot. There are different forms of creativity: it can be disruptive – everything has to be completely different – ​​or associative: you re-associate what you already know, thus generating something new. Older people can be exceptionally creative because they have so many elements of knowledge.

 

But are they?

 

Unfortunately, often not, because it requires them to be willing to take new paths and make mistakes. Unfortunately, mistakes have a negative connotation in our culture, which is why many older people don't want to learn anything new: They're afraid of making mistakes, because they make more of them in the beginning. A corporate culture that allows for mistakes is important.

 

Can older employees even be given completely new roles?

 

I would be cautious about that. Someone who has worked in an office for 30 years, which corresponds to their personality structure, shouldn't be put into field service. However, it might be sensible to send someone who has always been an insider to the outside world for a while. But personality structure can't be changed; it has a strong genetic component.

 

What can older people do to stay mentally sharp, including for their careers?

 

They can do a lot. Just like in a house that's getting increasingly crowded, you should take stock: What are the important activities I want to pursue? What are my outstanding skills? What deficits do I want to work on? The next point is: Older people are more easily distracted due to the lower processing capacity of their attention and memory systems. This makes it all the more important for them to put away digital devices from time to time.

 

What role does the body play?

 

A very large one. Exercising and moving regularly trains the brain and, besides learning, is the only factor that promotes the formation of new neurons in the hippocampus. Three to four times a week, you should have an elevated heart rate for at least 40 minutes. Do you really need to drive to work and take the elevator instead of the stairs? According to the Lancet Commission, 14 factors slow the aging process in the brain – exercise is the most important. The second most important is avoiding excess weight.

 

What else is recommended?

 

It's also important to get enough sleep.  Over the course of your life, you sleep less and less if you're not careful. It's not, as some multi-billionaires would have it, particularly good to sleep very little, but rather it's particularly stupid, because the brain ages particularly quickly and because at night we re-store the things we learned during the day particularly well. So, we're practically given working time at night.

 

Quite a few companies offer employees in their 50s and 60s severance packages to get rid of them.

 

I don't think much of that. Brains that remain connected, whose daily lives still have structure, that are needed and challenged, age more slowly. Nor can we as a society want the opposite. Companies are doing themselves no favors by treating older employees like elite athletes and saying, "They don't run the 100 meters as fast anymore, so we don't want them anymore." They should consider that they could become coaches or supervisors, that they have an important mentoring and role model function. For older employees, this means they have to become more flexible in their work assignments.

 

But why, despite the significant disadvantages, are so many forced into early retirement?

 

In my opinion, this has to do with the many prejudices about aging, which overemphasize the shortcomings and underestimate what older people can still achieve.

 

At 66, and soon at 67, it's finally over. As a brain researcher, what do you think of such a rigid statutory retirement age?

 

I would like to see this made more flexible, so that the transition to retirement and pension age becomes much more gradual. One could retain older employees through contract work, shorter-term employment contracts, or part-time work. This would be very beneficial for companies and individuals, too. The unions that advocate that it's so important for everyone to retire at 67 don't consider the health and, above all, brain-related consequences this has. Because, for example, many people fall into depression. They miss the regularity of their daily work routine. Loneliness is also a huge problem. Loneliness causes chronic stress for the human brain. This leads to increased susceptibility to disease and the loss of nerve cells.

 

If you really want to retire: How can I plan for that, including for my brain?

 

If you constantly lie on the couch and watch TV, your brain ages particularly quickly, and the likelihood of developing Alzheimer's disease is significantly higher. Preparing for old age includes maintaining your circle of friends. The next step is to find a club or club activity. And being willing to learn new things. Maybe I used to play a musical instrument and am doing it again now – you can build on structures that actually still exist, even if you haven't used them for 40 years.

 

And, of course, exercise.

 

Absolutely, but not just Nordic walking, but also going to the gym to build muscle. You lose 50 percent of your muscle mass. And muscles are not only important for posture and steady gait, they also send signals that slow brain aging.

 

Are you happier that way?

 

It's been proven that people are happier if they exercise regularly, and especially if they're socially integrated. Loneliness must be understood from an evolutionary perspective. A person who was lonely in the Stone Age died because they couldn't defend themselves against the much stronger predators. Loneliness is perceived as an extremely stressful situation, and chronic stress literally causes brain damage.” [1]

 

1. "Ältere haben das beste Gedächtnis". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Frankfurt. 23 Aug 2025: 29.