What's wrong with communism?

Originally posted by sycamore
What's wrong with communism? Sure it was bad in practice, but it's a nice theory, IMO.

What's wrong with communism is that you can't separate practice from theory. Even a die-hard Reaganomics proponent like me agrees that "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" (sorry if I butchered that) sounds like a pretty cool idea.

However, humans are greedy people. I'm greedy, and you're greedy. We're also lazy. It's in our nature. Some of us are more greedy than others, but when it comes right down to it, each one of us will take care of ourselves and our loved ones first. Communism tries to pretend that this isn't the case, but you can't change human nature. Capitalism doesn't try to ignore this fact; it <I>counts on it</I>. By rewarding people who take risks and succeed, our whole society moves forward.

Of course it's not perfect, and there is a need for some control of the process to make sure it doesn't get outta control. But capitalism is the only economic paradigm that is based on the way humans think and act, and that is why it's the only viable choice in a modern world.

Yep, I'd pretty much agree with all of that. Except for the part where you said 'Capitalism is the only viable choice'. I don't get your logic there. Just because it's a good model doesn't mean another better one doesn't exist.

Also, when you base a society on greed, you get a society full of greedy people.

No arguments from me Tob...I love capitalism. I just wish I could be one of those folks that makes a pile of money on a risk. :)

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Even a die-hard Reaganomics proponent like me agrees that "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" (sorry if I butchered that) sounds like a pretty cool idea.

Reaganomics, if examined through the looking glass of Economics, was a mixed bag. It impoverished many people and caused wide-spread poverty, but then again this is not of any concern to most other people as long as they are doing alright.

Here are some downsides to Reagan's economic policies (in response to the 'capitalism is great' tone of the thread):

- Federal debt (privately held) increased from 22.3% to 33.1% during his years in office.

- The Federal deficit in Reagan's last budget remained unchanged at 2.9% of GDP.

- Although supposedly using neo-liberal market capitalist economic strategies (and going exactly against his rhetoric of free trade), Reagan in fact employed the most protectionist methods of any President since Hoover. Trade restraints and protective tariffs increased from 12% of all imports to 23% of all imports between 1980-'88.

- Reagan presided over the worst US recession since WW2, 1981-82; the Savings and Loans crisis of 1982 caused the collapse of more US banks than ever before.

- Despite the claim that Reaganomics used tax cuts and modest spending as a means of stimulating the economy, the opposite is actually true: taxes rose by total of $375billion, government spending rose by $450billion.

Especially the last detail is often overlooked when 'tax-and-spend' liberals are attacked politically; tax-and-spend is the method used by the most celebrated right-wing economic approach of the last century.

X.

Capitalism is the "least worst" economic system going.

I'm sure there's something better but A) it would take a lot of improvement of change in humanity to get its act together, and B) it probably will be worked out after everyone has the kind of lack of scarcity that most Cellar folks enjoy today.

That's my theory.

Originally posted by juju
Except for the part where you said 'Capitalism is the only viable choice'. I don't get your logic there. Just because it's a good model doesn't mean another better one doesn't exist.

True. I probably should have said "capitalism is the only choice that seems to have worked in the modern world." But I sure haven't heard any better ideas that would work in the real world.

Originally posted by Xugumad
Reaganomics, if examined through the looking glass of Economics, was a mixed bag. It impoverished many people and caused wide-spread poverty, but then again this is not of any concern to most other people as long as they are doing alright.

Mmkay, by "Reaganomics" I don't necessarily mean the way the economy was run under Reagan. I guess I should have said "supply-side economics". I think "trickle-down", for the most part, works. There have to be limits in place to prevent abuses, but one of the best ways to increase the livelihood of the people is to make it easier for the people who create jobs to do so.

Despite the claim that Reaganomics used tax cuts and modest spending as a means of stimulating the economy, the opposite is actually true: taxes rose by total of $375billion, government spending rose by $450billion.

I'm not sure if you're obfuscating or just confused, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :) Reagan <B>did</B> cut taxes, meaning he cut the tax rate. For example, the highest marginal tax rate on individuals when he took office was 70%, which his tax cut package lowered to 28%.

The result of that is, as you point out, an <I>increase in tax revenues generated</I>. Yes, more money came in to the government, because unemployment dropped and there were more people working and thus paying taxes. But that's what Reagan and company expected to happen, so to say that was a failure of their policy is incorrect.

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Reagan <B>did</B> cut taxes, meaning he cut the tax rate. For example, the highest marginal tax rate on individuals when he took office was 70%, which his tax cut package lowered to 28%.

The result of that is, as you point out, an <I>increase in tax revenues generated</I>. Yes, more money came in to the government, because unemployment dropped and there were more people working and thus paying taxes. But that's what Reagan and company expected to happen, so to say that was a failure of their policy is incorrect.

That is factually wrong, and a fairly common mistake to make for a non-economist.

Here is the breakdown:

The top tax rate was cut, from 70% to 28%, <b>the biggest tax cut in after-war US history</b>. Spending did not decrease, and the economy was not sufficiently stimulated to offset the loss in tax revenue. As a direct result, federal deficit and annual deficit increased sharply; by the summer of 1982, the US was in deep recession. (having briefly overcome some economic difficulties during the first year of Reagan's presidency)

In September of 1982, Reagan's budget included the <b>biggest tax raises in after-war US history</b>. (done partly to work against the rising rate of inflation at the time) In 1986, there was an additional double tax increase, retroactive, on commercial real estate and in capital gains taxes. Simultaneously, there was also a retroactvive decreased depreciation deduction allowance. Those were just some of the examples of sharp tax increases in Reagan budgets. (the one on commercial real estate was particularly catastrophical, triggering the collapse of a whole industry. The effects of 1986 were to some part responsible for the late-80s downturn and the economic problems of the early 90s)

I think "trickle-down", for the most part, works.

Many economist would - regarding the US during the 80s - strongly disagree with that. I'm not going to debate it now, the discussion is significantly too complex to address here; I will, however, name the sources and background information that will help you find out more on the subject. (it'll take a few days to go through my postgrad Economics and Political Science books, if I can find them after moving)

Regarding trickle-down, it's easy to discuss faceless numbers and bare statistics. Having witnessed the stark truth of mass empoverishment in America during the 80s, however, has forever changed some people's views of 'trickle-down'.

Here's another couple of faceless numbers for you:

During the first five years of the Reagan administration, the number of people under the poverty line DOUBLED. (Department of Labor statistics, reported in the Washington Post, May-13-1986)

During the 13 years previous to 1986, real take home wages decreased, adjusted for inflation, by 14.3%. (Associated Press, July-31-1986)

X.

Who was it who said a liberal democrasy is a terrible system, but the ebst until we find something better. Same applies. I'm with plato, democrasy is flawed; the masses are stupid enlightened democrasy is the only way to go ;)

Sure, I'd be interested in reading your resources X, although something tells me they'll be one-sided. :)

We must also not forget that it's impossible to isolate a particular period of time and say "this was caused by this". Let's not forget the whole Cold War thing that was going on at the same time, where it was vital to demonstrate to the Soviets that they couldn't maintain the same level of war resources that we could. Also, the fact that spending increased is not solely attributable to the President, as I'm sure you're well aware.

There were good and bad aspects of Reagan's economic policies, to be sure. I've read very good (one-sided) arguments on both sides of the issue. And since I'm no economist, I still may be mixing my terms.. my point is that entrepreneurs must be given as much of an opportunity as possible to create jobs, because <B>they are the only ones who can</B>. The government doesn't create jobs, and policies don't create jobs.

Some people want to tax the rich at a ridiculous level, because "no one needs any more than X amount to live well". A <B>70%</B> marginal individual income tax rate? That's insane. At that rate, Mr. Factory Owner has no incentive to expand his company, because by the time Uncle Sam takes 70% of whatever else he earns, it's just not worth it. So instead of reinvesting that money in some new endeavor that will create jobs, he saves it or invests it in some more attractive way.

Originally posted by juju
Also, when you base a society on greed, you get a society full of greedy people.

Somehow missed this one earlier. What economic system can we use that doesn't create greedy people?

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Sure, I'd be interested in reading your resources X, although something tells me they'll be one-sided. :)

I'll assume the smilie meant you were joking and not being prejudiced.

My 'sources', as you call them, are standard economic textbooks and analyses by economic journals and scholars. There is very little room for opinion or prejudice.

We must also not forget that it's impossible to isolate a particular period of time and say "this was caused by this".

That sidesteps any analysis of causality altogether, especially considering the fact that the number of people living below the poverty line doubled in the first five years of the Reagan administration.

...my point is that entrepreneurs must be given as much of an opportunity as possible to create jobs, because <B>they are the only ones who can</B>. The government doesn't create jobs, and policies don't create jobs.

I fully agree with you there, and I also agree that a cut of the top rate was a good idea; the level at which it took place necessitated the largest tax increase in US history, in 1982/83, since it didn't have the expected results. Cutting too much means bankrupting the economy, and causing budget deficit increases on a level from which the US hasn't recovered yet, and judging by current US economic policy, will not recover for the foreseeable future.

As an aside, placing the fate of your country in the hands of stockholders and company boards is suicidal: stockholders have only one interest, share profits; thus company directors will do whatever it takes to produce profits, with often-disastrous results. The liberal-market right has sneered for years at attempts to place restraints on the 'free market'; the results have been unchecked excesses that have brought the US (and by proxy much of the world's economy) to the brink of disaster. Bush is signing company-control laws that two years ago would have been met with derisive laughter by pretty much anyone on the right.

After all: the best way to ensure companies and businessmen improve the economy is to let them do their job and make money...

X.

PS: Speaking of sources, here are a couple of introductory economics textbooks. That ought to give you a better idea of the matter at hand. They are all ludicrously dry and boring if you're not interested in Economics, but they are the standard of what's used to teach Economics.

ISBN: 0716752379
ISBN: 0691092575

On a slightly higher level:

ISBN: 0072318554
ISBN: 0262231999

If you haven't read the basic texts, also read:

[Economics]
John Maynard Keynes, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money"
Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

[Theory]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract"
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man"

I hate to flog a dead horse but we've never had a decent implimentation of communism. All the biggies have replaced religion with hero worship, the cult of the leader, something i doubt marx would ahve liked. If Trotsky ahd evened up in change....

I do agree that communist economies don't work though, there is no motivation for the workers. Look at Vietnam, when they finally gave the land back to the peasents rather than collectives production went though the roof.

As an aside, placing the fate of your country in the hands of stockholders and company boards is suicidal: stockholders have only one interest, share profits; thus company directors will do whatever it takes to produce profits, with often-disastrous results. The liberal-market right has sneered for years at attempts to place restraints on the 'free market'; the results have been unchecked excesses that have brought the US (and by proxy much of the world's economy) to the brink of disaster. Bush is signing company-control laws that two years ago would have been met with derisive laughter by pretty much anyone on the right.

Exactly. When the motive is profit everything is short term too, which carries its own dangers too.

Originally posted by Xugumad
I'll assume the smilie meant you were joking and not being prejudiced.

Half-joking; the smilie is because when people are trying to prove a point, they generally only cite references that back up that point.

I don't agree that economics texts leave little room for opinion or prejudice, however.. especially macroeconomics. It's a science, to be sure, but by definition the scientific method prefers an isolation of variables that just isn't possible on such a large scale.

Yes, we must attempt to establish causality, but to take one certain period of time and use it to say an entire economic theory is flawed is a fallacy.

I am somewhat familiar with Keynes and Smith, and I don't really have any interest in reading an economic textbook cover-to-cover, but if you have specific references regarding your position on supply-side economics I would be interested.

Originally posted by jaguar
Exactly. When the motive is profit everything is short term too...

That's not true at all. Rich people are just as interested in providing for their future, and that of their families, as anyone else.

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Somehow missed this one earlier. What economic system can we use that doesn't create greedy people?

Beats me. Stop poking holes in my logic! :)

That's not true at all. Rich people are just as interested in providing for their future, and that of their families, as anyone else.

Read 'Stark' by Ben Elton.

"Stark has more money than God and the social conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn. What's more, they know the Earth is dying. Deep in Western Australia, where the Aboriginals used to milk the trees, a planet-sized plot takes shape. Some green freaks pick up the scent. A Pommie poseur, a brain-fried Vietnam Vet, Aboriginals who lost their land ... not much against a conspiracy that controls society. But EcoAction isn't in society; it just lives in the same place, along with the cockroaches.

Sold over a million copies, fantastic.

Originally posted by Tobiasly
That's not true at all. Rich people are just as interested in providing for their future, and that of their families, as anyone else.

And the easiest way to provide for your family is to make a lot of money, quickly. When you can choose between long-term investment and short-term profits, the past has shown how pretty much everybody will want to reap profits.

Here's an <a href="http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_id=209015"> example</a> from Fortune Magazine (not exactly a left-wing rag), which eviscerates some of those practices.

Thus the proof how unchecked 'let the big rich people deal with the economy' is a certain path to ruin.

X.

Link: http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_id=209015

The stock market bubble popping and all of the sleazy accounting practices that go along with it hardly has anything to do with the liberal-market argument. The people who took advantage of individual investors during the "bubble" would have done so regardless of how much tax they're paying.

True, they both deal with "letting rich people deal with the economy", and it's a very good example of why we need some regulation with strict consequences for people who try to take advantage of the system. But I've said all along that controls are necessary to prevent abuses.

I'm all for making sure people pay their fair share of taxes, and I see no problem with a progressive tax structure. But a common argument one hears during these sorts of debates is "if someone is making $100 million a year, what's wrong with taking half of it in income tax? By the time you have that much money, you're not going to miss it anyway."

<I>That's</I> the mentality that I have real issues with. We have no right to determine what amount of money someone "needs".

Originally posted by Tobiasly
I'm all for making sure people pay their fair share of taxes, and I see no problem with a progressive tax structure. But a common argument one hears during these sorts of debates is "if someone is making $100 million a year, what's wrong with taking half of it in income tax? By the time you have that much money, you're not going to miss it anyway."

<I>That's</I> the mentality that I have real issues with. We have no right to determine what amount of money someone "needs".

You are contradicting yourself: if 'we have no right to determine' how much money a person needs, you are directly arguing either against a progressive tax structure (which you said you have 'no problem' with), or against income tax altogether.

What is it, then. Do we have the right to determine how much money they need, thus allowing us to tax rich(er) people more, or don't we, thus taxing everyone equally?

It's the only logical conclusion. That's why you will always hear 'rich' people (at least those with a modicum of intelligence) arguing in favour of a completely flat tax rate, such as for instance Steve Forbes during his several failed runs for the presidency.

X.

Its not about how much they 'need', its about how much they should contribute back into the society that they live in and how much they *can*.

And yet, some of those folks should be rewarded to the ends of the earth for what they do. The ones who actually create things, the ones who actually invent incredibly useful things, the ones who take disorder and make order. The ones who really add value. The visionaries, the geniuses.

How do you reward those folks, or are they still indebted to society after having created so much of society to start?

We cannot. Well not though tax. I don't think we need a reward points system for those that invent cool stuff, the financial benifits are enough in most cases, but i see you arguement.
A flat tax system is stupid as far as i'm concerned. I think there is an arguement for aboloshing income tax and intead doing what we have here and in parts of Europe, VAT(Value Added Tax) or GST(Goods and Services Tax): a tax on what you buy instead of what you earn. We have both here at the moment, just having the second is far better. Firstly its far harder to avoid than income tax so hopefuly some of those bastards who earn less than their pool cleaners would actually have to contribute to society like the rest of us. Secondly you can discriminate effectivly, low tax on basic items, high tax on luxury cars, boats, etc which better spreads the tax budren to those who do not shoulder their weight. The fact is the majority of tax is paid by the middle class. The upper class pay no tax because they are rich enough to know how to avoid it and the lower class pay negligable tax. By making the upper class pay their fair share we create a fairer system all round and one which would benifit the lower and middle classes making it politically viable. Pity those in politics are in the upper class.

Would not be perfect, but it would be better.

Originally posted by Xugumad
You are contradicting yourself

True.. maybe I should just quit talking now. :)

A progressive tax structure is fine, as long as it's a relatively even progression. But we shouldn't try to find creative new ways to gouge the rich.

Originally posted by jaguar
Its not about how much they 'need', its about how much they should contribute back into the society that they live in and how much they *can*.

No, it's not about how much they <I>can</I>. I think <I>should</I> is a bit closer. They <I>can</I> contribute about all of it, but that doesn't mean they <I>should</I> have to.

A flat tax system is stupid as far as i'm concerned. I think there is an arguement for aboloshing income tax and intead doing what we have here and in parts of Europe, VAT(Value Added Tax) or GST(Goods and Services Tax): a tax on what you buy instead of what you earn.

Then you have what amounts to a regressive tax, where people who have little money and essentially live paycheck to paycheck, spending almost all they have, pay a higher percentage of their income on tax than people who are able to save some away. Although I don't know too much about the VAT and GST systems, and surely they've found ways around this.. do those taxes completely replace income tax?

Pity those in politics are in the upper class.

The pity is hearing statements like this. Do you truly believe that the reason we don't have what you'd consider a fairer tax system is because politicians tend to be upper class?

The pity is hearing statements like this. Do you truly believe that the reason we don't have what you'd consider a fairer tax system is because politicians tend to be upper class?

Hell no, but inertia from those who would suffer under such a system i'm sure if a signifigant factor, but so is a signifigant lack of consensus.

Then you have what amounts to a regressive tax, where people who have little money and essentially live paycheck to paycheck, spending almost all they have, pay a higher percentage of their income on tax than people who are able to save some away. Although I don't know too much about the VAT and GST systems, and surely they've found ways around this.. do those taxes completely replace income tax?

Firstly i'm not *entirely* sure about the UK but i know here they don't entirely replace income tax. We have a flat 10% GST with some items such as basic foodstuffs exempted and progressive income tax that goes up to 49%. They do remove wholesale tax though. Having both evens out some of the unfairness of both, which relates to your first point.

As for avoidance, there are of course various tricks around it but they are harder to do, and because you are dealing with *everything* you buy it is far harder to avoid.

No, it's not about how much they can. I think should is a bit closer. They can contribute about all of it, but that doesn't mean they should have to.

Point taken ;)

But we shouldn't try to find creative new ways to gouge the rich.

Yes we bloody well should, because as it stands they gouge us and pay buggar all tax. Unless i make it big in which case......;)

Capitalism sucks for some, communism sucks for some. There is no pure form of either anywhere.

The communism we have seen in the world was not what Marx invisioned. On the flip side, capitalism has many down falls, especially for those who show true altruism or who cannot grasp the free market ideas. What's best is a mixed system, but everyone seems to be always so ignorant to the other side!

Take a look at the best places to live, according to the UN Human Development Index. All are more concerned with social aspects than countries like the United States. Norway, Canada, Holland, etc. are higher taxed, but people as a whole have higher standards of living, and they have systems that are quite mixed with heavy attention to social aspects, but still have strong capitalism roots. Now of course guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet live above and beyond the standards most of us can dream about, but as a whole, these nations are better off, even if some do ride along the coat tails of the United State's technological advancements. If everyone would work together, everyone would be better off, but there are far too many influences beyond the market system we choose for our countries that are working against a global system that we can use.

Originally posted by passthedutchie
as a whole, these nations are better off, even if some do ride along the coat tails of the United State's technological advancements.

Now there's an understatement for ya. Our economy generates innovation and development, more so than any other nation. That's why we're the only superpower left.

I don't care what some UN study says, there is no nation on earth right now where an individual has as much opportunity as he does in the U.S. Of course, that does mean that there will be those who fall through the cracks, I'll admit.

But those other nations wouldn't enjoy such a high standard of living if it weren't for the advancements made here in the States.

Originally posted by Tobiasly

Now there's an understatement for ya. Our economy generates innovation and development, more so than any other nation. That's why we're the only superpower left.

I don't care what some UN study says, there is no nation on earth right now where an individual has as much opportunity as he does in the U.S. Of course, that does mean that there will be those who fall through the cracks, I'll admit.

But those other nations wouldn't enjoy such a high standard of living if it weren't for the advancements made here in the States.

C'mon, it's not an understatement, 'cus now you make it sound as if the United States invents everything and anything that is important, when that's just rubbish.

Yes the United States generates innovation and development, but it also loses points in the humanity department. Take a look at the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, and how their advancements could greatly benefit the third world and developing countries, but they are more focused on the profits that go above and beyond funding their R&D budgets.

Sorry to tell you, but there are countries out there that have just as much, if not more opportunity than the United States. There are a handful of countries, and they basically are listed in the top 12 of the UNHDI, that are at par and are above the United States in terms of human development, and you don't have to look at the statistics to see this, you just have to visit or live in these countries.

passthedutchie i've been here far too long as so far you're the only person i'd 100% agree with.

Yes the United States generates innovation and development, but it also loses points in the humanity department. Take a look at the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, and how their advancements could greatly benefit the third world and developing countries, but they are more focused on the profits that go above and beyond funding their R&D budgets.

I'd go one step further and say they could also benifit many US citizens - if they could afford them.

Originally posted by passthedutchie
Yes the United States generates innovation and development, but it also loses points in the humanity department. Take a look at the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, and how their advancements could greatly benefit the third world and developing countries, but they are more focused on the profits that go above and beyond funding their R&D budgets.

You see, that's exactly what I was talking about when I started this thread. Why should pharmaceutical companies strive to break even? You think just covering their R&D expenses is enough? Do you devote your life to helping third world and developing countries? You obviously own a computer, you selfish bastard. Why didn't you give the money you used to buy that computer to a charity for sick children in a developing country? $800 goes a long way, you know.

That's exactly what you're asking a company to do if you think they should recoup their R&D budgets and nothing more. Those companies take risks. Many of them go bust, and their investors lose everything. Why shouldn't they get big rewards if they develop something useful? Why do you think someone in what you consider a developing company is entitled to have corporations work to cure their ills, with no profit? What motivation would these companies have in the first place to develop new medicine, if they didn't get any profits in return?

During the big antrhax scare, people were up in arms because XYZ Drug Company (I forget who it really was) had the only known anthrax innoculation, and they were charging more than people thought was fair. Of course some knee-jerk politicians were suggesting legislation to force XYZ to sell at a steep discount. XYZ just happened to take the risks necessary to see a need for an anthrax innoculation in the first place, and then develop it. And people want to punish them for taking those risks. Who would have bailed out XYZ if a natural cure were found for anthrax, and they went bankrupt?

Sorry to tell you, but there are countries out there that have just as much, if not more opportunity than the United States.

You were talking about standard of living, not opportunity. I maintain my original position that the U.S. has more opportunity than any other nation.

Originally posted by Tobiasly

You see, that's exactly what I was talking about when I started this thread. Why should pharmaceutical companies strive to break even? You think just covering their R&D expenses is enough? Do you devote your life to helping third world and developing countries? You obviously own a computer, you selfish bastard. Why didn't you give the money you used to buy that computer to a charity for sick children in a developing country? $800 goes a long way, you know.

That's exactly what you're asking a company to do if you think they should recoup their R&D budgets and nothing more. Those companies take risks. Many of them go bust, and their investors lose everything. Why shouldn't they get big rewards if they develop something useful? Why do you think someone in what you consider a developing company is entitled to have corporations work to cure their ills, with no profit? What motivation would these companies have in the first place to develop new medicine, if they didn't get any profits in return?

During the big antrhax scare, people were up in arms because XYZ Drug Company (I forget who it really was) had the only known anthrax innoculation, and they were charging more than people thought was fair. Of course some knee-jerk politicians were suggesting legislation to force XYZ to sell at a steep discount. XYZ just happened to take the risks necessary to see a need for an anthrax innoculation in the first place, and then develop it. And people want to punish them for taking those risks. Who would have bailed out XYZ if a natural cure were found for anthrax, and they went bankrupt?

Oh crap, give me a break. There is a HUGE difference between the profits pharmaceutical companies make and the computer I purchased, which by no means makes me selfish.

I was talking about the enormous profits pulled in by drug companies that are not justified. Do you really think someone needs millions upon millions of dollars for personal use? Hell no. It's fine to take care of shareholders and executives, but we're talking about these people raking in cash while people die who cannot afford the drug they so desperately need. Yeah sometimes you can blame the regime these people live under, but I do not accept allowing these innocent people to die in the name of making a millionaire even richer. There is a difference between a respectable and honourable return for the great work they have done 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.

I was not asking for drug companies to just recoup their R&D budgets. I'm asking for empathy.

I really do not see how it is so hard to balance empathy and profit motivation.

Oh, and I do not blame just the drug companies, there is enough evidence to blame the intellectual property rights system, not just in the US, but also around the world. Lester Thurow has written extensively about IP and how it can be improved, and I agree with many of his points.

You were talking about standard of living, not opportunity. I maintain my original position that the U.S. has more opportunity than any other nation.

No, I used the Human Development Index, which is just that. It encompasses both opportunity and standard of living. Maybe you're talking about opportunity to work only, then yes the United States is the land of opportunity. But look at other opportunities, such as the opportunities to earn a good living, to be safe and secure, to live in peace, and above all be happy. I will not debate the United States is the place of opportunity for employment, but if it's the opportunity to earn a good living and live a good life, then I have to disagree. The opportunity is better in other places because the opportunity to live a good life contains many criteria, and many are listed above.

Currently I have opportunities to work in 5 countries, including the United States. Of that list, the United States is the last.

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

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.

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".)

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

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

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.

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 :mad: ). Yes, my reference was tongue-in-cheek, but the point remains, it's everyone's God-given right to be an asshole.

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.

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.

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!

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.

&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;

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

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.

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.

&lt;/cloaking device&gt;

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

Uh-oh...

Hubris Boy senses the approaching storm, and worries about wear and tear on the switch for the cloaking device.

Well, let's see... rustle rustle rustle freedom of speech... keep and bear arms... unreasonable searches and seizures... cruel and unusual punishments... slavery or involuntary servitude... rustle rustle rustle right to vote... even women!?... liquor- oh, never mind... dead presidents... Hmmm. Okay.

Nope. It's not a right. At least, not in the United States.

&lt;cloaking device&gt;

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
&lt;/cloaking device&gt;



Uh-oh...

Hubris Boy senses the approaching storm, and worries about wear and tear on the switch for the cloaking device.

Well, let's see... rustle rustle rustle freedom of speech... keep and bear arms... unreasonable searches and seizures... cruel and unusual punishments... slavery or involuntary servitude... rustle rustle rustle right to vote... even women!?... liquor- oh, never mind... dead presidents... Hmmm. Okay.

Nope. It's not a right. At least, not in the United States.

&lt;cloaking device&gt;

And again, HB makes his way into my Top Ten Posts of the Cellar. I must have snickered about this for a good 30 seconds. :)

You have the right to care for your health but not the right to order anyone else to care for your health.

Visibly shaken, Hubris Boy snatches the cloaking device out of the wall with both hands and hurls it across the room. Sparking, hissing and trailing wires, it knocks over a cup of something that is almost but not quite completely unlike tea, ricochets off the MkIV Troll Detector(tm) and comes to rest between his magic 8-ball and a blue copy of Programming Perl. He shrugs and settles down in front of the keyboard. This may take a while. No sense wearing out another perfectly good switch.

originally posted by hermit22
The way I see it, the companies provide that good return to their investors by saving lives. That's their primary focus.

Heh. That's why nobody's ever asked you to run a major pharmaceutical company!

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.

Really? What business do you suppose they're in? Cookie & juice distribution?

On the same token, saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa should be important, if only for their potentiality.

Saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa is properly the concern of Africans.

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.

Yes. You have the responsibility to make money, pay your workers, make money, provide your customers with a safe, high-quality product, make money and obey the laws of the state / country in which you're doing business. And make money. Did I mention making money?

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.

Oh? And who gets to decide what that "proper balance" is? You? Me? Remember Mencken's Law: "Whenever A annoys or injures B, on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

A = hermit22
B = the profit-loss statement of any major pharmaceutical company
X = dying Africans

And Saturday is Mencken Day! How appropriate. Thank you, hermit22, for providing us with such an excellent illustration of the timelessness of Mr. Mencken's wisdom!

Now I don't know what distinctions you're talking about.

I was talking about the distinction between a for-profit pharmaceutical company and a non-profit philanthropical organization.

But I hope my distinction is clear.

Mmmmm... no, I think you're still having trouble with the concept. But that's okay. I'm here to help.

Damnit HB...I fucking told you once already to quit drinking that damned harbor water down there.

As I see it, businesses are in the game to do two things:

--Offer a service or product to the consumer
--Make money

If they give too much away, they'll go broke. Not enough, then people start bitching. The ultimate Catch-22.

Hermit, you seem to be operating under the pretense that people by nature are inherently good. Why wouldn't they want to give stuff away? It helps people.

I say people are inherently neutral...toss in a bit of nature, add in a pinch of environment, shake well. It's a crap shoot in the end.

Originally posted by hermit22
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.

So how do you know what the long-term goals of the pharmaceutical companies are? If they gave away their product to hundreds of thousands of people, they may not be able to fund development of the next new drug.

It's easy to look at a company's balance sheet and offer criticisms and comments about how they could be more moral with their money. I bet it's a bit harder when you're actually the CEO.

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.

How is developing drugs "playing with people's lives"? If those companies didn't exist, many many people would die. You make it sound like these companies are directly responsible for people's deaths. No, it's disease that's responsible. Those companies try to turn a profit by developing remedies for those diseases.

If some company develops a revolutionary new way to produce microprocessors, it can charge a high premium for that technology. It took risks to develop it, and it paid off. If a toaster company develops a revolutionary new way to toast bread evenly, it can charge a high premuim for that technology. Again, it took risks and now gets the reward of those risks.

But because a company happens to develop drugs instead of toasters, it should be required to give up whatever profits some liberal free-healthcare advocate considers "more than enough"?

Why is it that liberals are always so quick to spend other people's money? So you're putting yourself through college, that's great. Do you mean to tell me that you have no luxury or entertainment items whatsoever? No color TV, no video games, no refreigerator, no name-brand cereal? That extra fifty cents you spend on Cheerios instead of Oati-o's could have bought some poor African kid cough syrup for a day.

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.
Really? What business do you suppose they're in? Cookie & juice distribution?

Perhaps you missed the whole business angle.

On the same token, saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa should be important, if only for their potentiality.

Saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa is properly the concern of Africans.

Talk about short-sighted. I don't want to go into rhetoric mode, but I will remind you of the idea that what goes on in the rest of the world is important in this country. I would hope that on today, of all days, that lesson would be obvious. It is our concern - but that does not prelude action from Africans. It's the responsible citizen outlook. When you claw your way to the top, you do so (often unintentionally) on the backs of those who don't make it. At that point, it is your responsibility to assist those who haven't been able to make it as far as you. This doesn't mean you have to give up all your posessions and status, just that you have to make an honest effort. It goes for countries, businesses and people. Unfortunately, people forget about this, or ignore it - which is understandable; the natural human instinct is to ensure your own survival (and I mean that in a status sense), even to the point that the idea of non-survival is ludicrous.

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.
Yes. You have the responsibility to make money, pay your workers, make money, provide your customers with a safe, high-quality product, make money and obey the laws of the state / country in which you're doing business. And make money. Did I mention making money?

I'm not suggesting that we take away anyone's right to make money. I'm talking about being a socially conscious business, which, especially in today's neo-laissez-faire outlook, many corporations and their executives ignore.

Oh? And who gets to decide what that "proper balance" is? You? Me? Remember Mencken's Law: "Whenever A annoys or injures B, on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

A = hermit22
B = the profit-loss statement of any major pharmaceutical company
X = dying Africans

And Saturday is Mencken Day! How appropriate. Thank you, hermit22, for providing us with such an excellent illustration of the timelessness of Mr. Mencken's wisdom!

Haha! I must say this truly cracked me up. I honestly don't know much about Mencken, but this seems like a crackpot formula. How's this one for you:

A = pharmaceutical company CEO
B = dying Africans
X = the profit-loss statement of any major pharmaceutical company

See how ridiculous it sounds from that angle?

If they give too much away, they'll go broke. Not enough, then people start bitching. The ultimate Catch-22.

Yep. Sucks to be them. But they knew about the risks when they got into the business. And I don't want to hear about how that's a different standard - it is different. The poor and disadvantaged are not in the same position as the wealthy and affluent.

Hermit, you seem to be operating under the pretense that people by nature are inherently good. Why wouldn't they want to give stuff away? It helps people.

I say people are inherently neutral...toss in a bit of nature, add in a pinch of environment, shake well. It's a crap shoot in the end.

I'd like to think people are inherently good, but the world tells me differently. I like your analogy though.

It's easy to look at a company's balance sheet and offer criticisms and comments about how they could be more moral with their money.

But that's really all you have to go off of. The government looks at balance sheets to determine taxes - so how is this different?

Obviously, you don't just look at balance sheets though. You look at their actions as well. For example, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd joined the WHO to set up guidelines for countries to use in distributing anti-retroviral drugs to their citizens. (http://www.who.int/HIV_AIDS/HIV_AIDS_Care/AAIProgressReportJune2002.pdf)

That's admirable. And I know that things like this go on. I've spent a good deal of time researching the HIV pandemic, so I'm generally aware of what has been going on as far as donations, etc. go. This also means that I'm aware of the US balking at the (already signed) TRIPS agreement at the behest of pharmaceutical companies and I understand the level of commitment these companies have toward donations. For example, while the companies listed above are several of the majors, they are in no way representative of the industry.

How is developing drugs "playing with people's lives"? If those companies didn't exist, many many people would die. You make it sound like these companies are directly responsible for people's deaths. No, it's disease that's responsible.

If someone is dying at your feet of a disease that you know how to cure, and you do not do so, then I'd say you're pretty much responsible for that person's death. You're not responsible for that person acquiring the disease in the first place, however, which seems to be what you are referring to.

But because a company happens to develop drugs instead of toasters, it should be required to give up whatever profits some liberal free-healthcare advocate considers "more than enough"?

I'm not saying more than enough. More than enough to what? Here's the way I see it (neglecting the free health care thing, which I'll get to in a minute, and your use of liberal as if it was a dirty word and not a badge of pride): Company A, which is based in country B, finds a drug that will prolong the lives of HIV patients. Country B is full of HIV patients, and the GNP of the country is pretty high, so they can afford to make sure a good proportion of their citizens have access to the drug. Country C, however, has a dismal GNP. So its citizens can't afford the drugs and they die. Suddenly, Company D, based in Country E, which can't afford to help their citizens but does anyway, makes a generic version of the product and tries to distribute it. Country B, where Company A is based, scorns them diplomatically, and pressured Country C with a cut to aid if they try to use the generic drug from D. So they don't, Company A makes money selling to the Country B, and people in Country C die.

Ok, sorry, that was a little confusing. But once you get past that, you might find it a bit disheartening. If either a) companies released their patents earlier on or b) put in more of an effort to supply poorer nations, where diseases strike the worst, with the assets necessary to help their citizens, the world would be just that much better, and I'd have to find something else to bitch about. (water or gross globalization or the environment or some such thing).

On to the health care thing. I'm probably opening up a whole other can of worms here, but....oh well. Yes, I think that basic health care should be available to all. But I think it should be coupled with real welfare and unemployment reform so that the health care isn't taken advantage of. As I see it, universal health care can't work in the present social system we have. It would take a radical restructuring of the system (something along the lines of the New Deal) for it to be effective.

Why is it that liberals are always so quick to spend other people's money? So you're putting yourself through college, that's great. Do you mean to tell me that you have no luxury or entertainment items whatsoever? No color TV, no video games, no refreigerator, no name-brand cereal? That extra fifty cents you spend on Cheerios instead of Oati-o's could have bought some poor African kid cough syrup for a day.

Oh my dear Lord. You know, I feel sorry for the people in Africa, or South Asia, or Indo-China, or anywhere that people are disadvantaged. And it may be hypocritical for me to have a CD addiction (I don't really watch TV, or play too many video games, or eat cereal), but how does that impact the point I'm trying to make? It's shoddy arguing to say that it does. It's like the people who try to say there was something wrong with what the Founders said because they were racist slaveowners. Big friggin' deal. What's important is their point, not their lifestyle. That doesn't mean I don't try, and that I don't respect people who put in an effort to contribute to the world around them. My problem is with the greed (which comes from our society) that makes people live way more than extravagance dictates and then give back either nothing or a paltry tidbit to assist those in need.

I realize that that greed drives capitalism. That's the whole point of it. And I'm wary of the government interfering. But when no one else will, that's its responsibility.

Originally posted by hermit22
And it may be hypocritical for me to have a CD addiction (I don't really watch TV, or play too many video games, or eat cereal), but how does that impact the point I'm trying to make?

Because it's simply the same behavior on a different scale. Before pointing fingers at others for doing the exact same thing, you should be willing to do make changes yourself.

But as you seem to be willing to admit, giving away what you've worked hard to earn, regardless of how needy others may be, can sometimes be a hard thing to do. Not only because people like money, but they also never know what the future will bring.

I realize that that greed drives capitalism.

That's good, because that's the point I was initially trying to make. If governments forced companies to give up their intellectual property as you're suggesting, those companies would no longer have an incentive to develop that technology in the first place.

You simply can't take people's stuff, whether that stuff is CD's or money or a patented process on making an AIDS drug, and pretend they'll just say "oh well, the government keeps taking my stuff, what a bummer."

No, that's not how it works. They find new ways to get stuff, or they try to get different stuff. You can't tell a drug company "any miracle drug you develop, you must donate at a 90% discount to these millions of starving Africans" and hope that they'll just keep on developing miracle drugs.

If the price of CD's were suddenly raised to $50 each, with $35 of that going to feed poor third world countries, you'd either stop buying as many CD's, or you'd start pirating MP3's, or you'd find a different hobby. If you similarly try to increase the cost of being in the drug business, those companies would find loopholes, close up shop, or most likely find some other business to get into.

Originally posted by Tobiasly

That's good, because that's the point I was initially trying to make. If governments forced companies to give up their intellectual property as you're suggesting, those companies would no longer have an incentive to develop that technology in the first place.

You simply can't take people's stuff, whether that stuff is CD's or money or a patented process on making an AIDS drug, and pretend they'll just say "oh well, the government keeps taking my stuff, what a bummer."

No, that's not how it works. They find new ways to get stuff, or they try to get different stuff. You can't tell a drug company "any miracle drug you develop, you must donate at a 90% discount to these millions of starving Africans" and hope that they'll just keep on developing miracle drugs.

If the price of CD's were suddenly raised to $50 each, with $35 of that going to feed poor third world countries, you'd either stop buying as many CD's, or you'd start pirating MP3's, or you'd find a different hobby. If you similarly try to increase the cost of being in the drug business, those companies would find loopholes, close up shop, or most likely find some other business to get into.

You speak as if I make no changes, or that I live like some high on his rocker gross consumer. The best analogy I can think of is the Simpsons episode where they're caravanning West and Homer kills all the buffalo. I'm obviously nothing like that. I live as marginally as I can - but I still participate in the culture I live in. It would be ludicrous not to.

As for the patented process of making an AIDS drug - I'd have to say most of the international community
disagrees
with you (see Sections 2 and 3). They (and, theoretically, the US, since I do believe we're a sponsor of that treaty) recognise that the human condition should be preserved. What I disagree with is the US's sudden reversal on the subject.

I don't think the discouragement would be as drastic as you surmise. These companies can still make a ton of money in the business. But then again, I'm for the government subsidy of this kind of r&d.

Originally posted by hermit22
As for the patented process of making an AIDS drug - I'd have to say most of the international community
disagrees with you (see Sections 2 and 3). They (and, theoretically, the US, since I do believe we're a sponsor of that treaty) recognise that the human condition should be preserved.

First of all, what "most of the international community" thinks is irrelevant. And the language in the treaty you link to says "members <I>may exclude</I> from patentability" those various products. Nowhere does it say that "patents were not valid when the product would save people's lives", as you've repeatedly tried to claim here.

But that's not even the point I'm trying to make. Regardless of whether disallowing patents on life-saving drugs should be done, you seem to completely dismiss the effect it would have on whether companies would continue to invest in developing drugs. How do you know they could "still make a ton of money"? How do you know the full impact that such a law would have -- on that company's investors, on their cashflow, on their budget priorities? You can't double the cost a company incurs in marketing a product and just hope they'll keep on doing it.

As I've said already, if such a law were passed, companies wouldn't simply roll over and take it. They'd find new ways to make money.

A very interesting thread. I suppose almost every ideology or philosophy has something to offer, even the most ludicrous on the surface, as they contribute to the great debate on how to live.

I for one, having considered several, cannot see anything to match a fundamentaly liberal ideology, or libertarian to be precise.

My problem with communism and socialism is that it goes against the grain of human nature in my opinion. There is a tendency for (to use a well known argument) people to plunder what resources are available as this is more attractive than labouring. Thus to put this in context, many people plunder the social welfare systems within their nations as it beats working for a living. Many immigrants attempt to enter other nations to plunder the welfare programs. Many plunder others by robbery and theft. The poor generally think the rich should be plundered to provide for those economically below them. Goverments plunder the population to provide unnecessary welfare to those who should be providing for themselves. The list goes on.


That is it in a nutshell against communism. Too many lazy sods wanting something for nothing, by not rewarding the hard workers and redistributing their endeavours amongst the others.

This atitude has however crept into the pseudo capitalistic framework in which we live today. It is hard to find an example where the hardest working and highest earning are rewarded for their success rather than being exploited as is the norm.

The problem stems primarily from big goverment.
Big goverment means big tax and the collection of intrusions against the individual which unfortunately we see today.

I cannot comprehend why someone who is taxed at say the basic rate up to a marginal band, is then suddenly introduced to a penal increase in his tax liabilty which only leads to a demotivation to work harder.


For me, goverment should be there to provide protection for the people who elected it and not much more than that. Defence/Security and basic infrastructure(roads) are really all that is needed to provide a safe and fertile economic and social setting. Anything more than this impinges on the freedom of the individual.

How many immigrants would we see breaching national borders if the target nation suddenly withdrew ALL welfare. Those who were unable to physically look after themselves like orphans or disabled individuals would be cared by philanthropists. The problem would be cured immediately. A generation of labourers and self starters would be created as nothing else would survive.

People would provide for their own healthcare, housing, economic and social needs. Those who worked hard/smart would be rewarded as opposed to penalised.

Individuals would enter into financial agreements to provide access to services which they do not have but desire. Very much like a capitalism without the federal handcuffs.

As long as there are goverments willing to play for votes amongst those who want it all for nothing, then that is exactly what we will perpetuate. We give all but get nothing in return. Minimal goverment equals minimal taxation.

> How many immigrants would we see breaching
> national borders if the target nation suddenly
> withdrew ALL welfare.

The US did that in 1995 or so.

You would not know this by looking at the numbers of immigrants to the US, which has very steadily risen for many many years.

The US economy can absorb all comers. In today's Philly Inquirer there's a story about how Atlantic City suddenly needs 10,000 workers.

Also, it looks like about half of immigration is brain-drain from places like the UK, Germany, Japan, and Canada.

The US economy can absorb all comers. In today's Philly Inquirer there's a story about how Atlantic City suddenly needs 10,000 workers.

This is great imho. Immigration for people who Want to work is fine, unfortunately the case in Wester Europe is immigration for welfare.

Originally posted by Tobiasly

First of all, what "most of the international community" thinks is irrelevant. And the language in the treaty you link to says "members <I>may exclude</I> from patentability" those various products. Nowhere does it say that "patents were not valid when the product would save people's lives", as you've repeatedly tried to claim here.

Wow...have you even read what I've said? My basic argument is that it's greedy and wrong for companies to rake in millions in profit because the prices of their drugs are too high for the poorest people, who need them most, to gain access to them. I think government subsidies are the best remedy to this.

Now, back to the treaty. Our country has gone back on this treaty by threatening countries who adhere to that clause, and allow companies to make generic versions of these drugs.

But that's not even the point I'm trying to make. Regardless of whether disallowing patents on life-saving drugs should be done, you seem to completely dismiss the effect it would have on whether companies would continue to invest in developing drugs. How do you know they could "still make a ton of money"? How do you know the full impact that such a law would have -- on that company's investors, on their cashflow, on their budget priorities? You can't double the cost a company incurs in marketing a product and just hope they'll keep on doing it.

As I've said already, if such a law were passed, companies wouldn't simply roll over and take it. They'd find new ways to make money.

Who says this will double it? You're dealing in extremes. I'd venture to say that the cut wouldn't be enough to really cut into their bottom line. Most of the proposals out there would use private donations to pay for the cost of the drug for the absolute bottom of the barrel poor and ask the companies to donate the rest. I just think it's idiotic to let famine or pestilence ravage an entire region just because it's far away and out of sight. This leads to resentment - and resentment, with a little bit of craze (ok, a lot) sprinkled in, leads to things like terrorism.
And I have no problem with them making money. The right to the pursuit of happiness is one of our basic tenets.

Ok, onto what Socrates said. My only concern with your comments is that often the hardest working aren't the highest earning. They get exploited, which then leads to theories like communism.

The problem with pure libertarianism is that there are no checks to halt the explotiation of the hardest working. You also focus entirely on social welfare programs, ignoring the flipside - corporate welfare. Special contracts, tax breaks, lucrative deals, etc. ad infinitum are really no different than the social programs - except that instead of trying to redistribute the wealth more equally, which is the intent of social welfare, these programs attempt to keep the wealth in one place. Which is just as much of a de-motivator (if not more). If you can't break through the ceiling, then why bother?

Ok, enough with that rant. I love doing this. I could argue politics/theory for days with a smile on my face.

You also focus entirely on social welfare programs, ignoring the flipside - corporate welfare. Special contracts, tax breaks, lucrative deals, etc. ad infinitum are really no different than the social programs - except that instead of trying to redistribute the wealth more equally, which is the intent of social welfare, these programs attempt to keep the wealth in one place. Which is just as much of a de-motivator (if not more)

I agree of course. My post was not exhaustive and I barely scratched the surface.
Corporate welfare is just as dehabilitating as personal welfare imho. Tax subsidies to farmers, lease/rent incentives to corporations from goverment etc all merge to distort the market, which can really only operate and find equilibrium if it is left to operate without intervention and interference.

As far as the hardest working being the often the moist exploited then I suppose that would be down to the choice of the individual and how one defines 'hardest working'.
I have and do know many grafters who work every muscle in their body bar the one between their ears. The beauty of real freedom is real freedom.The freedom of choice.

Originally posted by hermit22


The problem with pure libertarianism is that there are no checks to halt the explotiation of the hardest working. You also focus entirely on social welfare programs, ignoring the flipside - corporate welfare. Special contracts, tax breaks, lucrative deals, etc. ad infinitum are really no different than the social programs - except that instead of trying to redistribute the wealth more equally, which is the intent of social welfare, these programs attempt to keep the wealth in one place. Which is just as much of a de-motivator (if not more).

Little of that has anything to do with "pure" libertarianism. Corporate welfare, which, arguably, includes the drug subsidy you propose, is not libertarian. What you describe are the natural outcomes of a mixed economy. We intervened for farmers and consumers, destroying the market in agriculture. We intervened for health providers and the sick, destroying Americas health care system (leaving aside Nixons wage and price controls). These interventions cause disruptions, such as the concentration in agriculture, which lead to more political power and more subsidies. In my rural township, we have exactly one remaining dairy farm. He happens to be the single worst farmer in the area, but he knows how to play the gov subsidy game so he continues.

I had a convoluted dream last night that I was able to stick it to subsidized corporate farmer Ted Turner last night, weird.

Originally posted by Griff


Little of that has anything to do with "pure" libertarianism. Corporate welfare, which, arguably, includes the drug subsidy you propose, is not libertarian.

I think it's a mix of social and corporate welfare.

What you describe are the natural outcomes of a mixed economy. We intervened for farmers and consumers, destroying the market in agriculture. We intervened for health providers and the sick, destroying Americas health care system (leaving aside Nixons wage and price controls). These interventions cause disruptions, such as the concentration in agriculture, which lead to more political power and more subsidies. In my rural township, we have exactly one remaining dairy farm. He happens to be the single worst farmer in the area, but he knows how to play the gov subsidy game so he continues.

I had a convoluted dream last night that I was able to stick it to subsidized corporate farmer Ted Turner last night, weird.

Heh, that's a great dream. As someone from a rural area, did you or your relatives, friends, etc. find advantages to the farm subsidies? I mean, I understand the practical reasons why they were first imagined up, but I'm curious if they had the intended effects, or if all the ones getting aid are like the dairy farmer you described.

Heh heh, I woke up feeling all smug then gave myself a wtf?

We'd be hard pressed to find any farm operation of significant size thats not getting Federal payments for something. I'd guess the most universal subsidy is for crop failure which really should be a private insurance issue. Heres a site we've had fun with before on the Cellar. You can look up particular areas and see who is being subsidized there.EWG

My cousin and uncle are dairymen who do a lot of different things like running a sawmill and finding other uses for their equipment so its not idle which keeps the farm profitable. They received a payment not long after my cousin took over the books but there seems to be a growing feeling that the subsidies are counter-productive, of course knowing my politics, they may be editing a bit when I'm the one they're talking to. ;)

The subsidies early on were probably intended to slow or stop farm consolidation by keeping small farms solvent during the rush to mechanize, when labor was at a premium because of the draft. Unfortunately, the small "backward" farms were the least likely to seek these payments since they probably weren't educated enough to play the system. Many farmers who failed to modernize did so because they feared debt payments which really aren't compatible with the vagaries of natural events like drought. Because of the constant war demand, many farmers of my grandfathers generation ran dairies right up to the 70's with only minimal equipment, until the creameries demanded bulk tanks and a minimum size herds as demand for milk sank to peacetime levels.

I have a friend at the Dept of Ag who explained to me that the departments often conflicting goals are not really supportive of agriculture in the hill country where I live. The department policy line is that the farms here are not enviromentally sustainable. They have a point when it comes to run off etc. from conventional (ouch the Mrs. just gave me taste of her fresh from the garden salsa) farming but the DoA isn't all that friendly to unconventional operations.