| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2011 03:32:00 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an interesting question to ponder, I wonder why there is often a disconnect between social and economic liberty on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals tend to favor social liberty (legalization of some drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) while favoring economic authoritarianism (regulation of Wall Street, corporations, environmental regulation etc to make sure they do right). Conservatives tend to be the opposite (social authoritarianism and economic liberty).
It's just a curiosity and seems contradictory on both sides. I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else. |
Regulation of the market is necessary because unregulated capitalism will eventually result in less competition, higher prices, less innovation, an inhibition of economic development, a concentration of wealth and political power in very few hands, and a never-ending cycle of economic chaos and upheaval.
Your use of the word "authoritarian" in this context is problematic:
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. |
Reiterating your dogmatic position when I'm trying to broker understanding is unimpressive.
I was using authoritarian in the sense it is found on that political test. The top/bottom axis is authoritarian/liberatrian. I mean it no other way. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:32:25 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It just cracks me up that Whole Foods became a target, how much more crunchy granola do you get than Whole Foods? |
I think there is still some lingering resentment (at least in Berkeley) towards Whole Foods because of the way they (are thought to have) contributed to the demise of the Berkeley Co-op stores, and because they are (IMO) over-priced and seem to have that "wholier than thou" aura ... |
ooh u meen they don't just act like jerks here it's there too. at least they are consistent. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:35:08 PM · #328 |
Well, Occupy Eugene has set up shop over the weekend. Eugene is very permissive when it comes to the homeless. There are few "anti-homeless" laws on the books, but one is that you cannot camp on public land within the city limits. I find it ironic that we now have a group of people that are camping in a park by the freeway (50+ tents seen) protesting a group of people who apparently have special favor with the government to do things a class of people below them do not have the right to do. In doing so they are taking advantage of...special favor with the government to do something a class below them does not have the right to do.
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 15:35:52. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:40:22 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
...no one wants to be restricted in their own personal quest for happiness... |
I think you hit the nail on the head, but I think the exact same reason is found on the other side as well. Both sides scratch their heads and ask, "you want WHAT in your quest for happiness?" When we understand we all have the same motivation, then we find a common ground to begin talking. Liberty is worth protecting but also needs limiting and in my central armchair I think neither side has all the answers. |
The difference comes when your quest for liberty affect mine.
Whether or not a woman chooses to bear a child or not, whether you choose to smoke tobacco or pot or cocaine or not, whether you choose to be a vegetarian or to wear leather shoes or not, none of those (directly) affect MY choices in those matters, or my ability to conduct my life in any other respect. (Yes, there may be incidental societal costs -- e.g. health care -- involved, but that will be true for everything asnd is not a relevant factor in this issue.)
When tax codes are manipulated to make it so that I have to pay taxes on my income but General Electric Corporation does not, when we reward people more for making successful bets on the stock market than for making a car, a hamburger, or a difference in someone's lives, THAT has a direct affect on my life.
Ultimately, the current problem will never be solved until the principle of "Corporate Personhood" is reversed -- the rights of a corporation should not trump the rights of a living citizen. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:41:21 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, Occupy Eugene has set up shop over the weekend. Eugene is very permissive when it comes to the homeless. There are few "anti-homeless" laws on the books, but one is that you cannot camp on public land within the city limits. I find it ironic that we now have a group of people that are camping in a park by the freeway (50+ tents seen) protesting a group of people who apparently have special favor with the government to do things a class of people below them do not have the right to do. In doing so they are taking advantage of...special favor with the government to do something a class below them does not have the right to do. |
yeah but nobody will listen to that class below them since nobody wants to believe there are homeless people. they get labled crazy or degenerates and shoved out of the way like a piece of shit on someones shoe. so if someone else can get some attention then maybe things will change for the homeless too. like funding for shelters instead of another jerk getting a bonus. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:52:39 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Tell me, are supermarket chains folding up their tents because their marginal profits are so slim where you live? |
Maybe not where he lives, but in many poorer neighborhoods all the supermarkets have indeed moved out -- search for "food deserts" (not desserts!) for more information ... |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 03:56:48 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an interesting question to ponder, I wonder why there is often a disconnect between social and economic liberty on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals tend to favor social liberty (legalization of some drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) while favoring economic authoritarianism (regulation of Wall Street, corporations, environmental regulation etc to make sure they do right). Conservatives tend to be the opposite (social authoritarianism and economic liberty).
It's just a curiosity and seems contradictory on both sides. I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else. |
Regulation of the market is necessary because unregulated capitalism will eventually result in less competition, higher prices, less innovation, an inhibition of economic development, a concentration of wealth and political power in very few hands, and a never-ending cycle of economic chaos and upheaval.
Your use of the word "authoritarian" in this context is problematic:
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. |
Reiterating your dogmatic position when I'm trying to broker understanding is unimpressive. |
WTF? Now I have to ask: are you off YOUR meds? Your rudeness is out of bounds. Check your ego at the door, ass**le.
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 16:00:27. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:06:14 PM · #333 |
LOL. Seriously, Judith? Come on. I was in the middle of saying, "hey, look, both sides have the same motivation behind their actions. Can't we use that to talk?" and you came back like an eight-year-old with, "but THEY are the wrong ones". I know that's eight-year-old behavior because I have one. And then you call me an asshole when I say I'm unimpressed with that behavior...
(this is a classic internet retort...wait for it...)
Wow. Just. Wow.
(there's really no comeback for that doozy) |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:06:50 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
everyone wants to redistribute wealth and take away the windfall profits of the companies.
when these companies have no incentive to produce goods because the profits aren't there, don't complain. they aren't going to produce stuff because we need it, they are going to produce stuff because it sells. |
No. Have you not been listening?
Companies deserve profit, there's nothing wrong with that, but they should pay taxes at a fair rate on their profits.
What they don't deserve to do is control the government at the expense of actual people.
Your argument is the same as the whole "trickle down economics" theory. It sounds nice, but it just doesn't work.
SCOTUS said that corporations were people...only the way it works is that they're people with special rights you and I don't have...like paying taxes on their income...they pay at a corporate rate...unless they use loopholes to pay nothing or even get a rebate. And if a corporation commits a crime, how do you put it in jail? While it's true that some corporate execs have gone to jail, those cases were for individual misdeeds, not the acts of a corporation.
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 16:12:27. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:18:30 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Seriously, Judith? Come on. I was in the middle of saying, "hey, look, both sides have the same motivation behind their actions. Can't we use that to talk?" and you came back like an eight-year-old with, "but THEY are the wrong ones". I know that's eight-year-old behavior because I have one. And then you call me an asshole when I say I'm unimpressed with that behavior...
(this is a classic internet retort...wait for it...)
Wow. Just. Wow.
(there's really no comeback for that doozy) |
at least she didn't pick on the crazy person telling them to take their meds. tell me do you tell the homeless people to take a bath before you will feed them? |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:19:36 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an interesting question to ponder, I wonder why there is often a disconnect between social and economic liberty on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals tend to favor social liberty (legalization of some drugs, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) while favoring economic authoritarianism (regulation of Wall Street, corporations, environmental regulation etc to make sure they do right). Conservatives tend to be the opposite (social authoritarianism and economic liberty).
It's just a curiosity and seems contradictory on both sides. I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else. |
It's about individual rights vs. the rights of the corporation. That, along with the corresponding responsibilities that go along with those rights.
BTW - Environmental regulation isn't about economics, it's about the environment. It has an effect on economics, but that's not its primary focus despite the cries of the "Drill Baby Drill!" movement. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:19:45 PM · #337 |
Let's not mention medications here except as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.
Anyone care to comment on the fact that there is now a critical shortage of drugs (including cancer chemotherapy agents) ... bucause generic injectibles are not profitable enough -- not when you can be cranking out 10 million Viagra prescriptions a year I guess ...
Note that the title of that report is "Shortages Lead Doctors to RATION Critical Drugs" -- so even if you have the money/insurance to pay for treatment, whether you live or die may depend on whether some CEO can collect a higher bonus if their company makes Drug B instead of the Drug A you need to survive ... nice ...
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 16:25:51. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:21:33 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Let's not mention medications here except as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.
Anyone care to comment on the fact that there is now a critical shortage of drugs (including cancer chemotherapy agents) ... bucause generic injectibles are not profitable enough -- not when you can be cranking out 10 million Viagra prescriptions a year I guess ... |
one of my mom's friends had to reschedule her surgery because they didn't have enough drugs. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:39:05 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
at least she didn't pick on the crazy person telling them to take their meds. tell me do you tell the homeless people to take a bath before you will feed them? |
They get a shower every night, but it's after dinner, not before. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 04:42:11 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Let's not mention medications here except as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.
Anyone care to comment on the fact that there is now a critical shortage of drugs (including cancer chemotherapy agents) ... bucause generic injectibles are not profitable enough -- not when you can be cranking out 10 million Viagra prescriptions a year I guess ...
Note that the title of that report is "Shortages Lead Doctors to RATION Critical Drugs" -- so even if you have the money/insurance to pay for treatment, whether you live or die may depend on whether some CEO can collect a higher bonus if their company makes Drug B instead of the Drug A you need to survive ... nice ... |
Did you read the article? Not denying you have no point, but it seems to be a smaller part of the problem:
"But actually, officials at the Food and Drug Administration say only 11 percent of shortages happen because a company decides to stop making an unprofitable drug. Most shortages, they say, occur because something goes wrong in the manufacturing process that halts production." |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 05:22:17 PM · #341 |
Right, ONLY 11% of the shortages are because some company found it UNPROFITABLE to make a potentially life-saving drug. Can you really justify that number being higher than zero?
"I'm sorry your grandma had to die, but we promised the shareholders at least a 15% profit this year." Right ... |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 05:38:21 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Right, ONLY 11% of the shortages are because some company found it UNPROFITABLE to make a potentially life-saving drug. Can you really justify that number being higher than zero?
"I'm sorry your grandma had to die, but we promised the shareholders at least a 15% profit this year." Right ... |
No, sure. I agree. But it's fickle. In our country it would be hard to set a precedent that would tell a company "you HAVE to make this drug and sell it cheaply". I'm not rejecting this outright, but it may have unintended consequences to give the government this power. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 06:21:56 PM · #343 |
| health insurance companies are just as bad as the banks are when it comes to greed and not giving a damn. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 06:25:05 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Right, ONLY 11% of the shortages are because some company found it UNPROFITABLE to make a potentially life-saving drug. Can you really justify that number being higher than zero?
"I'm sorry your grandma had to die, but we promised the shareholders at least a 15% profit this year." Right ... |
No, sure. I agree. But it's fickle. In our country it would be hard to set a precedent that would tell a company "you HAVE to make this drug and sell it cheaply". I'm not rejecting this outright, but it may have unintended consequences to give the government this power. |
Perhaps the answer is not to have any corporate involvement at all? The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2011 06:53:55 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Seriously, Judith? Come on. I was in the middle of saying, "hey, look, both sides have the same motivation behind their actions. Can't we use that to talk?" and you came back like an eight-year-old with, "but THEY are the wrong ones". I know that's eight-year-old behavior because I have one. And then you call me an asshole when I say I'm unimpressed with that behavior...
(this is a classic internet retort...wait for it...)
Wow. Just. Wow.
(there's really no comeback for that doozy) |
Got it. "The rounder you go, the faster you get" is the only response worthy of my time. LOL! |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 10:08:15 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle is getting squeezed like an old tube of toothpaste. There are a spectrum of successful economies from the socialist model of the Swedes, to the rather laissez-faire attitude of Singapore. Where we choose to stand on that spectrum is a question of societal values, not a true/false binary decision.
Mining and crude oil have a 23.8% profitability. Supermarkets show a profit of 5.3%. Yet oil companies are underwritten by the government while supermarkets have to compete without tax breaks and subsidies. Tell me, are supermarket chains folding up their tents because their marginal profits are so slim where you live? Do you really think Exxon/Mobile will quit production if they have to shoulder the burden of a much greater share of taxes, so long as they still can maintain profitability? |
supermarket don't produce anything, they are a distributor. oil companies produce a commodity, a lucrative one at that. why do you think solar and wind and all the other alternatives are failing even with government subsidy? they aren't a lucrative enough business. as soon as that commodity ceases to be profitable, they will move on.
where does that leave us? paying even more money for some other form of energy.
don't believe me? its happening right now. look at the banks and credit cards, the government tightened up the regulations and instead of just eating the costs and accepting lower profits they passed fees onto the customers.
you are crazy if you think that business will just accept lower profits if the government pulls the subsidies or increases taxes. our prices will go up.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2011 10:19:41 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Let's not mention medications here except as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.
Anyone care to comment on the fact that there is now a critical shortage of drugs (including cancer chemotherapy agents) ... bucause generic injectibles are not profitable enough -- not when you can be cranking out 10 million Viagra prescriptions a year I guess ...
Note that the title of that report is "Shortages Lead Doctors to RATION Critical Drugs" -- so even if you have the money/insurance to pay for treatment, whether you live or die may depend on whether some CEO can collect a higher bonus if their company makes Drug B instead of the Drug A you need to survive ... nice ... |
if you don't like it start up your own drug company and produce the critical drugs.
oh and when the government passes regulation to curb the cost of medications, the pharmaceutical companies wont be spending R and D into unprofitable drugs.
the pharmaceutical system is fine the way it is, they get the patents for so many years and get to make their profits, then it goes generic and other companies get to make it for available for cheaper.
there is a reason we have all these fantastic drugs, its because they are money makers. good luck finding a company to make the drugs you need because "its the right thing to do."
Message edited by author 2011-11-08 22:20:09. |
|
|
|
11/08/2011 11:40:32 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
don't believe me? its happening right now. look at the banks and credit cards, the government tightened up the regulations and instead of just eating the costs and accepting lower profits they passed fees onto the customers.
you are crazy if you think that business will just accept lower profits if the government pulls the subsidies or increases taxes. our prices will go up. |
I'm not sure where you get your information, or your level of certainty on economic theory, but even the freshest of fresh water economist would not go as far as you do.
There is no difference between the need for profit between producers and distributors. Oil companies are both, and they have massive profits. Farmers are producers and grocery stores are distributors, they both enjoy a marginal profit one fifth of those of the energy sector. Capital seeks profit in the safest venue it can find. Rewarding one sector over another is governmental influence, and it ought to favor (if you believe it ought to favor anyone) the sector we need to grow into, not those who give the biggest contributions.
As far as the banks, tell me what part of the attempt to regulate bank behavior has passed into law? We all talked about the need to re-regulate banks after the TARP funds were released to save them from their self-destructive free wheeling behavior, yet little of it has ever passed through congress.
"By September 2011, only a small portion of the law has taken hold. Of the up to 400 regulations called for in the act, only about a quarter had even been written, much less approved." link The fees you speak of are not in reaction to regulation, the banks are still largely unregulated and showing massive profitability; and of course they want more profits.
Your notion that Companies will wither and die if they have fewer subsidies or higher taxes or more regulation is not borne out if you look at history, or other countries. At a certain point a belief that a certain approach is the only possible path, no matter the evidence, what was supposed to be an argument on a matter of fact, becomes a question of faith, where a belief is held no matter the facts. Economics ought to be an arguable theory, not an article of faith.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2011 02:24:22 AM · #349 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Right, ONLY 11% of the shortages are because some company found it UNPROFITABLE to make a potentially life-saving drug. Can you really justify that number being higher than zero?
"I'm sorry your grandma had to die, but we promised the shareholders at least a 15% profit this year." Right ... |
No, sure. I agree. But it's fickle. In our country it would be hard to set a precedent that would tell a company "you HAVE to make this drug and sell it cheaply". I'm not rejecting this outright, but it may have unintended consequences to give the government this power. |
Isn't all this baloney about the (presumably) unintended consequence of government abdicating its power? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:44:52 AM · #350 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
don't believe me? its happening right now. look at the banks and credit cards, the government tightened up the regulations and instead of just eating the costs and accepting lower profits they passed fees onto the customers.
you are crazy if you think that business will just accept lower profits if the government pulls the subsidies or increases taxes. our prices will go up. |
I'm not sure where you get your information, or your level of certainty on economic theory, but even the freshest of fresh water economist would not go as far as you do.
There is no difference between the need for profit between producers and distributors. Oil companies are both, and they have massive profits. Farmers are producers and grocery stores are distributors, they both enjoy a marginal profit one fifth of those of the energy sector. Capital seeks profit in the safest venue it can find. Rewarding one sector over another is governmental influence, and it ought to favor (if you believe it ought to favor anyone) the sector we need to grow into, not those who give the biggest contributions.
As far as the banks, tell me what part of the attempt to regulate bank behavior has passed into law? We all talked about the need to re-regulate banks after the TARP funds were released to save them from their self-destructive free wheeling behavior, yet little of it has ever passed through congress.
"By September 2011, only a small portion of the law has taken hold. Of the up to 400 regulations called for in the act, only about a quarter had even been written, much less approved." link The fees you speak of are not in reaction to regulation, the banks are still largely unregulated and showing massive profitability; and of course they want more profits.
Your notion that Companies will wither and die if they have fewer subsidies or higher taxes or more regulation is not borne out if you look at history, or other countries. At a certain point a belief that a certain approach is the only possible path, no matter the evidence, what was supposed to be an argument on a matter of fact, becomes a question of faith, where a belief is held no matter the facts. Economics ought to be an arguable theory, not an article of faith. |
my argument is more government involvement is going to be a bad this. do banks need to be watched, yes, we need to make sure they aren't involved in risky business that threatens to take down the economy or deceive the people.
i get this vibe that we need an overhaul of the economic system becuase it isn't working for everyone. boofuckin hoo.
yes i am taking my thoughts to the extreme, but its required in order for you to see the fallacy in your arguments. will the companies collapse with higher taxes and little or no subsidy? no, but also dont expect that the companies are going to sit on their hands and take lower profits, they are going to find a way to maintain those profits and pass them on to the consumer.
leave the system the way it is and get the companies out of the pockets of our elected officials so that they can properly watch and regulate. then maybe i will come around to government involvement, becuase right now they dont have our best interests at heart.
that's all we need, not a new economic model.
|
|
