What's wrong with communism?

[elSicomoro]

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is currently trying to meddle in a possible sale of Hershey Foods.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by passthedutchie
There is a difference between a respectable and honourable return for the great work they have done and true greed.

So tell me what that difference is, exactly. I want a dollar amount. Is keeping $50,000 OK? What about $500,000? $5 million? $500 million? Where do you draw the line between an "honourable return" and "true greed"?

I'm a student and I give what I can to charity. A computer is necessary for my own advancement. A couple extra million for a man/woman who has tens of millions is not necessary if that money could potentially save millions of lives.

So now we're talking about lives. This very day, in some developing country, one person died because he didn't have the food, medicine, and shelter he needed for survival. The $800 you spent on your computer could have saved that one life. Is his life worth your own advancement? People who could have "saved millions of lives" but didn't are greedy and evil, but because you could have only saved one and didn't, that's OK?

In case you don't see the broader argument I'm making here, you have no basis for making an arbitrary judgment as to what is a "moral" or "empathetic" (is that a word?) amount of money to have, and what isn't. Because it's just that: arbitrary. I don't have the inclination to look up the figures right now, but I'd be willing to bet that rich people as a group give a far higher percentage of their income to charity than the middle class.

Sure, Mr. Drug Company Owner has millions upon millions today. What if tomorrow, he gets hit with a liability lawsuit that could cost him everything? What if his competitor finds a far cheaper way of producing his best-selling drug?

For whatever reason he decides that he wants to keep that money, he has that right, because he earned it. Maybe that makes him an asshole, but as Dennis Leary taught us, being an asshole is every person's right.

[Tobiasly]

P.S. It is customary to quote only that part of a person's post you are referring to, or if you're referring to the whole post in general (or just don't feel like cutting and pasting the relevant sections), not to quote anything at all (i.e. hit "Reply" instead of "Quote".)

[passthedutchie]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

So now we're talking about lives. This very day, in some developing country, one person died because he didn't have the food, medicine, and shelter he needed for survival. The $800 you spent on your computer could have saved that one life. Is his life worth your own advancement? People who could have "saved millions of lives" but didn't are greedy and evil, but because you could have only saved one and didn't, that's OK?

In case you don't see the broader argument I'm making here, you have no basis for making an arbitrary judgment as to what is a "moral" or "empathetic" (is that a word?) amount of money to have, and what isn't. Because it's just that: arbitrary. I don't have the inclination to look up the figures right now, but I'd be willing to bet that rich people as a group give a far higher percentage of their income to charity than the middle class.

Sure, Mr. Drug Company Owner has millions upon millions today. What if tomorrow, he gets hit with a liability lawsuit that could cost him everything? What if his competitor finds a far cheaper way of producing his best-selling drug?

For whatever reason he decides that he wants to keep that money, he has that right, because he earned it. Maybe that makes him an asshole, but as Dennis Leary taught us, being an asshole is every person's right.

It's a judgement call. It comes down to the person doing the right thing. Of course we can't create laws that take away money from those who earn it (yes we can tax but I won't go into that), and there is no true altruism in the world. Take me for example, yes the money I spent on this computer could have gone to save the life of someone poor, but then I would be putting myself at a great disadvantage by not being able to compete and advance myself. But the fat cat drug company CEO who earns tens of millions per year for his own gain is a complete waste of money. If Mr. Fat Cat CEO did not receive his millions, would he be disadvantaged? No. Much of the capitalism we see today is just making the rich richer. There is also no way to specifically define an amount or a way to draw a line. But you must be able to see somewhat of a line betwen greed and an honourable return. Again, it's a situation judgement call, and that is a problem we currently have with intellectual property rights because each case is unique, and society is not better off with the system we currently have that treats each case with the same process.

Also, this company CEO would not get hit with the lawsuit because he is behind the corporate veil. That's the whole basis for having a corporate entity. The millions he is paid by the company is not subject to a lawsuit unless there is proof that his actions were fraudulant, or there is a gross misconduct etc. etc. Something with intent basically. So I'm sorry I don't buy that argument. Now if the company could justify keeping a huge amount like that around, which most do, then I have absolutely no problem with that.

Drug companies have patents on their drugs which grants them a monopoly for a certain amount of time. Eventually competitors do find ways of producing the drug cheaper, but usually they use same process after the patent runs out, it's just they do not have the monopoly right to it so they do not charge as much.

I'm not arguing that person has a right to that money. This is completely an ethical and moral issue. Laws will not solve this problem, it will come down to education and public pressure.

Oh, and by the way, Dennis Leary is not exactly the guy we need to turn to in order to solve a problem. I'll choose Immanuel Kant to guide my decisions.

PS - Empathetic is a word

[Griff]

Dutchie, I agree on your point about corporate officers hiding behind the corporate veil. I don't, however see anything altruistic about advocating that other people pay for what you value. There is also the matter of these drug company stocks being held by folks who are not fat cats. If you ask that their profits be forceably reduced and it is force you are advocating, remember you are supporting the confiscation of somebodys retirement savings. We have a problem with corporate officers compensation, but that needs to be addressed by the companys themselves.


"Let us suppose that instead of being slow, extravagent, inefficient, wasteful, unadaptive, stupid, and at least by tendency corrupt, the state changes its character entirely and becomes infinitely wise, good, disinterested, efficient, so that any one may run to it with any little two-penny problem and have it solved for him at once in the wisest and best way possible. Suppose the state closeherds the individual so far as to forestall every conceivable consequence of his own bad judgement, weakness, incompetetence; suppose it confiscates all his energy and resources and employs them much more advantageously all round than he can employ them if left to himself. My question still remains - what sort of person is the individual likely to become under those circumstances?" AJ Nock 1935

[Undertoad]

Some points to throw into the mix:

- Most of the big drug profits are during the patent period, as I understand it. The patent period applies to the new drugs that have undergone a lot of R&D. Every single drug requires a ton of R&D to make it through the approval process.

- Amounts higher than CEO compensation have been gifted to African countries many times. They are still poor. Turns out that money does not equal wealth.

- One reason for limited liability is because you don't want to punish risk, because risk is healthy for the market and helps to drive innovation.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by passthedutchie
If Mr. Fat Cat CEO did not receive his millions, would he be disadvantaged? No. Much of the capitalism we see today is just making the rich richer.

No, he wouldn't be disadvantaged, but he also wouldn't have any incentive to try to make any more money. "We sure are close to a cure for cancer, but since we already pull in $5 billion a year, the government would just take away any additional earnings we made. So why bother? I think I'll just put my money in this tax shelter instead..."

That's my point. Money is incentive. The opportunity to rake in more and more profits encourages people to take more and more risks. Some are unlucky or take risks that don't pan out, and lose everything. With so much risk, and so much potential to lose large amounts of money, there has to be huge reward potential as well. The fact that the people taking those risks already have obscene amounts of money is irrelevant.

I'm not even sure what you're advocating at this point. I thought you were saying that rich people should be taxed more, but that's apparently not it. Are you just saying that you wish those companies gave away more of their product to underdeveloped countries? Do you think there should be laws to force them to do so?

Oh, and by the way, Dennis Leary is not exactly the guy we need to turn to in order to solve a problem.

Maybe not the guy you turn to, but I think his "asshole" song makes some good points (except for the driving slow in the left lane part ). Yes, my reference was tongue-in-cheek, but the point remains, it's everyone's God-given right to be an asshole.

[hermit22]

Do you think there should be laws to force them to do so?

Yes. It is socially irresponsible and imperialistic to withhold the drugs that can save people's lives for the sake of the dollar.

The international community recognized this when the TRIPS agreement was made for the WTO. There was a provision in it that basically said patents were not valid when the product would save people's lives.

Meanwhile, half of Africa dies because some company, acting in the interests of its shareholders, sets the price of a life-extending drug above what can be paid.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by hermit22
Yes. It is socially irresponsible and imperialistic to withhold the drugs that can save people's lives for the sake of the dollar.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but...I would imagine that the drug companies already give away a ton of drugs to the less fortunate (including third-world nations). They'd be crazy not to...it's a nice tax write-off.

[Tobiasly]

So hermit, I take it you live in a bare one-room apartment with no TV, computer, or radio?

You <B>do</B> give all your money to sick/starving third world countries, right?

Why are you wasting time typing on the Cellar? You should be off working a second or third job, so you can send half of Africa more money!

[hermit22]

So hermit, I take it you live in a bare one-room apartment with no TV, computer, or radio?

Ok, I'm really tired of hearing that line from the laissez faire types. People do what they can. They provide for themselves, advance themselves, try to etch out a bit of a life for themselves. So I try to be a conscientious citizen; recycle, reuse and all that; I donate my time to causes and charity when I can. Is that enough? I'm a college student, working 60 hours a week to pay the bills so that one day, when I work my way up through the State Dept., I can make sure these things don't happen. Which, in the long-run is more noble than giving up all my posessions to help a few people out for a little bit. But of course, we live in a short-term, instant gratification society. So I wouldn't expect anyone to understand that. But why would I post this? Maybe I think it would be a better world if more people, especially those in the position to do something about it, actually cared.

What I DON'T do is watch my millions increase while people in less developed nations die from diseases that it is within my power to help them with - just by giving, or subsidizing, some drug. Look into the flap about Nevirapone in Africa, and the various generic variants that the patent holder is trying to keep off the market. And to the one who said that the pharmaceuticals donate to third world nations: yes, there is some of that. But the brevity of the diseases of the less developed world is staggering. A few tax write-offs aren't going to cut it.

All I'm saying with this is simple: You don't see too many pharmeceutical companies going belly-up these days. They're in the business of saving lives, so the industry should get some responsibility and actually do so.

[Hubris Boy]

&lt;/cloaking device&gt;

orginally posted by hermit22
You don't see too many pharmeceutical companies going belly-up these days. They're in the business of saving lives, so the industry should get some responsibility and actually do so.

No, they aren't. They are in the business of making money and providing a good return to their shareholders. Organizations like the Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres are in the business of saving lives.

No, no... no thanks are necessary. I could see you were having trouble with the distinction, and were struggling. Glad I could help.

&lt;cloaking device&gt;

[warch]

What are the ethics of health care? Is it a right?

[hermit22]

No, they aren't. They are in the business of making money and providing a good return to their shareholders. Organizations like the Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres are in the business of saving lives.

Now's where the differences in idealogies come into play. The way I see it, the companies provide that good return to their investors by saving lives. That's their primary focus. The Red Cross, as a non-profit, isn't in the business of saving lives, so that they aren't tied into all of that mess.

It's like the music biz. They're in the business of making music, so they find the greatest short term return on their investment possible. Responsible music-making is forgotten. It's actually a disservice to their investors, because, while the short term return can be great, the long-term is for crap. On the same token, saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa should be important, if only for their potentiality. (Is that a word?) And that would be fine if you're in the toaster business. But when you engage in a money-making venture that plays with people's lives and well-being, you have a certain responsibility to fill. It's appropriate to find the proper balance between making money and saving lives, but it's not appropriate to give up one for the other. That's why I don't necessarily think the pharm. industry should just begin to give everything away. But they also shouldn't hoard things to themself just to get the maximum possible return on their investment.

Now I don't know what distinctions you're talking about. But I hope my distinction is clear.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by warch
What are the ethics of health care? Is it a right?

I think it is. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and all that. That's why, in California (I don't know about other states, or even if its a national law) hospitals can't turn anyone away, despite their ability or inability to pay.