This is why capitalism sucks

[CIVPhilzilla]

Not really, if my friend (a big movie buff) has already purchased it. I admit, I rarely see movies in theatres (havn't seen one in years), and never on TV, but on a rare occasion I watch one at my friends house, although, I still feel a little guilty. Maybe you could tie the two togehter, because it is a product from a huge corporation, and the product has little need in society, (but at his house I watch it on the computer, since his monitor is about as big as his TV) but it's not too bad. I can't be perfect.

While I have a very, very different philosophy than you. I do admire your conviction behind what you belive, something that seems to be lost with most people.

 

[tomsnowman123]

While I have a very, very different philosophy than you. I do admire your conviction behind what you belive, something that seems to be lost with most people.

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that.

 

[Bootstoots]

So tomsnowman, how exactly do you develop the industry and infrastructure required to produce, say, new drugs and other goods that benefit humanity, given a cap of around 2000 people per village? In my view, it'd be essentially impossible to get enough out of such a village to prevent lack of supply. And to be more broad, how can you make your society work without slowing the pace of technological advance?

On a related note, do you see anything intrinsically wrong with turning a profit off of helping others in need? That's basically what pharmaceutical companies do, and it doesn't seem to work poorly compared to any alternatives we've seen.

 

[amadeus]

How about localized prodcution, not global corporations.

"With catchy phrases and heavy quotations,
And everybody is crazy but you."​

 

[aneeshm]

This is just a matter of time . Within the next fifty years , drugs to suppress , if not cure , all major diseases will be developed ( assuming the same exponential research in the drug market that is going on now ) . Within another few decades , they will all fall in the public domain . Then any generic company can make it , and prices will totally plummet . This is starting to happen even now , as many drugs fall into the public domain .

 

[Rambuchan]

It's very nice and self-cogratulatory to deplore the attitude of drug companies wanting to make a profit while people are suffering. But let's think things through instead of taking such a simplist approach to a complex question.

OK, sounds like a good idea.

Someone earlier in the thread stated that "executives don't find the cure for colon cancer". As a matter of fact they do, in a way. Breaking-edge medical research is very expensive. Developing a new drug may cost millions of dollars and require years of effort. The only reason why there is such money invested in research (and hence the only reason why there are so many new drugs) is because investors are willing to place it there. The thing is, investors don't have a God-given mission to cure colon cancer. If they are investing they expect some return, and it's very fair since their money made the discovery possible in the first place. Nobody is forced to buy the medicine. If this corporation didn't exist so wouldn't the medicine. Would this make you guys feel better?

Fallacies bolded by me.

You are basically saying that only a capitalist system produces drugs, when that is clearly not the case. Human beings have been making medicines for millennia, with or without capitalism, with or without investors - and without the profit imperative.

Sure, it's expensive to produce effective drugs, but you do not need people with a spare buck or two seeking a return to realise those medicines.

Think of Penicillin. Think of Ayurvedic medicine. Think of the advances made by Muslim scholars of medicine in the early middle ages. Think of innoculations for Small Pox.

Where's the corporation in all these cases?

If this newspaper or anyone else in this thread is filling particularly outraged at the behaviour of the corporation, than I invite them to give away their money to buy colon cancer medicine or to develop a new, open patent one.

My point exatly. What's my incentive to help save people from fatal diseases? If there's no profit to be made, why should I bother?

 

[classical_hero]

Capitalism is still not good, imo.

this is just a question, but what is your profession?

 

[Kozmos]

this is just a question, but what is your profession?

Why a worker of the revolution! FOR THE PARTY!

 

[JerichoHill]

...

You all know what I would say.
Look, capitalism ain't perfect, but we wouldn't have advanced as far as we have without it. Sorry folks, but having markets where money from Joe Schmo's like us can be pooled and used for big investment projects (new lines of stuff) is something that you can't do in small communities.

Not to mention that some areas of the world just have more of somethign in it, or enjoy some sort of advantage. It is stupid to not use those advantages.

Economics is not a difficult subject people...

 

[Joker85]

Yes, down with Capitalism. To prove my disdain for said Capitalism, I'm going to sit on the internet forums for a video game complaining about it all day. That will show them. I don't really know who them is. But there is a them. And whoever they are. This will show them.

DOWN WITH CAPITALISM.

UP WITH WORKERS!!!

 

[Rambuchan]

What really creases me up is the parodies that are made of those who point out capitalism's flaws. If people think there's something that needs fixing with this system, they all instantly become Bolsheviks. How asking for a bit more of a benevolent incentive built into the system makes one a comrade in arms must only be known to those who fling such comments. There are several alternatives / fixes that have been stated here and in other threads, yet folk instantly reach for the Bolshevik line. *sigh*

 

[JerichoHill]

@@Ram

I've yet to see a poster with a more socialist slant propose a system that would actually work in the world as it exists today.

However, I can propose a solution that would work, in the American economy as it exists today, that would bring drugs quicker to the market under which the system has benefits > cost.

This solution is a random government buyout of patents. E.G. Say there are 100 drug patents given out every year (let's assume that all patents are on drugs that proven to work, and that a patent gives exclusive production rights for 10 years). (aside: patents are a good thing in this market economy)

Medical companies can bid on the patent rights to a drug. The one that bids the most wins the patent at the price of the 2nd highest bidder (there are statistical, economical, and theoretical reasons behind this I could write 50 pages on, please trust me). After the winning bid is found, a computer program randomly checks to see if the government will buy out the patent and this check hits x% of the time (give the company which developed the drug the 2nd highest bid amount+ some measure of economic profit, say average return in the particular drug industry) and put the patent into the public domain (ie. make it generic).

The net effect in the simplistic way that I stated this plan would be for the taxpayers to pay upfront for the drug, but enjoy the benefits for 10 years more than otherwise.

Overall, there is no net loss to the economy through this governmental action, in fact there is a net benefit due to the time factor.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=423
See: Kremer

(Author takes all responsible for any misinformation in his summary above..tried to paraphrase the best I could)

 

[Richard Cribb]

Look, capitalism ain't perfect, but we wouldn't have advanced as far as we have without it.

While contrafactual history is bunk, I for one am not so convinced about that. Of course, it depends on who "we" are.
Anyway, the argument is not very convincing and certainly not new. In his Politics, Aristotle makes pretty much the same argument about the slave society. That a political and social system was progressive when it was new, doesn't mean that it will not cease to be relevant when progress is made.

Economics is not a difficult subject people...

Oh it is tricky enough. But that is of course, if we remember that it is, just like some other academic disiplines, not value-free.

What really creases me up is the parodies that are made of those who point out capitalism's flaws. If people think there's something that needs fixing with this system, they all instantly become Bolsheviks. How asking for a bit more of a benevolent incentive built into the system makes one a comrade in arms must only be known to those who fling such comments. There are several alternatives / fixes that have been stated here and in other threads, yet folk instantly reach for the Bolshevik line. *sigh*

Yes it is annoying, I even have an anarchist FAQ in my sig, and still people call me such things...
There could be many reasons for this pitiful phenomena, such as:
- Lack of political culture
- Insufficient knowledge about political ideologies
- Rhetorics for self-serving purposes
- A combination of the three listed above
The ironical about it is that the fanboys of capitalism has more in common with the Bolsheviks than the people they are slinging mud at. Keeping the rabble in line, manufacturing consent, the idea that you need a privileged elite to rule the bewildered herd, be it the "entrepreneurs" or the"vanguard party".

I've yet to see a poster with a more socialist slant propose a system that would actually work in the world as it exists today.

Perhaps because "actually work" a priori excludes a more "socialist slant"?

 

[Kozmos]

Yes it is annoying, I even have an anarchist FAQ in my sig, and still people call me such things...

That aint anarchism.....that's sissy anarchism. I hoped your link would be that sweet guide I found years ago on how to manufacture bomb from all kinds of materials and do evil crap in general.

 

[Eukaryote]

There's a problem with every econimic system and the solution is always the same:

Get an amazing leader, in touch with the feelings of people, morals, and logic to step in. He or she must also not afraid to make difficult chioces or think outside the box. That's how the world's problems get solved.

 

[tomsnowman123]

this is just a question, but what is your profession?

Student.

Now I am going to be slammed for being naive and young, but whatever.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Student.

Now I am going to be slammed for being naive and young, but whatever.

high school or college?

 

[tomsnowman123]

high school or college?

Going to be a senior in high school.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Going to be a senior in high school.

I'm in the same boat.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

from The Guardian


This is simply appalling. This is why healthcare should have no place for goddamned market forces.

I always note your posts with suspicion because they often turn out to be wrong somehow. With this in mind, I investigated this article in The Guardian.

As I suspected, the article is misleading on several counts.

First, it presents old news as new news. This is actually common in the news media when it reports medical news. This article was first published on Oct 17, 2005 on WebMD. Interestingly, The Guardian reported the exact same scenario on June 17, 2006 as had been reported in Oct 17, 2005, even though you would think something had changed by now. This leads me to suspect it's a regurgitation, with no effort at investigating the facts. (I just noticed that it's even at the same day of the month, which makes it even more suspicious.)

Second, the article suggests that Lucentis and Avastin are largely the same drug, when in fact they're not. It also implies that the drug company alone, Genentech, is responsible for attempting to withold the drug for ophthalmologic use when in fact, their concern of its safety is repeated by many ophthalmologic authorities, none of which are connected to pharmaceutical corporations.

Third, the article suggests that Genentech's request to avoid the use of Avastin for use in macular degeneration should be heeded. Doctors are not bound by a drug company's request to do anything. They are free to use any drug in any way they see appropriate, including "off label" use, which is what has been done with Avastin this whole time. As long as the drug is approved for use by the FDA for anything, and the doctor can justify its role by reasoning, it can be used. I'm pretty sure it works the same way in England. So whether Genentech gets anything it wants or not, it doesn't matter! Ophthalmologists will still use what they want. What's more is that there's nothing stopping anyone from launching a randomized double-blinded (no pun intended) clinical trial to compare Avastin to other treatments, even if they aren't the owners of any of the treatments. This happens all the time. It's a myth that only drug companies can undertake clinical trials. The only thing that the drug companies are able to afford that others may not is the research to come up with the drug in the first place, but not just to test it.

Fourth, the article complete ignores the fact that there are other, similar drugs, available for use.