This is why capitalism sucks

[Sidhe]

Lol, Sidhe.

Ok, let us for a moment assume that all of the people here arguing for capitalism are wrong and you are right. Given that can you come up with a system that is better than what we have and also meet the following? (because the current system does meet them)

• Be able to invest speculatively hundreds of millions of dollars in new drugs
• Come up with a few winners in those hundreds of millions and n number of trials
• Still be able to sustain itself indefinitely
• Create wealth for people
• Still treat millions (granted not as many as you want but it is undeniable that drugs do treat millions)
• Yet does not kill too many owing to bad medicine
• In the process advance medical and biological sciences
• Provide some money (you may call it pittance and arguably it is not too much - can be much more) for impoverished people
• and last but not least have the potential to treat not the millions in US and Europe (which is easy) but the billions in India and China (which is hard)

I have a feeling that if you do come up with a workable system it will have all the essential elements of a capitalistic system. Try it out and see how many systems that you come up with meet the above criteria (especially the 3rd and the last).

Avastin would answer all those questions in this case, and I'm not sure the system is wrong per se, this is just wangling light out of a loss by using tricksey tactics, I'm assuming it will be withdrawn for use as an eye treatment due to lack of testing though. But light at the end of the tunnel is probably that many countries will just claim it is for use in treating colon cancer, thus bypassing the idiots. I still can't get around the fact that if a drug looks like it's going to lose money because of an unforseen fluke treatment, you then have to recoup your losses by playing used car salesman, that's the fundemental problem I have, this is immoral crap whichever way you want to slide the rules. As I said though you don't and won't acknowledge the imorality of the act itself instead prefering to hide behind capatalist dogma, because of course this company couldn't afford to make a loss, it's struggling and almost on it's knees, it would be more horrific to lose money than let people go blind? OK I've busted my sarcasm meter, you guys are funny, go raise a flag to capatalism and shrug of your morals if you like, no matter to me.

 

[amadeus]

Because you're a 35-years old with ten years of working experience, perhaps ?

Is this going to be another one of those "you can't judge the poor unless you are poor" arguments? If you want to have that discussion, I will bury you.

My personal economic situation has very little to do with fighting off the failures of Marxism.

 

[ComradeDavo]

CIA World Factbook:

Real GDP Per Capita

United States $ 41,800 2005 est.
European Union $ 28,100 2005 est.

You know those figures for the US are horriablly distorted by rich millionaires?

Plus the E.U. now includes Eastern European countries who take the figure down because they are still trying to develop after the cold war. If you look at the already developed Western European countries, you'll see example sof wealfare states doing well for their citizens.

 

[betazed]

Avastin would answer all those questions in this case, and I'm not sure the system is wrong per se, this is just wangling light out of a loss by using tricksey tactics, I'm assuming it will be withdrawn for use as an eye treatment due to lack of testing though. But light at the end of the tunnel is probably that many countries will just claim it is for use in treating colon cancer, thus bypassing the idiots. I still can't get around the fact that if a drug looks like it's going to lose money because of an unforseen fluke treatment, you then have to recoup your losses by playing used car salesman, that's the fundemental problem I have, this is immoral crap whichever way you want to slide the rules. As I said though you don't and won't acknowledge the imorality of the act itself instead prefering to hide behind capatalist dogma, because of course this company couldn't afford to make a loss, it's struggling and almost on it's knees, it would be more horrific to lose money than let people go blind? OK I've busted my sarcasm meter, you guys are funny, go raise a flag to capatalism and shrug of your morals if you like, no matter to me.

Sidhe, I am hardly passing a judgement on whether this thing of that is moral or immoral (what is moral and what is not is a rather dubious question anyway, but that is grist for another mill).

Rather, I am asking you to come up with a system that you think would be moral and still meet all the criteria that I have outlined in its full generality (and not just one off cases).

Till you can, you have to live with what you think is immoral. Too bad; but the world isn't perfect.

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe, I am hardly passing a judgement on whether this thing of that is moral or immoral (what is moral and what is not is a rather dubious question anyway, but that is grist for another mill).

Rather, I am asking you to come up with a system that you think would be moral and still meet all the criteria that I have outlined in its full generality (and not just one off cases).

Till you can, you have to live with what you think is immoral. Too bad; but the world isn't perfect.

And I'm not interested in coming up with good capatalist systems for you, that sort of thing is about as interesting or usefull to me as figuring out ways to put King Kong on the moon. Do your own economics homework

All I care about is people who will be effected in this situation, the rest is a side issue.

 

[betazed]

And I'm not interested in coming up with good capatalist systems for you, that sort of thing is about as interesting or usefull to me as figuring out ways to put King Kong on the moon. Do your own economics homework

All I care about is people who will be effected in this situation, the rest is a side issue.

Ah! and here I was thinking that you were interested in understanding the issue instead of just venting about particular details of an isolated incident...

 

[Sidhe]

Ah! and here I was thinking that you were interested in understanding the issue instead of just venting about particular details of an isolated incident...

I understand the details, I did read the OP, I came to the conclusion it was wrong and since then the details have been less significant and have already been laid out in spades, I'm pretty much consistantly going to look at it from my angle unless someone convinces me that there is reason to do otherwise, what I don't want to understand in case you missed it is how we can make this system work, who cares, just follow some principles and keep your conscience clean and it wont bother me exactly what the details are.

Nice try betazed but I don't have an economist bone in my entire body, I understand companies have to make money, I don't think in this instance losing a few quid is that bad a deal, I'm weighing the moral pros and cons against the orignal post with an understanding of the economics, your fiddling with a calculator an hoping to come up with a system that works. I guess that's where we differ you care more about capatalist intracacies than I ever could. More in this world than money, forgive my disinterest.

 

[ArneHD]

I played the morality game. It was fun, albeit unrealistic. I don't have my results because Explorer crashed right after I took it. I think I had something like 63% parsimony. I also had something like a 37% geographic morality (I regard people closer to me as being owed more morally from me), which was lower than average.

I think tests like these are pretty silly because they don't address moral problems that actually occur in real life. In reality, most dilemmas are a matter of probability, not certainty. This is to say nothing of some scenarios simply being so unrealistic as to be impossible to happen. For example, one question said "if you could kill 10 people to allow 1000 to live, would you?" When has this ever happened?

It is not meant to happen, rahter, to see what your decision in such an event would be. Also, if you could donate 10£ to restore someones sight, but do not, are you responsible for that person being blind? Yes, you are in my oppinion.

 

[Akka]

Is this going to be another one of those "you can't judge the poor unless you are poor" arguments? If you want to have that discussion, I will bury you.

My personal economic situation has very little to do with fighting off the failures of Marxism.

The only thing under which you'll bury me is your misplaced arrogance.

You're acting condescending about someone because he's supposedly a "teenage socialist with rich parent".
Well, you're neither much more experienced, neither much more aged than him, so you're simply ridiculous with your condescending dismissing of his opinion due to his situation.

 

[Mr. Do]

It is not meant to happen, rahter, to see what your decision in such an event would be. Also, if you could donate 10£ to restore someones sight, but do not, are you responsible for that person being blind? Yes, you are in my oppinion.

So roughly how many starving Africans' deaths (that could've been avoided with a donation from yourself) do you consider yourself personally responsible for, then?

 

[betazed]

I guess we can agree to disagree but my essential point was precisely against the following argument...

<snip> just follow some principles and keep your conscience clean and it wont bother me exactly what the details are.
<snip>

Easier said than done.

You see, you are not the first and certainly not the last in this forum to rail against instances of injustice and immorality of capitalism in general or special. Also, I hope you understand that many people over here (those you would call flag-bearers of capitalism - and I certainly would be one of them) do understand capitalism's limitations and do understand that it should (must?) be possible to better it. What seems curious to me (and I guess others of my ilk) is that when asked to better it none of the criticizers have ever come up with a better alternative. So hopefully next time you criticize (which you should whenever you see a limitation in anything) try also to offer an alternative. Most of us already know all the criticisms. Its the solutions that would really be interesting to discuss.

 

[Richard Cribb]

You see, you are not the first and certainly not the last in this forum to rail against instances of injustice and immorality of capitalism in general or special.

I certainly hope that is the case, if not my days here will be numbered.

Also, I hope you understand that many people over here (those you would call flag-bearers of capitalism - and I certainly would be one of them) do understand capitalism's limitations and do understand that it should (must?) be possible to better it.

Very well.
One key issue then will obviously be: what is meant by "better it"?
Another one would just as obviously be: How serious are those "limitations"? Could it be that it is not the end of history anyway, that we need to widen our horizon?

What seems curious to me (and I guess others of my ilk) is that when asked to better it none of the criticizers have ever come up with a better alternative.

I think your statement is wrong.
I think that people here have indeed offered alternatives, personally I even have a big, bad FAQ in my sig. But again, the problem is that word "better". Better for whom? Better for what?

So hopefully next time you criticize (which you should whenever you see a limitation in anything) try also to offer an alternative. Most of us already know all the criticisms. Its the solutions that would really be interesting to discuss.

I am not all that convinced that most of you know all the criticism, but anyway your request is a good one,
so let's start here.
Click on the link and you will find a suggested alternative to capitalism called Parecon. I can offer other alternatives later, if there is any demand for it.

 

[Urederra]

I hope the Parecon system works better that your link. It is broken, at least for me. You have to remove the word 'link' to make it work.

EDIT: i can reach the page if I remove the word link from the address line. I am using Safari as web browser, so that might be a problem too.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I hope the Parecon system works better that your link. It is broken, at least for me.

It worked when I posted it, but I see that it is indeed broken now. I suppose it is a server problem. Try again a bit later.
EDIT: It works, at least for me, now.

 

[Sidhe]

I guess we can agree to disagree but my essential point was precisely against the following argument...



Easier said than done.

You see, you are not the first and certainly not the last in this forum to rail against instances of injustice and immorality of capitalism in general or special. Also, I hope you understand that many people over here (those you would call flag-bearers of capitalism - and I certainly would be one of them) do understand capitalism's limitations and do understand that it should (must?) be possible to better it. What seems curious to me (and I guess others of my ilk) is that when asked to better it none of the criticizers have ever come up with a better alternative. So hopefully next time you criticize (which you should whenever you see a limitation in anything) try also to offer an alternative. Most of us already know all the criticisms. Its the solutions that would really be interesting to discuss.

Sure perhaps in the US it's the inability to lose money gracefully that holds back your system, maybe people just focus to hard on the prize and miss the bodies they leave in their wake. I don't see a problem with the system provided the governement can step in when major injustices happen, then it should work fine or as well as it's going to. Personally I find the pursuit of money to be unfulfilling to me, enough is well enough, why have more than you need? Also it's kind of like democracy, it's the worst system excepting all the rest. I'm sure I could turn my thoughts to improving the system if I really wanted to, I just don't really care, I suspect that may be hard for someone like you to understand, money means nothing to me, except as a means to an end.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It is not meant to happen, rahter, to see what your decision in such an event would be. Also, if you could donate 10&#163; to restore someones sight, but do not, are you responsible for that person being blind? Yes, you are in my oppinion.

I regard such questions as worthless if they don't address real moral dilemmas. Theories are nice, but are worthless if they can't be applied.

This question suggests that 10 pounds would cure blindness, which it doesn't. A more realistic scenario would be: would you give 10,000 pounds to let a man have a corneal transplant and cure his blindness, and if not, are you responsible for his blindness? Suddenly, 10,000 pounds seems a bit much, doesn't it?

 

[betazed]

I'm sure I could turn my thoughts to improving the system if I really wanted to, I just don't really care, I suspect that may be hard for someone like you to understand, money means nothing to me, except as a means to an end.

Hilarious. Reminds me why I keep coming back to CFC OT.

 

[Veritass]

I read a couple of the ParEcon articles, even though the site is more like a reference than an introduction. It all sounds fine enough as it is. I can come up with a number of those potential dilemmas without having to work too hard, e.g. (1) What about the relative allocation for one family that chooses to have both parents work, another family that chooses to have one parent work, and a third family that is childless? (2) What do you do with people that are not satisfied with their allocation of "empowering" version "unempowering" work?

Anyway, for any of these plans, if you want to change the world, show the world that the plan works! Create a utopia on a micro scale of 5,000 or 10,000 people and show that it can work. THEN, after you have ironed out a few of the bugs, come back and show what you have learned. I am aware that many such things might work on the micro and not scale to the macro, but I have yet to even see such a project work on the micro level.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

You know those figures for the US are horriablly distorted by rich millionaires?

Plus the E.U. now includes Eastern European countries who take the figure down because they are still trying to develop after the cold war. If you look at the already developed Western European countries, you'll see example sof wealfare states doing well for their citizens.

I also see those same Western countries with slow growth rates and higher unemployment.

 

[Sidhe]

Hilarious. Reminds me why I keep coming back to CFC OT.

It's funny in that you don't understand how someone can be uniterested in capitalism or funny because you find me lacking because I refuse to show interest in solving your problems for you? I've heard arguments like don't mock it untill you can improve it, it doesn't fly, same with democracy if you want to make it better you criticise, you don't necessarily have to come up with some society altering crap to chastise imorality, when somethings wrong it's wrong. What's funny honestly? I guess realising that not everyone in the world gives a damn about getting there hands on as much money as they possibly can and in as little time as possible by any means necessary, I know wierd isn't it? To be honest actually you'll probably find that the US is unique in the number of hardcore capatalists there are, In the UK we take the piss out of our business students because their too thick to do science degrees. It's seen as a soft option. Economics is more statistical but still not in the same neck of the woods as the 3 sciences. In the US it's actually considered a matter of pride to go to business school? Just goes to show, the world is different to what you see in your back yard. Some of us live under capatalism but don't try and pass it off as a God, or important, or worthy of consideration? Why should we, we're happy without the rat race. Give me a lab and a thesis over an office and a heart attack at age 40 any time. Sorry but my minds on higher things? Pity yours isn't.