NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I start, I just want to make it clear that I am not anti-capitalism, in fact, I am fully in favor of capitalism as long is it runs in an efficient hybrid system where other systems are running congruently as checks and balances.

Now, here's what happens when you run capitalism as a mono system and allow the private sector to make the rules concerning the welfare of society:

"Pediatric Vaccine Stockpile at Risk"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59516-2005Apr16.html?

Just three years after the largest and most serious shortage of childhood vaccines in two decades, the federal government's stockpile of childhood vaccines, designed as a buffer against shortages, is nearly empty -- and without immediate prospects of being filled.

Three of the four companies that produce the shots recommended for every American child told the federal government last year that they would not sell their products to this little-known but important piece of the nation's public health infrastructure.

Although opinions differ, it appears that the Pediatric Vaccine Stockpile has become an innocent bystander wounded in the government's crackdown on deceptive accounting practices.

No one has accused the vaccine manufacturers of wrongdoing. However, they can no longer treat as revenue the money they get when they sell millions of doses of vaccine to the stockpile because the shots are not delivered until the government calls for them in emergencies. Instead, the vials are held in the manufacturers' warehouses, where they are considered unsold in the eyes of auditors, investors and Wall Street.

snip-

Last winter, the United States experienced a shortage of influenza vaccine. That product is not in the pediatric stockpile, but the near hysteria that erupted when contamination in a factory cut the supply of flu shots in half was further evidence of how vulnerable the nation is to the decisions and fortunes of the few remaining U.S. vaccine makers.

snip-

The stockpile's usefulness is not theoretical. The government has gone into it nine times since 1984, the year after it was established. This was done to get vaccine for immediate use in a disease outbreak, or to prevent supply disruptions when a manufacturer had production problems or shut down a plant.

In January 2002, the government withdrew 700,000 doses of MMR vaccine when Merck, the manufacturer, had problems at a factory. In August 2003, CDC used 46,000 doses to fight a measles epidemic in the Marshall Islands.

Although the vaccine makers may use income from the sales any way they want, in accounting terms the money can no longer be "recognized" as revenue. Because the amounts of vaccine are large -- the stockpile has a target of 10 million doses of DTaP, for example -- excluding those sales from the bottom line makes some companies unhappy.

Booking phony, theoretical or incomplete sales is the most common way companies make themselves look more profitable than they are. According to the Huron Consulting Group, over the past five years problems with revenue recognition were the leading reason U.S. corporations had to amend or refile financial reports. There were 253 such restatements last year, a record.

Click link for the full story

So because Wall Street and the big pharmaseutical giants can't rake in the enormous gobs of surplus cash they used to with vaccine stockpiles by using fuzzy math in their accounting books, these people, whom I'm sure call themselves good Christians, completely oblivious to their avaricious nature, would rather put this country's children at risk for preventable illnesses, many of which are life threatening.

And because we run capitalism as a mono system, scared to death to put any sort of regulations or limits on what big business can do, we do our children a disservice everyday by allowing big business to play with their lives over money.

Mono systems do not work. Capitalism run as a mono system is not working.

When sharks bite! When dogs go bad! When little old ladies just can't find the beef!

When sharks bite! When dogs go bad! When little old ladies just can't find the beef!

LOL, you forgot "when bears attack" haha

this is why we dont have an utterly free market. capitalism has to be modified by regulation. no one wants the 1800s back again.

no one wants the 1800s back again.

Aww, if you say so, guv'ner. :(

Actually, the problem here is that due to reams and reams of red tape, its simply unprofitable to make most vaccines. It's too little capitalism that's the problem. It's the reason why so many US vaccines come from foreign nations.

It is the governments regulation of the pharmaceuticals accounting practices that started this whole mess.

this is why we dont have an utterly free market. capitalism has to be modified by regulation. no one wants the 1800s back again.

It's the regulation that causing the problem. They are not allowed to count the money they recieve as revenue, so they lose the incentive to sell. Either have the government take teh shipment, like everyone else, so that the money can get counted, or else drop the requirement that it can't be counted as revenue until the shipment is made.

LOL, so you guys think that instead, we should let pharmaseutical companies make health policy, dummy their books, and hide their profits in overseas bank accounts to avoid taxes? Thats not capitalism hon, thats banana republic.

It is the governments regulation of the pharmaceuticals accounting practices that started this whole mess.
That's generally what I got from the article as well...

You're right. I say we follow the former USSR and become communist. Quick, grab your big red flag and start chanting!

It is the governments regulation of the pharmaceuticals accounting practices that started this whole mess.

exactly. It's a lack of a free market that causes these problems. Big government is like a 500-pound loser who won't get out of ur way until u answer 50 million of his stupid questions, and then by the time ur through with him, either you forgot what u were trying to do, or it's too late / not worth doing anymore

You're right. I say we follow the former USSR and become communist. Quick, grab your big red flag and start chanting!

LOL, well thats the other extreme, and no where did I mention we go to it. My suggestion is hybrid systems which have built in checks and balances to make sure that no extremist mono system takes hold.

ecaxtly. It's a lack of a free market that causes these problems. Big government is like a 500-pound loser who won't get out of ur way until u answer 50 million of his stupid questions, and then by the time ur through with him, either you forgot what u were trying to do, or it's too late / not worth doing anymore

So you think instead that we should allow big business to run wild and unregulated? Because if you do, I have a lovely long list of medicines that the FDA has pulled from the market because of side effects like DEATH! I think you should consider taking a few, just to show your support for big Pharma, that is :)

So you think instead that we should allow big business to run wild and unregulated? Because if you do, I have a lovely long list of medicines that the FDA has pulled from the market because of side effects like DEATH! I think you should consider taking a few, just to show your support for big Pharma, that is :)

Think about it though ..... did the FDA prevent those deaths? NO ...... when people start dying from something, the market takes notice and stops buying that product ..... u dont need a government agency to oversee the basic laws of economics

LOL, so you guys think that instead, we should let pharmaseutical companies make health policy, dummy their books, and hide their profits in overseas bank accounts to avoid taxes? Thats not capitalism hon, thats banana republic.

Thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the government should act like a responsible purchaser in this situation.

The government buys these drugs, then makes the pharmaceutical company store the drugs until they're ready for them, all the while banning them from reporting the income that they earned.

When you force a company into that big of a corner, obviously they are going to back out of the deal.

this is why we dont have an utterly free market. capitalism has to be modified by regulation. no one wants the 1800s back again.

I think the regulation is the problem here. Not the free market. Why should companies manufacture items they can't charge money for, just because the government tells them. It's ridiculous.

Think about it though ..... did the FDA prevent those deaths? NO ...... when people start dying from something, the market takes notice and stops buying that product ..... u dont need a government agency to oversee the basic laws of economics

Oh really? Here's a story where the exact opposite happened: a pharmaseutical company fought to keep drugs on the shelves of stores even when their own study linked them to strokes:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ppa28mar28-1,1,2552623.htmlstory?coll=la-home-left1&ctrack=1&cset=true

So you think instead that we should allow big business to run wild and unregulated? Because if you do, I have a lovely long list of medicines that the FDA has pulled from the market because of side effects like DEATH! I think you should consider taking a few, just to show your support for big Pharma, that is :)

I don't support the elimination of the FDA. I think they should make sure that the pharmaceuticals are honest in their business practices. But then again, if pharmaceutical companies were held liable for their crimes then there wouldn't be a need for the FDA. Charge whoever was in charge of releasing a deadly drug to the market with involuntary manslaughter and see how many more of these instances occur.

Thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the government should act like a responsible purchaser in this situation.

The government buys these drugs, then makes the pharmaceutical company store the drugs until they're ready for them, all the while banning them from reporting the income that they earned.



Good point, thats not a bad idea actually, Hopefully, thats what will end up happening.

So you think instead that we should allow big business to run wild and unregulated? Because if you do, I have a lovely long list of medicines that the FDA has pulled from the market because of side effects like DEATH! I think you should consider taking a few, just to show your support for big Pharma, that is :)

No one is suggesting that. But how would you like it if the government held half of your pay check until it 'decided' to use whatever you had done for them. You'd quit that job pretty quickly too.

Think of it this way, it's like paying firemen only on days they actually respond to a fire. What a ridiculous idea.

CAPITALISM :mp5:

i despise it

CAPITALISM :mp5:

i despise it

GREAT POST

I think the regulation is the problem here. Not the free market. Why should companies manufacture items they can't charge money for, just because the government tells them. It's ridiculous.

The reason why they should manufacture products for the benefit of society is simple. They are where they are today by the will of society. If it weren't for a society full of consumers buying these products, these big companies would be bankrupt. Is it really such a big thing for a country to ask of the companies that it's citizens have made rich that they give a little back once in a while without the promise of monetary compensation? After all, that IS a Christian value.

No one is suggesting that. But how would you like it if the government held half of your pay check until it 'decided' to use whatever you had done for them. You'd quit that job pretty quickly too.

Think of it this way, it's like paying firemen only on days they actually respond to a fire. What a ridiculous idea.

Actually, if half my paychech bought me premium healthcare, financial security for when I grew old, and a fine safety net for whatever disaster may befall me, I'd give half my paycheck away anyday.

Acutally, if half my paychech bought me premium healthcare, financial security for when I grew old, and a fine safety net for whatever disaster may befall me, I'd give half my paycheck away anyday.
Then that's your choice, but it might not be someone else's.

The reason why they should manufacture products for the benefit of society is simple. They are where they are today by the will of society. If it weren't for a society full of consumers buying these products, these big companies would be bankrupt. Is it really such a big thing for a country to ask of the companies that it's citizens have made rich that they give a little back once in a while without the promise of monetary compensation? After all, that IS a Christian value.

1. That is a socialist value, not a Christian value.

2. Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with this.

3. The government is there to maintain the basic healthcare needs of the people, not pharmaceutical companies.

Actually, if half my paychech bought me premium healthcare, financial security for when I grew old, and a fine safety net for whatever disaster may befall me, I'd give half my paycheck away anyday.

ur already doing that if u live in america, but u dont get any of those things

and how about the government holding back cancer drugs while people are begging to take them because they are dying

and how about the government not letting people smoke marajuana, even though its the only way they can relieve the pain of a disease

LOL, well thats the other extreme, and no where did I mention we go to it. My suggestion is hybrid systems which have built in checks and balances to make sure that no extremist mono system takes hold.

I know, but i tend to mock a lot, and my cynical, sarcastic, and odd sense of humor doesn't help.

ur already doing that if u live in america, but u dont get any of those things


Proving my point about mono systems exactly.

and how about the government holding back cancer drugs while people are begging to take them because they are dying

and how about the government not letting people smoke marajuana, even though its the only way they can relieve the pain of a disease

I hear you, I totally agree with you on that one. Thats why I'm very libertarian in nature.

Proving my point about mono systems exactly.

no, u pay 50% of ur income to the government and u dont get any of those aforementioned things ... the govenment only acts like u do

if u were libertarian u would believe in a free market

no, u pay 50% of ur income to the government and u dont get any of those aforementioned things ... the govenment only acts like u do
50% income tax?
Somehow I doubt that...

50% income tax?
Somehow I doubt that...

if you combine the taxes u pay to the fed, state, and local govenments ..... ur paying 48% of ur income

The reason why they should manufacture products for the benefit of society is simple. They are where they are today by the will of society.

That's just silly. No-one ever 'voted' to decide who the biggest pharmacuetical companies should be. They are sucessful because they developed products that a minority of individuals want, and sold them a profit. It has nothing to do with the 'will' of society.

If it weren't for a society full of consumers buying these products, these big companies would be bankrupt.

No one was ever made or forced to by those products. Many big companies do go bankrupt because they stop making what people want, and they are replaced by those who do. That's how a free market works.

Is it really such a big thing for a country to ask of the companies that it's citizens have made rich that they give a little back once in a while without the promise of monetary compensation? After all, that IS a Christian value.

Yes, if it is a specific tax like this that targets only a specific group. The fair thing to do, if the government decides to pay for stockpiles, is to raise taxes across the board for everyone, and use that to buy the vaccines directly - not require people to manufacture a surpluss at a loss. After all this is for the good of society' so all of society should pay.

I don't know what christianity has to do with this. (Though many pharmacuetical companies donate billions of dollars of drugs every year to the poor and the third world. Perhaps that is what you are talking about).

if you combine the taxes u pay to the fed, state, and local govenments ..... ur paying 48% of ur income
Could I have a source for that?

if you combine the taxes u pay to the fed, state, and local govenments ..... ur paying 48% of ur income

No, there are graduated tax rates that affect everyone differently. The majority of Americans pay substantially less than 48% in income tax.

If you want to add sales tax and inheritance tax as a indirect income tax, then maybe it gets near that level.

Actually, if half my paychech bought me premium healthcare, financial security for when I grew old, and a fine safety net for whatever disaster may befall me, I'd give half my paycheck away anyday.

Yes but the point is, you only have to give half your paycheck if you work in your current job. If you leave your job, you get the same thing as currently provided, but without the witholding.

When taxes -declared or undeclared - aren't general, they are not fair.

Could I have a source for that?

You could look at New York City.

You could look at New York City.

Not from here, I can't.

Not from here, I can't.

Top bracket for the state is 8.5, for the city 2.5, sales tax, 8.5, &ct,

Over half your income, even if you make less than 70,000 goes to some form of tax.

When you allow unregulated free trade, corporations like GM and Ford go to 3rd world contries, like Mexico, suppress their economie further, then pay their workers less then 60¢ an hour.

When you allow unregulated free trade corporations like GM and Ford go to 3rd world contries, like Mexico, suppress their economie further, then pay their workers less then 60¢ an hour.

Of course, 60 cents an hour is a big wage there. But you are right, they would be better off without it.

When you allow unregulated free trade, corporations like GM and Ford go to 3rd world contries, like Mexico, suppress their economie further, then pay their workers less then 60¢ an hour.
Yeah, doesn't everyone know how bad JOBS are for a local economy?

When you allow unregulated free trade, corporations like GM and Ford go to 3rd world contries, like Mexico, suppress their economie further, then pay their workers less then 60¢ an hour.
Yeah, doesn't everyone know how bad JOBS are for a local economy?

no, u pay 50% of ur income to the government and u dont get any of those aforementioned things ... the govenment only acts like u do

Yes, thats what you originally said, and thats what proves my point, by the fact that a capitalist mono system is not able to adequately handle the social facet of society, but regardless, will still charge it's citizenry as if it can.

if u were libertarian u would believe in a free market

Thats the only part of libertarian doctrine I actually break with, but thats a whole other thread lol.

Yeah, doesn't everyone know how bad JOBS are for a local economy?


before nafta the passo was worth almost as much as the greenback, now its worth almost seven times less. Also, because of the ablity to sell cheap stuff, it means that companies that pay there employees enough to live off of can't compete. Yes jobs are good, but if they pay so poorly that the employee has to drink out of pesticide containers and live in shipping crates, is it really worth it.

Of course, 60 cents an hour is a big wage there. But you are right, they would be better off without it.

Actually, the reason why these companies leave America, (taking American jobs with them in the process, not as if free marketers care though) is to pay less than minimum wage, have no safety precautions for workers, and have no worker's compensation. Thats why they call them sweatshops, not because they're such wonderful places to work.

In the meantime Nazuilla has a point because most of the people who end up in sweatshops were forced off their land by corrupt governments who have made back room deals with large multinationals to provide cheap labor. This serves to suppress the economy of the worker by paying him slave wages and making him unable to advance into a career.

Yes, thats what you originally said, and thats what proves my point, by the fact that a capitalist mono system is not able to adequately handle the social facet of society, but regardless, will still charge it's citizenry as if it can.
.
For that to support your hypothesis the govt would have to be a private enterprise, which it is not. The logical conclusion would be to eliminate the government monopoly. Introducing a second competitive government is flawed for obvious reasons, so the only practical options are to either decentralize the government and/or reduce it's breadth and allow non-monopolistic private enterprize to compete in providing the service. I'm good with both of those.

so the only practical options are to either decentralize the government and/or reduce it's breadth and allow non-monopolistic private enterprize to compete in providing the service. I'm good with both of those.

I'm willing to give it a try. If we're going to do "every man for himself" then lets really do it! No more governmental interference in people's lives, that means legalizing drugs and abortion, allowing television and radio to broadcast anything the customer demands, so on and so forth. Seriously, I think it would be an interesting and possibly successful experiment.

The problem seems to be the uptight Christian right who would obviously get their panties in a wad over such an idea, strangely enough, these are the same people who advocate slimming down government to where you can drown it in a bathtub. Go figure.

Actually, the reason why these companies leave America, (taking American jobs with them in the process, not as if free marketers care though) is to pay less than minimum wage, have no safety precautions for workers, and have no worker's compensation. Thats why they call them sweatshops, not because they're such wonderful places to work.

In the meantime Nazuilla has a point because most of the people who end up in sweatshops were forced off their land by corrupt governments who have made back room deals with large multinationals to provide cheap labor. This serves to suppress the economy of the worker by paying him slave wages and making him unable to advance into a career.

Yes, they move to reduce costs. So what, that's how capitalism works. Often it is a simple case of local economics, and has nothing to do with safety standards and the rest.

As to your point about sweat-shops and coercive labor practice, well that is a problem with *government* not capitalism. Personally, as a classical liberal I would welcome a complete embargo of trade with all countries that do not have functioning democracy until they modify their system, but I recognize that this is not a popular viewpoint.

But to blame capitalism for corrupt government is foolish. Clearly it is the job of government not be corrupt, not the job of public corporations to avoid exploiting opportunity.

And for your edification, it is illegal for US corporations under US law, to engage in the practices you are describing.

And for your edification, it is illegal for US corporations under US law, to engage in the practices you are describing.


that is note true. I a corporation can sue my government for banning harmful pesticides then they can get away with just about anything.

Yes, they move to reduce costs. So what, that's how capitalism works. Often it is a simple case of local economics, and has nothing to do with safety standards and the rest.

It has everything to do with safety standards and "the rest". Safety standards cost money. Money multinationals would rather not pay if they can avoid it.

Personally, as a classical liberal I would welcome a complete embargo of trade with all countries that do not have functioning democracy until they modify their system, but I recognize that this is not a popular viewpoint.

Thats pretty popular with me. I think it's a great idea!

But to blame capitalism for corrupt government is foolish. Clearly it is the job of government not be corrupt, not the job of public corporations to avoid exploiting opportunity.

But not holding corporations responsible for their actions in exploiting oppressed workforces is just as bad as turning the other way when dealing economically with a non democratic nation.

And for your edification, it is illegal for US corporations under US law, to engage in the practices you are describing.

And surprisingly, they still do it.....hmmmm...maybe it has something to do with the huge campaign donations that these corporations make......donations which are a direct result of the mindset that capitalism should be the only system in place and that the dollar rules everything.

Anyways guys, I have to do some work, medical billing ><. Thanx for all the great responses. I'll check back later.

Bunch of college and highschool yuppies on here that have no idea of how the economy works.

And for that socialist to even pretend to claim to have Libertarian values is laughable.

Everyone use to use coercion to enforce their moral beleifs.

Yes, thats what you originally said, and thats what proves my point, by the fact that a capitalist mono system is not able to adequately handle the social facet of society, but regardless, will still charge it's citizenry as if it can.



Thats the only part of libertarian doctrine I actually break with, but thats a whole other thread lol.

my point was that we DONT have a mono capiltalistic system .......... its all the stupid government regulations that waste my money in the name of giving me things that it actually doesnt

It has everything to do with safety standards and "the rest". Safety standards cost money. Money multinationals would rather not pay if they can avoid it.

Why should they pay for it if they don't have to? It's not their money after all. Their only responsibility is to maximize the return on money invested, nothing more. If, in fact, there are places where they are manufacturing where safety standards are non-exsitent, or sub-standard, why is that their responsibility? They are not the government. It is the job of government to mandate suitable standards, not PLCs, or incs. Don't blame capitalism becuase government has failed. Blame government.


Thats pretty popular with me. I think it's a great idea!

Yes, it is. It does entail some problems insofar as foreign policy is concerned, but it is certianly my preferred coarse. Nevertheless it won't happen, mostly because government all over the world is corrupt. But the problem is government, not capitalism.


But not holding corporations responsible for their actions in exploiting oppressed workforces is just as bad as turning the other way when dealing economically with a non democratic nation.

You put them in an impossible bind. Under anglo-american jurisprudence, large corporations have a duty to maximize returns on investment. Nothing more. Anything that is legal, and can be done, to increase profits should be done. It is not their job to decide soceital ethics or morality, that is the job of government.

Indeed, you are setting your self up for a diminution of democracy by suggesting corporations should decide what is, and is not, moral. I prefer a system where they are subjects, not soveriegns.



And surprisingly, they still do it.....hmmmm...maybe it has something to do with the huge campaign donations that these corporations make......donations which are a direct result of the mindset that capitalism should be the only system in place and that the dollar rules everything.


Actually, US corporations don't do it that much. (Except for the ones that make huge donations to the democrats). In any event, the problem is with government, not the idea of capitalism.

Why destroy a system that has lifted more people out of poverty, and created unprecedented amounts of wealth - hithertofore unimagined in the history of the world - because our government cannot be trusted.

It's like blaming the liquor companies for alcholics.

Bunch of college and highschool yuppies on here that have no idea of how the economy works.

And for that socialist to even pretend to claim to have Libertarian values is laughable.

Everyone use to use coercion to enforce their moral beleifs.

Yes, I agree, reading is hard.

Yes, it is. It does entail some problems insofar as foreign policy is concerned, but it is certianly my preferred coarse. Nevertheless it won't happen, mostly because government all over the world is corrupt. But the problem is government, not capitalism.

the problem isn't with weak governments that don't have the power to fight back against multinations and organisations like the world bank. its the people who are forcing them into lowering there standards.


It's like blaming the liquor companies for alcholics.

Or like blaming the tabacco companies for targeting children in their marketing ploys.

the problem isn't with weak governments that don't have the power to fight back against multinations and organisations like the world bank. its the people who are forcing them into lowering there standards.



Or like blaming the tabacco companies for targeting children in their marketing ploys.

Your missing the point. We, in the richer nations could embargo goods produced under those conditions at any time. It doesn't happen.

At the end of the day, government, not corporations have the whip hand. Your argument with capitalism is based upon strawmen. Clean government is the answer, not more corrupt government.

Your missing the point. We, in the richer nations could embargo goods produced under those conditions at any time. It doesn't happen.

At the end of the day, government, not corporations have the whip hand. Your argument with capitalism is based upon strawmen. Clean government is the answer, not more corrupt government.

It doesn't happen because of things like NAFTA, FTAA and the WTO.

Lots of non-corput governments get destroyed by capitalism. The IMF and World bank offered to help on dept repayment - bacause of capitalism they have a dept - but with conditions. Countries had to make corporate-friendly changes to their economies. They called it "structural adjustments." But these changes pushed millions of people into poverty.

the Structural adjustments where:
privatise your state companies, utilities and public services
deregulate the movement of money across your borders
make deep cuts to health care education and public pensions
remove subsidies that help poor farmers
weaken labour laws and protections
stop protecting local industries - get rid of trade tariffs
forget staple foods for the people to eat, produce more cash crops for the world market

tell me if these arn't for the furthuring of capitalism.

It doesn't happen because of things like NAFTA, FTAA and the WTO.

Lots of non-corput governments get destroyed by capitalism. The IMF and World bank offered to help on dept repayment - bacause of capitalism they have a dept - but with conditions. Countries had to make corporate-friendly changes to their economies. They called it "structural adjustments." But these changes pushed millions of people into poverty.

the Structural adjustments where:
privatise your state companies, utilities and public services
deregulate the movement of money across your borders
make deep cuts to health care education and public pensions
remove subsidies that help poor farmers
weaken labour laws and protections
stop protecting local industries - get rid of trade tariffs
forget staple foods for the people to eat, produce more cash crops for the world market

tell me if these arn't for the furthuring of capitalism.


This is silly. Corporations only exist as a legal fiction. They have no real say in what happened above. Those countries borrowed the money - frequently from other governments - and now they are in deep shit becuase of their shady dealings. Moreover, historically, it is fairly easy for governments to repudiate foreign privately held debt, whereas the same does not pertain in respect of foreign government held debt.

Finally, the IMF is not a private capital system, and has nothing to do with capitalism. In fact it is its very antithesis.

If your government is destoyed by 'capitalism' it is because it is corrupt. Don't blame corporations because their leaders are held to a higher standard than politicians. And don't blame corporations because you are easily fooled by speechesabout the common good.

Finally, the IMF is not a private capital system, and has nothing to do with capitalism. In fact it is its very antithesis.


bull. the imf may have been created as the antithesis, but but now it just serves coporate intrest. I blame corporations for what is happenning because t hey have more say in capitalism then your own government. My Country had an auto pact with the big three saying you can sell all the cars you want but they have to be produced in canada. they went along with it, till nafta. Nafta is just free trade. what happenned was all the jobs when to poorly paid mexicans. i wouldnt be unhappy if they were paying them good wages. corporations have the same legal ability as a person does, but they seem to be above the law. When my government tried to banmmt they got sued for loss of profit. the canadian government back down and payed Ethyl corp a sum of 19$ million dollars. tell me that corporations arn't responsible of an unsafe toxic chemical being on the market.

So basicaly the argument here is that when a gov. alows its workers to be exploited it is in the wrong.
Yet when a company exploits workers to make money though that is all right, so long as it is legal.

So if a company donates canpaign money to get a gov. in power, which is legal, so that that gov. will make it legal to exploit workers, which will then be workers, and the company then makes money exploiting workers there is nothing wrong.

before nafta the passo was worth almost as much as the greenback, now its worth almost seven times less. Also, because of the ablity to sell cheap stuff, it means that companies that pay there employees enough to live off of can't compete. Yes jobs are good, but if they pay so poorly that the employee has to drink out of pesticide containers and live in shipping crates, is it really worth it.
Things were so much better there before Nafta, back when people had to sneak into the US to work and the police and politicians were corrupt. What? They still do that. Really?

Oh, and your smokin some good marihuana if you really believe the peso was ever near parity with the dollar in your lifetime. Even if it were, then by your example sixty cents per hour is equal to about $4.20 in pesos. If you want to make up facts, at least be consistient.

So basicaly the argument here is that when a gov. alows its workers to be exploited it is in the wrong.
Yet when a company exploits workers to make money though that is all right, so long as it is legal.

So if a company donates canpaign money to get a gov. in power, which is legal, so that that gov. will make it legal to exploit workers, which will then be workers, and the company then makes money exploiting workers there is nothing wrong.
So the correct answer is to give people the freedom to work for a coropration, a small business or themselves. Freedom is such a grand thing!

I'm willing to give it a try. If we're going to do "every man for himself" then lets really do it! No more governmental interference in people's lives, that means legalizing drugs and abortion, allowing television and radio to broadcast anything the customer demands, so on and so forth. Seriously, I think it would be an interesting and possibly successful experiment.

The problem seems to be the uptight Christian right who would obviously get their panties in a wad over such an idea, strangely enough, these are the same people who advocate slimming down government to where you can drown it in a bathtub. Go figure.
Wow, you give alot of credit to Christians. We should all become Hindu so we can party our asses off. Or Jewish - Those guys can really shake it. Don't forget the Muslims - Ramalamadingdong! Those guys are a blast! Of course, Tipper Gore may get peaved after all she did to censor Dee Snider and his rocker pals. Who needs values!

I would love to see the federal government out of the morality business. Leave it to local and regional law. Get the courts back in business of enforing law instead of making it. Let the small government model run. If one community wants gay marriage and another wants shotgun marriage. So be it as far as I care. I'll move to where I like it most. THAT is freedom!

Wow, you give alot of credit to Christians. We should all become Hindu so we can party our asses off. Or Jewish - Those guys can really shake it. Don't forget the Muslims - Ramalamadingdong! Those guys are a blast! Of course, Tipper Gore may get peaved after all she did to censor Dee Snider and his rocker pals. Who needs values!

I would love to see the federal government out of the morality business. Leave it to local and regional law. Get the courts back in business of enforing law instead of making it. Let the small government model run. If one community wants gay marriage and another wants shotgun marriage. So be it as far as I care. I'll move to where I like it most. THAT is freedom!

Well said!

that is note true. I a corporation can sue my government for banning harmful pesticides then they can get away with just about anything.

You can sue about anything you damn well please. You may not win though.

It doesn't happen because of things like NAFTA, FTAA and the WTO.

Lots of non-corput governments get destroyed by capitalism. The IMF and World bank offered to help on dept repayment - bacause of capitalism they have a dept - but with conditions. Countries had to make corporate-friendly changes to their economies. They called it "structural adjustments." But these changes pushed millions of people into poverty.

the Structural adjustments where:
privatise your state companies, utilities and public services
deregulate the movement of money across your borders
make deep cuts to health care education and public pensions
remove subsidies that help poor farmers
weaken labour laws and protections
stop protecting local industries - get rid of trade tariffs
forget staple foods for the people to eat, produce more cash crops for the world market

tell me if these arn't for the furthuring of capitalism.


At least in Latin America, which is the region I'm most familair with, the debts are largely the result of persuing socialist agendas in the mid-20th century and thereby destroying the economy. A perfect example is Argentina, quite wealthy before the socialist and anti-capitalist (not neccesarily the same thing) interference with the economy. They've come a long way towards recovering, but it took a lot of effort and a lot of capitalism to do it.

The adjustments aren't about being corporate-friendly. They're about the governments spending more money than they have. If your goal is reducing debt load, borrowing more money for government programs (as opposed to refinancing the debt, which can be a good thing at times) is not the way to go about it. If I'm about to go bankrupt and go to a consumer credit counselor, and tell him I have no money for my credit card bills but I take my friends out to dinner twice a week on new credit cards, he'll likely tell me to stop taking people out to dinner. Same concept.

Well said!

I can't believe that nobody noticed i said 'Muslims' and 'blast' in the same sentence!

and how about the government holding back cancer drugs while people are begging to take them because they are dying

and how about the government not letting people smoke marajuana, even though its the only way they can relieve the pain of a disease

The ONLY Way?!
:rolleyes:
Idiot, there are other painkillers out there that do not have as many adverse side effects of marajuana

Here is a simple idea, pay the pharmacuticals upon purchase (or montly payment or whatever, and then pay them to store it or the government can store it.

Keep current laws (consider the involutary manslaughter idea)

exactly. It's a lack of a free market that causes these problems. Big government is like a 500-pound loser who won't get out of ur way until u answer 50 million of his stupid questions, and then by the time ur through with him, either you forgot what u were trying to do, or it's too late / not worth doing anymore

What do you think a polio/tetanous/measles vaccine cost in a completely free market anyways? I'm thinking slightly higher than astronomical, since without regulation monopolies would quickly be established.