Capitalism at its finest

[r0cky]

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_18636109

Many reasons for the shortages are cited, including manufacturing problems, distribution disruptions, difficulties obtaining raw materials, regulation issues and even natural disasters. But those tend to be temporary. Longer-lasting shortages often are related to drug manufacturers' business decisions to discontinue or cut back production.
"One can't help notice that generic (cancer treatment) drugs with their lower profit margins are particularly affected by the shortage," Nahleh said

There you have it folks. Your life is not good enough to save unless there's a good profit.

 

[Kerpal]

Worst example ever. Prescription drugs are the furthest thing from a true free market. In a true free market, other companies could step in to fill the shortage. Right now, they're being prevented from doing so by governments.

 

[Drdeee]

Rock is into new age bull sh1t, a fake ass movement designed by globalists to neutralize resistance. It's similar to doing yoga while Gestapo is arresting outside. Thus no wonder Capitalism is bad. Globalists want global communism.

Hey rock, you are living in fascism, there is no capitalism and free market newbie. It ended when globalists took control of the issuance of money, I.e. Federal reserve act.

Yes cancer is profitable. But cancer is also caused by the sh1t you eat drink rub on your skin breath smoke sniff insert in you ass. They make cancer for a reason, population control.

I though all this truth is bad for your ego or something?

 

[r0cky]

Rock is into new age bull sh1t, a fake ass movement designed by globalists to neutralize resistance. It's similar to doing yoga while Gestapo is arresting outside. Thus no wonder Capitalism is bad. Globalists want global communism.

Hey rock, you are living in fascism, there is no capitalism and free market newbie. It ended when globalists took control of the issuance of money, I.e. Federal reserve act.

Yes cancer is profitable. But cancer is also caused by the sh1t you eat drink rub on your skin breath smoke sniff insert in you ass. They make cancer for a reason, population control.

I though all this truth is bad for your ego or something?

The truth is not bad for the ego, the ego loves to seek the truth, and truth is food for the ego.
But an out of control ego is what is killing the planet and lives. If pharmaceuticals really cared about people they wouldn't care about profits. My point is that medicine should be motivated by saving lives and not by greed. I know this "sensitive new agie" talk, but its proven that humans CAN accomplish great things without a financial motivation. The most common example of this is doing things for someone you love, you would never charge them for helping them out. The things that are created from love inspiration are always so much more helpful to humanity than things created by financial motivation. But the only way we can ever become love inspired is by letting go of our egos.

 

[ArcBound]

The truth is not bad for the ego, the ego loves to seek the truth, and truth is food for the ego.
But an out of control ego is what is killing the planet and lives. If pharmaceuticals really cared about people they wouldn't care about profits. My point is that medicine should be motivated by saving lives and not by greed. I know this "sensitive new agie" talk, but its proven that humans CAN accomplish great things without a financial motivation. The most common example of this is doing things for someone you love, you would never charge them for helping them out. The things that are created from love inspiration are always so much more helpful to humanity than things created by financial motivation. But the only way we can ever become love inspired is by letting go of our egos.

Maybe humans can accomplish things without a financial motivation. But I'd like you to dedicate your life to studying sciences and getting a near perfect GPA (required for PhD which is required for most pharmaceutical jobs) spending about 8 years in college (PhD and graduate studies) and then, in an already saturated job market try to score a job with a top pharmaceutical company.

And then once you score the job you realize that the company is having a negative profit margin, can't run forever and will eventually lead to your boss firing you and ending you career.

The more realistic scenario: The scientist/company worked hard to get to where it is. If cancer drugs aren't profitable then they will switch to something that is profitable. Why? Is it Greed? Is it greed to use those 8+ years you've slaved away while your peers partied out and about, to actually *gasp* make a living? It doesn't help that scientists are overwhelming seen as nerds and undesirable in media.

If you want to make change, then take Ghandi's advice "Be the change you want to see in the world."

But of course instead you'll make complaining threads about how these evil greedy scientists in companies won't give you free cancer curing drugs. Nobody stopped you from studying science. Nobody stopped you from earning a PhD in science. Nobody stopped you from applying to a large pharmaceutical company or even making a pharmaceutical start up company like many risk taking business minded people try.

 

[Drdeee]

They accomplish mass sterilization of populations in Africa and Haidi and other places, via vaccinations. Funding on these researches is given by same people whose religion is eugenics. It's not just money at play here, it is agenda.

 

[Alle_Gory]

They accomplish mass sterilization of populations in Africa and Haidi and other places, via vaccinations.

Uh yeah, that's why Africa is getting so crowded that people have started eating the Elephants. There's so many people, they're eating all of the wildlife. If there really was a mass sterilization it was a complete and utter failure.

But of course instead you'll make complaining threads about how these evil greedy scientists in companies won't give you free cancer curing drugs. Nobody stopped you from studying science. Nobody stopped you from earning a PhD in science. Nobody stopped you from applying to a large pharmaceutical company or even making a pharmaceutical start up company like many risk taking business minded people try.

As far as companies needing to make profits, this is the sad truth. But don't be so quick to defend the pharmaceutical companies. Yes they need money to pay workers and for R&D but they also spend lots of money on things like bribes, lobbyists, advertising campaigns, lawsuits upon lawsuits and of course CEO bonuses. Here is the balance sheet for Abbott Laboratories: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:ABT&fstype=ii

Now you tell me how a company with $35 billion revenue has $10 billion in Administrative Expenses and only spends $3.7 billion on R&D. I'll tell you how, there's far more suits than scientists.

There's very little science in a pharmaceutical company.

 

[Zodiac]

You are correct though in that they have huge legal expenses. That is a whole other can of worms though.

Mostly its for paying patent lawyers to see if their drug infringes on the market place properties already around and to save themselves from lawsuits when people don't read the medication labels or the 2 page info sheet listing the negative side effects that can come out of using their product including the overuse done by many people.

Those two reasons are two of the biggest reasons they have legal teams and have to shell out loads to them if they are high profile (And many usually are) to keep them on retainer (Which can range from 50K-250K per month for 24/7 round the clock advice/work.) A big name goes a long way in the legal world and when it comes to big pharmaceuticals its no exception.

I'd go on the technical reasons but as Danger said that is another thread worth of info.

 

[Alle_Gory]

It is exactly why I said in the other thread that .gov needs to be reduced as much as possible, so that favors from the "highest power" can no longer be bought.

On the other hand corporations are free to rape and pillage. Not that a corrupt government can do anything in that case. Reducing the size of government is not the answer although there are benefits (depends on what you reduce). Best thing you can do is ensure that people who make decisions are held accountable.

 

[d!ckmojo]

Yep, I aghree with Danger: the OP has his head up his arse.

Somehow these simplistic minded leftard f#cks got it into their minds that profit=bad. This is simply not the case, indeed demonstrably so:

Because profit is nothing other than a signal, plain and simple. You see the free market is a wonderful thing. What it does, by its own inherent nature, is to aggregate and synthesize all knowledge and data across the entire scope of the market, then signal to its participants how they may most efficiently and effectively serve one another's needs and best interests.

This is called the profit signal, and there is simply no other way known to man to efficiently aggregate all data and synthesize it into a utilitable outcome. This is why centrally-planned economies always fail in the long run, because they have no profit signal, thus capital gets malinvested and inefficiencies arise.

Thus the difference between South Korea and North Korea, East Germany and West Germany, U.S.A and U.S.S.R.

That's not to say we in the West such as America or Australia or Britain et al actually have a true free market laissez-faire capitalist system: we do not. What we have is a sort of Financio-fascist Kleptocracy, and its all starting to crumble upon itself now for the exact same reason as the Communo-statist Brutocracy behind the Iron Curtain fell: excessively large government.

You know Big Business/Corporato behemoths etc. can only survive and thrive to the extent that Big Government/Statist control exists, because Big Business can only gain its competitive advantage through economies of scale if Government requirements and regulations are so ardous and onerous, and require such massive expenditure on compliance, that smaller, more agile firms are unable to compete, because to do so is too costly for them with their smaller revenues.

But if the .gov were to shrink, then these smaller, more agile firms would be able to use their local knowledge and their capacity to focus on niche markets more sharply to out compete the very Big Business Behemoths that are so hated by the left. I.e., without the the Big Government that the left lords and enables, Big Business would wither and die on the vine.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Unfortunately with freedom comes accountability and responsibility.....something that all too many people of today cower away from in fear.

Most people are underdeveloped emotionally. They're like children in older bodies in most cases. An insular society worshipping adolescence will do that.

Don't believe me? Being a cougar is a cool thing. Listening to the latest Britney Spears/Justin Bieber/Cookiecutter Teen Pop Artists is the thing to do for even grownups.

Sh*t is all f*cked up in here.

 

[joverby]

Due to the privitized prison system(another giant problem on it's own) The people that will serve time instead of being fined will just pay a bunch of money under the table and go to a fancy prison where you they can record their own music(Lil Wayne) or have their own garden(Martha Stewart).

Pretty disturbing we allow people to be in the business of keeping and getting more people locked up in jail. Also allows those nice loopholes for the people rich enough.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Due to the privitized prison system(another giant problem on it's own) The people that will serve time instead of being fined will just pay a bunch of money under the table and go to a fancy prison where you they can record their own music(Lil Wayne) or have their own garden(Martha Stewart).

Pretty disturbing we allow people to be in the business of keeping and getting more people locked up in jail. Also allows those nice loopholes for the people rich enough.

The judicial system is all f*cked up too. They serve private interests. They don't care about enforcing just laws, they care about enforcing the laws that benefit someone else.

Another problem is the way the prison system works. It's not focused on reform and rehabilitation. It's focused on revenge and causing as much suffering as possible. No wonder you don't get functional human beings coming out. People go in, criminals come out. There's not many ways for an ex convict to make a living honestly, even if they could after that nightmare.

And why? Because people WANT revenge. Look at that recent case with that crazy woman, Casey Anthony. Nobody even knew if she was indeed guilty but people wanted blood guilty or not guilty.

 

[Zodiac]

And why? Because people WANT revenge. Look at that recent case with that crazy woman, Casey Anthony. Nobody even knew if she was indeed guilty but people wanted blood guilty or not guilty.

I guess a Cop Father that says the smell of death coming from her trunk meant nothing to you. She's another OJ.

 

[Alle_Gory]

I guess a Cop Father that says the smell of death coming from her trunk meant nothing to you. She's another OJ.

I was discussing the public reaction to that event. Let's keep this on topic.

 

[sstype]

Yep, I aghree with Danger: the OP has his head up his arse.

Somehow these simplistic minded leftard f#cks got it into their minds that profit=bad. This is simply not the case, indeed demonstrably so:

Because profit is nothing other than a signal, plain and simple. You see the free market is a wonderful thing. What it does, by its own inherent nature, is to aggregate and synthesize all knowledge and data across the entire scope of the market, then signal to its participants how they may most efficiently and effectively serve one another's needs and best interests.

This is called the profit signal, and there is simply no other way known to man to efficiently aggregate all data and synthesize it into a utilitable outcome. This is why centrally-planned economies always fail in the long run, because they have no profit signal, thus capital gets malinvested and inefficiencies arise.

Thus the difference between South Korea and North Korea, East Germany and West Germany, U.S.A and U.S.S.R.

That's not to say we in the West such as America or Australia or Britain et al actually have a true free market laissez-faire capitalist system: we do not. What we have is a sort of Financio-fascist Kleptocracy, and its all starting to crumble upon itself now for the exact same reason as the Communo-statist Brutocracy behind the Iron Curtain fell: excessively large government.

You know Big Business/Corporato behemoths etc. can only survive and thrive to the extent that Big Government/Statist control exists, because Big Business can only gain its competitive advantage through economies of scale if Government requirements and regulations are so ardous and onerous, and require such massive expenditure on compliance, that smaller, more agile firms are unable to compete, because to do so is too costly for them with their smaller revenues.

But if the .gov were to shrink, then these smaller, more agile firms would be able to use their local knowledge and their capacity to focus on niche markets more sharply to out compete the very Big Business Behemoths that are so hated by the left. I.e., without the the Big Government that the left lords and enables, Big Business would wither and die on the vine.

Does big government lead to big business or vice versa?

Chicken and Egg question. Perhaps we're arguing semantics here but the root of big business/big government is always an elite that control a disproportionate amount of wealth and will leverage that power whether private or public to maintain and increase their power/wealth.

Rather than debating which "-ism" works best, what we really need to ask is whether massive wealth accumulation at the very top, regardless of whether its derived from profit or patronage, is indicative of a stable, healthy society. Should we be ok with hedge fund traders pulling billion dollar paydays, Fortune 500 CEOs making 500 times more than their average worker, or lobbyists enriching their clients (and themselves) at the expense of the taxpayers?

 

[Quiksilver]

Does big government lead to big business or vice versa?

Chicken and Egg question. Perhaps we're arguing semantics here but the root of big business/big government is always an elite that control a disproportionate amount of wealth and will leverage that power whether private or public to maintain and increase their power/wealth.

Rather than debating which "-ism" works best, what we really need to ask is whether massive wealth accumulation at the very top, regardless of whether its derived from profit or patronage, is indicative of a stable, healthy society. Should we be ok with hedge fund traders pulling billion dollar paydays, Fortune 500 CEOs making 500 times more than their average worker, or lobbyists enriching their clients (and themselves) at the expense of the taxpayers?

Your line of thought indicates a lack of moral code.

My response:

1. What is a "disproportionate" amount of wealth?

2. Massive wealth accumulation at the very top ... of what? Of success in a free market? If wealth does not accumulate at the top, would you rather it accumulate at the bottom, at the feet of failure in a free market? Should it be distributed evenly across the spectrum of success and failure in a free market? Who shall do the distribution, and shall it be voluntary or involuntary? If involuntary, are you prepared to shoot somebody because they did not hand over their private property to you?

2. Are the corporations with CEOs and board members who make hundred of millions and billions per year, are they accumulating wealth through voluntary market participation?

--

A moral man would ask simply one question:

Did the subject in question acquire their wealth through voluntary trade or by means of force (street thug, tax collector, regulator), or fraud?

If by means of voluntary trade, then I care not how wealthy a person gets.

If by means of force or fraud, then we should seek to have them punished to the full extent of the law. If there is no such law protecting citizens from force and fraud, then we should seek to create one. If we find the government will not allow us to create or repeal a law which cultivates forced profits and fraud, then we should seek to destroy that part of the government.

^

That is my take on your problem, with a code of morality to guide thought and action.

 

[Alle_Gory]

You keep coming from the frame of mind that "wealth" is a finite quantity of something to be taken.

That is a bad premise.

Wealth is created by people that understand what makes our lives richer. They have an idea for a product and make it come to life, thus enriching everyone with new wealth.

I would like an example of how wealth is created. In more detail please.

 

[joverby]

Chicken and Egg question. Perhaps we're arguing semantics here but the root of big business/big government is always an elite that control a disproportionate amount of wealth and will leverage that power whether private or public to maintain and increase their power/wealth.

You are almost there. Disproportionate is very subjective. Theyre are ALWAYS going to be be people at the top controllling the majority of the money. The problem ensues when they use the government to make the balance of wealth disproportionate. Same thing happend during the Great Depression.

You tilt the scales too far in the elites favor and it starts going to sh1t for everyone else. The fact is they do have to have the majority. The problem is when their greed gets out of control.

Ron Paul 2012

 

[sstype]

You are almost there. Disproportionate is very subjective. Theyre are ALWAYS going to be be people at the top controllling the majority of the money. The problem ensues when they use the government to make the balance of wealth disproportionate. Same thing happend during the Great Depression.

You tilt the scales too far in the elites favor and it starts going to sh1t for everyone else. The fact is they do have to have the majority. The problem is when their greed gets out of control.

Ron Paul 2012

I agree.. guess I should have made myself more clear. I don't believe we can or should have even distribution of wealth, there needs to be inequality in order to incentive's people to work hard and innovate.

But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of plutocracy and oligarchy. And like I said, that can manifest from either profit-seeking or patronage-seeking entities if safeguards are not put into place.

Danger and Quicksilver assume that because I'm not 100% free market I believe in wealth redistribution a la communist style.

Countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Germany are examples of highly successful capitalist systems with productive workforces and effective social democracy. I don't advocate we mimic their exact setup but maybe we should reexamine our beliefs that government=root of all evil and free market=creator of all things good. No one is arguing that free-markets don't improve lives or that government can do no wrong.

I don't understand why people continue to argue against my assertion that it need not be one extreme or the other. Is it so hard to just admit that no system in its ideal form is perfect?