This is why capitalism sucks

[newfangle]

Senior in high school eh? Well, give it a few years. I know it sounds cliche, but my views took 180 degree turns many times during and after highschool.

 

[amadeus]

Senior in high school eh? Well, give it a few years. I know it sounds cliche, but my views took 180 degree turns many times during and after highschool.

You don't know how right you are. I hate to embarass you, but I just have to repost this. (It's a collection of quotes from 2002.)

IMO welfare capitalism is the only form of capitalism that works. You can't privitize everything.

Communism is very young, and has generally been implemented by psychopathic individuals. Where's the optimism. Why can't it work? I honestly think that people can strip away their filthy layers of greed to better the world, they just have to have their eyes opened a little bit.

marxism is the uber democracy.

Lets just clarify that any country that has adopted communism has always been better off than it was before

Workers rise up!!! Fight your evil oppressors for equality!!!!!

How many years do you give tom, newfangle?

 

[.Shane.]

You don't know how right you are. I hate to embarass you, but I just have to repost this. (It's a collection of quotes from 2002.)

It doesn't stop there. My changes continue to evolve. They didn't set in stone at 20 or 25, etc...

 

[classical_hero]

Student.

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

I was just wondering about your experience. Remember that ideals never work in the real world. Communism in theory should work because everyone has what they need, but in practice it does not. I'm sure when you enter the wokforce you might be surprised by how things actually work, which me to your dismay.

 

[Sidhe]

So what? Are you saying that they're only allowed to recoup costs on successful drugs? What about all the research that ends-up at a dead-end? They certainly don't get returns from drugs that end-up in the incinerator.

How are they exploiting the customers? Are they causing the blindness?

Sorry - but this argument basically boils down to "Oh my god! People are making money by curing disease!"

In what way, since this drug is too expensive to be accesable to any but developed countries, that's a slightly short sight first world inerpritation. I think I explained this, avastin will be withdrawn and any chance of the third or second world using it will be gone, there is no logic in the assumption that profiteering of this nature will cure disease.

All I'm asking for is moral responsibility, sadly it appears that is to much to ask from some businesses.

I see what your saying it's just to hard to make a profit and be a good person right? I've seen plenty of businesses that can do this, why should large companies be absolved from moral responsibility here?

 

[ainwood]

As I read it, there is nothing saying it will be withdrawn; only that it hasn't been approved for use on this eye condition, so the NHS won't fund its use in this manner. Given that 3rd world countries have different standards, what is to stop them continuing to use avastin?

 

[Sidhe]

As I read it, there is nothing saying it will be withdrawn; only that it hasn't been approved for use on this eye condition, so the NHS won't fund its use in this manner. Given that 3rd world countries have different standards, what is to stop them continuing to use avastin?

So why have both drugs when one drug makes you a fortune the other a pittance? Surely they will withdraw it otherwise no one will buy the alternative, England may have to because of it's laws, but many countries do not have such strict guidelines. I see no profit in the suggestion that both drugs will be available at once, therefore I judge they will withdraw it, if it's not the case then there going to make money only out of us and other countries which have strict guidelines. I heartilly disgaree with it anyway on personal principle as a member of a trust with 15 million in debt I really don't need to hear about more financial burden, it's immoral whichever way you look at it. so Mr smith we can't afford the drugs required for your treatment in this trust so unless your willing to pay for it we'll have to let you go blind. First world only is still morally repugnent, and I suspect unless morally ******** practices like this are discouraged, they'll keep on doing it again and again and again ad nauseum.

EDIT: Just thinking it's really like taking an old car painting it and refurbishing it and then trying to sell it for one hundred times the price, used car salesmen par excellence

 

[ainwood]

So why have both drugs when one drug makes you a fortune the other a pittance?

It only makes a pittance when used for treating eyes - its a colon cancer drug, and presumably still profitable when used as such.

 

[Sidhe]

It only makes a pittance when used for treating eyes - its a colon cancer drug, and presumably still profitable when used as such.

How will they stop NHS hospitals from using it to treat eyes, monitor all UK hospitals, why are they going to buy this $1000 version when they can just lie and use the other one, they'll get caught but what exactly can they do about it, refuse to sell avastin? Wierd, perhaps cases of colon cancer in the UK will sky rocket where as cases of macular degeneration will plummet if you know what I mean.

 

[Akka]

Whatever pathetic excuses people use to defend this, it's still criminal.
A system shouldn't take precedence over basic decency. Systems are used to make people's lives better, not the other way around.

 

[ainwood]

How will they stop NHS hospitals from using it to treat eyes, monitor all UK hospitals, why are they going to buy this $1000 version when they can just lie and use the other one, they'll get caught but what exactly can they do about it, refuse to sell avastin? Wierd, perhaps cases of colon cancer in the UK will sky rocket where as cases of macular degeneration will plummet if you know what I mean.

The NHS won't use it unless its approved by their licencing board.

I would imagine that doctors using medicines for unapproved purposes would result in dismissal, and probably being struck-off as well.

 

[Rambuchan]

@@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.

It happens from time to time and there are plenty of examples on threads in the history of OT. It's just such an effort coughing it all up each and every time someone asks for it and sometimes boys just wanna have fun on here. Searching and reading somemore, posts, signatures and links, will yield many alternatives, both wholescale changes and little fixes here and there.

One big problem though in discussions on the merits / flaws of Capitalism, is that many people here do not speak the same language or have the same goals.

A tangental example of this problem appears in the Soweto thread, where we have folk bemoaning the dwindled productivity and prosperity of post-Apartheid South Africa. The figures, as would usually be found in places like the CIA Factbook, support them in saying that South Africa is "worse off" now than before. However, this begs the question, "worse off" according to who? The figures many would usually reach for to declare a country a success or a failure very often do not include stats on things which many "anti-capitalists" are concerned with. In that thread's case, things like people being able to sit on any park bench they wish, or walk down any pavement they want (rather than those 'assigned for blacks'), ie. basic liberties denied to many during the more prosperous Apartheid era (nevermind that it was more prosperous for a minority).

This example, I believe, highlights a crucial roadblock in such discussions on Capitalism. It also indicates, in my mind at least, that there exists a cult mentality, which looks to productivity and wealth generation figures as the gospel truth on a country's success or failure. But I remain sceptical as to whether such figures are the most important when we strive for the greatest happiness for people, a greater sense of social justice and the preservation of core values that make us just, democratic and responsible societies. Productivity and prosperity bear only passing relationships to these core values.

So, I hope you'll now understand from this waffling analogous example why I am often more than happy to throw out of the window the work of such statisticians and economists. It's something you didn't like me mentioning a while back, hence me taking the time to explain now.

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)

I like the value placed on the second place bidder. Good idea. In fact, this proposition seems quite workable and well serves the goal of getting the right drugs out to people who need it. However:

a) isn't the bidding process still open to abuse and rigging a la selling off of Soviet assets? Or is that why the randomisation is present?

b) doesn't this stink of government intervention a bit too much for your liking?

edit: c) and what about intellectual property rights and patent ownership being undermined?

 

[Sidhe]

The NHS won't use it unless its approved by their licencing board.

I would imagine that doctors using medicines for unapproved purposes would result in dismissal, and probably being struck-off as well.

Well to be honest the directors might well approve it in some cases, particualrly in areas struggling with huge financial debt, like my hospital for example. Nobody will know about it? If you act like sick imoral loser, then whats to stop people from stealing from you, treat someone like that and they will reciporocate the dishonesty and backward shenanigans in kind.

As the above post said this is immoral whichever way you look at it, I really can't see a justification for this at all? Can you tell me how it can be passed off as justifiable by any chance? I doubt it, it's just money really isn't it, the love of money is the root of all evil, pretty much all it's about. those responsible for this need to report a profit on this drug and are scared they might have to announce a loss, so rather than have to do so and lose face it risks letting people go blind, oh bravo *claps slowly* Braa friggin O

 

[ArneHD]

Many people say here that not giving a treatment is no the same as causing the blindness. Then try this game: Morality game

 

[Sidhe]

I've done that before so I took it again same result, I tend to make deicsions based on a situation rather than strong moral principles, I'm parsimonious to the tune of 79%.

Of there is no distinction between acting and failing to act, it's something people don't grasp easilly about morals.

If I leave someone to die in the street, where a quick phone call could of saved his/her life then I am no better than the hit and run driver who caused the accident in the first place, at least that is of course how I see it.

 

[scipian]

Maybe so, but what meleager said was 'there appears no alternative to capitalism that works' and cleary this shows the case to be otherwise.

Europe is a hybrid of socialism/capitalism. In any COMPLETE Socialist/Communist society; corruption, elitism, etc. tear the country apart and make Capitalism nearly infinitely better.

(BTW-Europe is no longer the major world power, right? It has been decreasing in influence for the past 50 years. It is doing okay as a socialistic capitalism society. But not nearly so much as the U.S. A much more Capitalistic-leaning society)

 

[JerichoHill]

@@ Ram

Thanks for taking the time to explicate quite a bit. Still fairly new here. You have some valid points. I should have said that in my time here, I haven't seen any.

Per your comments to the solution a few economists have proposed.


I like the value placed on the second place bidder. Good idea. In fact, this proposition seems quite workable and well serves the goal of getting the right drugs out to people who need it. However:

a) isn't the bidding process still open to abuse and rigging a la selling off of Soviet assets? Or is that why the randomisation is present?
--Bingo. Complete randomization prevents cheating. Also, taking the 2nd highest bid in effect prevents collusion, as well as prevent's possible buyer's remorse later on.

b) doesn't this stink of government intervention a bit too much for your liking?
--Not at all. This idea is actually a proposal from libertarian economists. We have no problems with the government being involved in the marketplace where it shows itself to have an advantage (though this is not a very frequent occurance in our opinion. Government intervention can work better than the market when a "problem of the commons" arises.

c) and what about intellectual property rights and patent ownership being undermined?[
--If the government bought out the patent, the developers would receive the amount of the 2nd highest bid, and thus a very nice windfall. Since its now public property, there is no individual property right.
--The difficulty in this schema is to ensure that the government buys out the patent for "fair market value", which it would likely try to whittle down over time (see: right of way value, or imminent domain)

 

[JerichoHill]

Well to be honest the directors might well approve it in some cases, particualrly in areas struggling with huge financial debt, like my hospital for example. Nobody will know about it? If you act like sick imoral loser, then whats to stop people from stealing from you, treat someone like that and they will reciporocate the dishonesty and backward shenanigans in kind.

As the above post said this is immoral whichever way you look at it, I really can't see a justification for this at all? Can you tell me how it can be passed off as justifiable by any chance? I doubt it, it's just money really isn't it, the love of money is the root of all evil, pretty much all it's about. those responsible for this need to report a profit on this drug and are scared they might have to announce a loss, so rather than have to do so and lose face it risks letting people go blind, oh bravo *claps slowly* Braa friggin O

Do you realize how many drugs wind up not working, and thus millions of dollars of R&D expense wind up not being able to be recouped by the drug company. Which is why when they create a successful drug, its expensive? BECAUSE they have to recoup the costs of 20 failed drugs?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Europe is a hybrid of socialism/capitalism. In any COMPLETE Socialist/Communist society; corruption, elitism, etc. tear the country apart and make Capitalism nearly infinitely better.

(BTW-Europe is no longer the major world power, right? It has been decreasing in influence for the past 50 years. It is doing okay as a socialistic capitalism society. But not nearly so much as the U.S. A much more Capitalistic-leaning society)

The standard of life for someone in Western Europe is generally better than for someone elsewhere in the world, and better than alot of people in the United States. Europe is actually doing rather well for itself.

Whats more, it's not really accruate to think of it as a 'hyrbid of socialism/capitalism'......the term 'wealfare state' is much more reflective.

 

[Sidhe]

Do you realize how many drugs wind up not working, and thus millions of dollars of R&D expense wind up not being able to be recouped by the drug company. Which is why when they create a successful drug, its expensive? BECAUSE they have to recoup the costs of 20 failed drugs?

Big deal that doesn't justify acting like immoral jerks, and I am well aware as I pointed out before I work in a hospital. I asked if you can justify blinding people as anything but a money grab? I don't think I'm going to get an answer to that, because money is the only thing that is important in business( well it isn't I know this is the case, which makes it all the more abhorent when a company can walk all over moral decency)

In this case they already had a succesfull drug and it was 1000% cheaper, instead of R&D this they used the same drug with a slight modification and then R&D this, when they could of just R&D'd avastin, that's lame.