Big Business and Marxist Collusion – Bourgeois Socialism

[Wehrwolfen]

Big Business and Marxist Collusion – Bourgeois Socialism


By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
24 December 2012



Who needs a Mayan apocalypse when you have Obama?

The Occupy Movement, as we all know, was and is a tool of the elite. Skilled in projection and deflection, they screamed that big business was the enemy of the people and Marxism was the cure. No sane American would fall for that tripe. What the lame movement, if they had been honest, would have railed against was big business in collusion with big government.

A marriage made in hell and brought to you by Barack Obama and the bourgeois socialists.

We now have many, many examples of these elitists who have crawled into bed with the Marxists… From Warren Buffet, to Jeffrey Immelt of GE, the list is long and inglorious.

These are wealthy and powerful businessmen and women looking for security in the arms of Comrade Obama while keeping the proletariat riffraff (that would be you and me) in check and busily working for them and their luxuries in a slavish society that is forcefully equal in misery, except for the upper levels of the bourgeois socialists. GE is probably the worst of the worst. Immelt praises the Chinese communists:

Why not? GE, under Obama’s guidance, has moved a great deal of their business into China where labor is cheaper and regulation and taxation are far less. And now comes word that GE will make nuclear power plant parts in China. Isn’t that sleeping with the enemy? Except, I’m no longer sure who the enemy is. From Bill Gertz at The Washington Free Beacon:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is supporting a bid by General Electric to export jobs and nuclear technology to China by seeking assurances from Beijing that it will not steal or transfer valuable reactor technology, the Free Beacon has learned.

Clinton’s support for a future deal with GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a Wilmington, N.C., company, to make reactor vessels in China for a nuclear plant it hopes to build in India was disclosed in a cable sent Nov. 21 to the United States Embassy in Beijing.

The cable directs embassy officials to seek Beijing’s assurances that GE-Hitachi nuclear technology would not be transferred to other states or stolen, as outlined under the terms of a 2003 U.S.-China agreement on nuclear technology cooperation.

Disclosure of the Obama administration’s support for GE-Hitachi’s bid to manufacture nuclear goods in China comes as GE’s chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, continues to head the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which advises President Barack Obama on ways to improve the nation’s economy and create jobs.

GE also came under fire last year from Pentagon technology security officials over the company’s joint venture with the state-run Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC) over concerns China would covertly obtain U.S. jet avionics technology that could bolster its growing force of advanced jets.

Immelt is an admirer of Mao and of Barack Obama. Generally, he just loves power. But, his vehicle of choice is Marxism. And GE has a long history of this, but more on that in a minute. Not only is GE smooching with China, they are actively (and knowingly) helping China get nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan – all with Obama’s blessing. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh? Nope that’s just the nuclear fallout.

While you see all these wealthy companies including Walmart, Pepsi, the big banks, Wall Street, media and a whole slew of others jumping on Obama’s red train, you might ask yourself why? Aren’t they going to be taxed more? Clearly these mega companies did not get the size they are by playing by the same rules you and I do. They know how to ‘shelter’ their companies from most of the taxation and other annoyances. And as an added bennie, if they sneak into the ever-expanding Marxist bed, they are given nifty tax breaks, regulation waivers and other money making contracts. All they have to do is kneel before the state and they can have it all. What’s the going price for a little monetary soul between Marxists these days? About 30 pieces of silver I’d wager. By swearing their allegiance to the government, they will be protected from the commoners – they will be taken into the elite circles where they will be served by their American subjects. Such are the enraptured power dreams of the bourgeois socialists.

Know who else did this? Why, Adolph Hitler of course. That’s right. Many of the companies that aligned with Nazi Germany are still in business today. Prepare to be enlightened:

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government’s political and military goals.
See:

** General Electric
** BMW
** Nestle
** Novartis
** Coca-Cola
** Kodak
** Random House
** Ford
** Chase
Do you see a pattern here?

Who needs a Mayan apocalypse when you have Obama?

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Big Business and Marxist Collusion

 

[Freemason9]

Don't be ridiculous. Wall Street is right wing, and always has been.

 

[waltky]

India Supreme Court rejects Novartis patent...

India's rejection of drug patent could reverberate
Apr 1,`13 - The India Supreme Court's rejection of a patent for an improved version of a costly cancer drug by Novartis AG could have big implications for the world's largest drugmakers.

The ruling, which was handed down on Monday, signals the latest shift in the world of drug development in emerging markets such as India and Brazil, where drugmakers have been looking for growth. Western governments routinely grant patents for slightly improved versions of medicines whose patents are about to expire. That enables drugmakers to get many patients to upgrade to their new, generally more expensive versions rather than the cheaper, generic knockoffs even though some doctors and patients argue that the improvements don't justify the high cost.

But India, Indonesia and some other developing countries have been bucking that trend. They've been shooting down Western patents and licensing local pharmaceutical companies to make cheap generic versions of medicines that most of their residents otherwise could not afford. Major drugmakers such as Pfizer and Bayer AG on Monday declined to say what they might do regarding the ruling and other recent decisions by poor countries to let local drugmakers sell cheap generic versions for medicines that have monopolies under patents in Western countries. But some industry insiders - including a Novartis executive - predict that multinational drugmakers will decide against doing drug research and development in India. "Novartis will not invest in drug research in India. Not only Novartis, I don't think any global company is planning to research in India," Ranjit Shahani, the vice chairman and managing director of Novartis India, said after the ruling.

Erik Gordon, a professor and analyst at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, agrees. He said the ruling means that there's "no reason to do research and development in India" because of its "national policy of hostility toward medicine patents." One thing is clear, though: Emerging markets are not the gold mine that optimistic pharmaceutical executives have been making them out to be. India's move casts significant doubt on the companies' predictions that within a few years, emerging markets will generate one-quarter or even one-third of their global revenue. They've been counting on governments and a rising middle class in emerging markets to spend more on their brand-name medicines rather than the locally made drugs that may be counterfeit. "Less patent protection in huge, developing markets means less revenue, and growth stories that are going to look like fantasies," Gordon said.

That's a big problem for drugmakers that already squeezed on all sides. Government and private health plans in industrialized countries, particularly in deficit-laden Europe, have been pushing for lower drug prices and occasionally even refusing to cover very-expensive drugs. Consumer health spending has been constrained by severe recessions across the globe. Research is ever more expensive. And virtually every drugmaker has been hurt in the last few years by expirations of patents for popular drugs that once made billions every year. Countries such as Indonesia and Brazil for several years have been licensing local pharmaceutical companies to make cheap generic versions of medicines, usually drugs for HIV, the deadly virus that causes AIDS.

MORE

See also:

Novartis India case: Campaigners hail patent rejection
1 April 2013 - Healthcare campaigners have welcomed India's rejection of a legal bid by Swiss company Novartis to patent a new version of its cancer drug, Glivec.

"The ruling will save a lot of lives across the developing world," said aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). The decision means generic drugmakers can continue to sell cheaper copies of Glivec in India, one of the fastest growing pharmaceutical markets. Novartis said the Supreme Court's ruling "discourages future innovation". Indian authorities denied the firm's plea on the grounds that the updated version was only slightly different from the previous one. "This ruling is a setback for patients that will hinder medical progress for diseases without effective treatment options," said Ranjit Shahani, vice-chairman and managing director of Novartis India. Glivec, which is used to treat chronic myeloid leukaemia and other cancers, costs about $2,600 (£1,710) a month. The generic equivalent is currently available in India for just $175.

'Big relief'

There were concerns that, if granted, a patent could threaten access to cheap generic versions of life-saving drugs in poorer countries. "The ruling has come as a big relief," said MSF lawyer Leena Menghaney. "The ruling doesn't mean no patents will be granted in India, but the abusive practice of seeking many patents for one drug will be curbed." Anand Grover, a lawyer representing Cancer Patients Aid Association, said he was "ecstatic with the ruling". "This will go a long way in providing affordable medicine for the poor," he said. Novartis applied for a patent in 2006 for its new version of the drug, arguing that it was easier to absorb and therefore qualified as an innovation.

However, the Indian patent authority rejected the application based on a law aimed at preventing companies from getting fresh patents by making only minor changes to existing drugs, a practice known as "evergreening". Officials also turned down a subsequent appeal by the company three years later. The AFP news agency quoted the court as saying that the updated drug "did not satisfy the test of novelty or inventiveness" as required by the law. The previous version of Glivec did not have a patent, as it preceded India's 2005 patent law.

Setting a precedent?

 

[Dutch]

Big Business and Marxist collusion? Does she know what Marxism is? What a dolt.