Capitalism and Nationalism

[5stringJeff]

Referred from here.

I will restate my thesis for mrsx's comments:

One of the cornerstone beliefs of Liberalism is faith in an unfettered, free market capitalism. At issue in Bolivia is the country's natural gas reserves. The cocaleros want to nationalize it and use the profits for health and education, much as Venezuela is doing with its oil. I very much support that position.

1. Free market capitalism may be a hallmark of classical Liberalism, but today's liberals do not favor free market capitalism.

2. Nationalizing an industry is not free-market capitalism. It's the exact opposite.


Now, what say you, mrsx?

 

[IControlThePast]

Referred from here.

I will restate my thesis for mrsx's comments:



1. Free market capitalism may be a hallmark of classical Liberalism, but today's liberals do not favor free market capitalism.

2. Nationalizing an industry is not free-market capitalism. It's the exact opposite.


Now, what say you, mrsx?

What exactly is a free market? One where people make their decisions based on advertising, based on information from sports stars and famous people telling them which toothpaste to use, often deviod of any truly accurate study results comparing performance to competing products, and with the goal of doing exactly the opposite of what a free market is supposed to do? Businesses don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year to just simply distribute accurate product information to their prospective consumers. The whole goal of advertising is to sell a product, no matter the quality. Do we really have a free market at all?

Is it going against the free market to allow the Pentagon to buy paper clips for all of its employees instead of allowing them each to chose their preferred brand? Even if it is more profitable for the Pentagon and its employees to buy these in bulk and subtract from paychecks than to have everyone go out and buy their own? This analogy also fits for a National Healthcare system too. If a country can maximize profit by Nationalizing something, is that still against free market capitalism?

 

[Comrade]

What exactly is a free market?

A market completely unfettered by forcible compliance with government regulation and/or taxation.

One where people make their decisions based on advertising, based on information from sports stars and famous people telling them which toothpaste to use, often deviod of any truly accurate study results comparing performance to competing products, and with the goal of doing exactly the opposite of what a free market is supposed to do?

Who's to decides how the public gets their information? Surely not the government. Only the most obtuse individual relies upon consumer satisfaction based upon some jingle in the adverts or the opinion of some grossly overpaid spokesperson. I'd rather let Caveat Emptor decide our market than the nannyism of government suffocation.

Businesses don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year to just simply distribute accurate product information to their prospective consumers. The whole goal of advertising is to sell a product, no matter the quality. Do we really have a free market at all?

No, we have a litigious market, which restricts the promises and claims of producers to conform to that which a jury of average citizens considers unworthy of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Checks and balances of such 'snake oil' marketers have been established since the formation of the first corporations in late 17th Century Britannia.

Is it going against the free market to allow the Pentagon to buy paper clips for all of its employees instead of allowing them each to chose their preferred brand?

Is it against the free market that some parent buys Generic Frosted Flakes instead of Captain Crunch for their kiddies? No, because the parents are in charge of spending, not the kiddies. And in this example, the government, not the employees of the government, are in charge of the spending.

(It doesn't mean I approve of large government spending either)

Even if it is more profitable for the Pentagon and its employees to buy these in bulk and subtract from paychecks than to have everyone go out and buy their own? This analogy also fits for a National Healthcare system too. If a country can maximize profit by Nationalizing something, is that still against free market capitalism?

Yes, a nationalized healthcare systems is against free market capitalism.

We're not a nation of kiddies, who expect Father to tax us and then dole out our medical treatement according to some greater good for humanity decided upon politicians. I own my body, and my property. I have a god-given right to ensure my health is not dictated by the mandates of the government policy of the day. If I am stripped of my earnings to ensure the well-being of less capable individuals, it should be at my own behest. A national health care system strips me of that right to support my health based upon my own value to society. Eventually, our U.S. national health care system would come to resemble that in Canada and Europe... ineffectual, bankrupt institutions deviod of innovation and absolutely assured to reduce the chances of survival for both myself and my offspring, as well as anyone else's well being with which this whole program was supposed to benefit (per the promises of Democratic Politicians) :teeth:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What exactly is a free market? One where people make their decisions based on advertising, based on information from sports stars and famous people telling them which toothpaste to use, often deviod of any truly accurate study results comparing performance to competing products, and with the goal of doing exactly the opposite of what a free market is supposed to do? Businesses don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year to just simply distribute accurate product information to their prospective consumers. The whole goal of advertising is to sell a product, no matter the quality. Do we really have a free market at all?

yes.

Is it going against the free market to allow the Pentagon to buy paper clips for all of its employees instead of allowing them each to chose their preferred brand? Even if it is more profitable for the Pentagon and its employees to buy these in bulk and subtract from paychecks than to have everyone go out and buy their own? This analogy also fits for a National Healthcare system too. If a country can maximize profit by Nationalizing something, is that still against free market capitalism?

YES.

 

[Annie]

Referred from here.

I will restate my thesis for mrsx's comments:



1. Free market capitalism may be a hallmark of classical Liberalism, but today's liberals do not favor free market capitalism.

2. Nationalizing an industry is not free-market capitalism. It's the exact opposite.


Now, what say you, mrsx?

The following demonstrates how a more or less captialistic society works. Before I get to that, let me say to anyone in FL or the Gulf, I hope you come through this season in much better shape than last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/national/11florida.html?th&emc=th

June 11, 2005
Hurricane-Battered Floridians Huddle in Home Sweet Fortress
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

MIAMI, June 10 - Not far from where Hurricane Charley ravaged entire towns along Florida's Gulf Coast last August, Kevin O'Brien is building the fortress of his dreams: a dome-shaped home that stands out on his suburban street like some concrete U.F.O.

"It's not something that is truly accepted yet," said Mr. O'Brien, explaining that his 20-by-30-foot home in Venice, about 70 miles south of Tampa, would withstand winds of at least 150 miles per hour. "But this is the place you and your family know you are going to be safe."

Two weeks into a new hurricane season - with the first official tempest of 2005, Tropical Storm Arlene, already churning toward the Florida Panhandle on Friday - homeowners across the state are taking defensive measures to guard against a repetition of the calamities they suffered last year.

Not all are going to such extraordinary lengths as Mr. O'Brien, a neuromuscular therapist. But many are ordering $15,000 worth of unbreakable windows, testing new-fangled shutters and, taking advantage of a two-week tax holiday on storm supplies, stockpiling batteries, tarpaulins and the like.

With Florida still recovering from more than $20 billion in property damage from four consecutive hurricanes last summer, with wrecked shingles, roof beams, siding and pool screens still piled up from Pensacola to Palm Beach, and with more than 10,000 families still in temporary shelter, no one wants to gamble this year. Note the tendency of 'spending money to preserve investment' Sometimes called, 'risk management?'

[...]

Hurricane shutters, which many Floridians had forgone in recent years because they are cumbersome and expensive, are now so coveted that materials and installers are in short supply and many companies have long wait lists. Homeowners who ordered shutters in March or April might not see them until September or October, as the storm season ends.

Traditional aluminum shutters, while still popular, are losing favor to a new variety made of strong, clear plastic and to screens made of trampoline-like material, several shutter suppliers said. Flying debris bounces off the screens, which cost about $19 per square foot compared with about $45 for roll-up shutters, Mr. Petrusse said. Clear shutters are catching on, after many people kept their metal shutters up for months last year and lived in darkness.

"A lot of people like them because, bingo, you can see through it," said Pam Bohen, owner of Home Safety Solutions in Palm Harbor. "You're not trapped in a cave."

Ms. Bohen said her 19-year-old company was having one of its busiest years ever, selling things like safety film for windows and a fabric called Force 12 that protects lanais and pool enclosures. Customers are "mixing and matching," she said, spending $600 to $60,000 to stormproof every vulnerable cranny.

Impact-resistant windows are another popular item in the wake of last year's storms, when shattered windows led to extensive water and mold damage and made it easier for roofs to blow off. New products developed to fill demand is another tendency. This is how entrepreneurs make money, filling a demand.

[...]

Here we see another example of risk management; coupled with an attempt to preserve a market.Visit Florida, the state's tourism agency, is offering "Cover Your Event Insurance" to help cover the cost of rescheduling conventions and other meetings put off because of hurricanes. The program will pay up to $200,000 for business groups to rebook after storms in August, September or October.

[...]

Last year's hurricanes provided a rare laboratory for builders and designers from around the country, who swarmed to Florida to study what withstood the extreme weather and what did not. The evidence they gathered helped to promote existing products or to devise new ones, many of which could be found in January at the International Builders' Show in Orlando. Developing new products, redesigning old products. All based on filling market needs, making profit and to serving the consumer.

Panic rooms were on display at the show, but Dr. Timothy Reinhold of the Institute for Business and Home Safety, an insurance industry group in Tampa, said they made more sense in tornado zones. a new product developed for one market, might be more profitable and needed for another. The same might be said for bunkers, though Jorge Villa, owner of a Miami company called U.S. Bunkers, said he had been "pretty busy" this year. He sells steel and concrete bunkers, from $12,000, for a 12-ton unit that fits inside a garage, to $48,000, for a larger outdoor model.

"The garage units are built so the whole house can fall on top of it and nothing happens," Mr. Villa said. "You can be in there as long as you have to. With three battery packs, you can survive three days."

As for dome-shaped homes, which got new respect after Hurricane Ivan left one on Pensacola Beach remarkably unscathed last September, Dr. Reinhold said they were uncommonly durable but not a must-have.

"Someone has really got to want it," he said. "Our feeling is that any of the house shapes out there, if they are properly designed and attention is paid to the details, can be made to work." While the market could bring any number of products forward, only those that fill the most needs will survive. The consumer ultimately decides which products they will buy, based on their income, need, taste, and quality of the product.

 

[mrsx]

I came to this thread via a link posted by gop_Jeff because I thought it would be a discussion of the cocaleros. Sorry.

 

[Mr. P]

I came to this thread via a link posted by gop_Jeff because I thought it would be a discussion of the cocaleros. Sorry.

Maybe if you address the first post..
Or can you NOT defend socialism?

I'm thinking "sorry" is an understatement.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Maybe if you address the first post..
Or can you NOT defend socialism?

I'm thinking "sorry" is an understatement.

Yeah. I think it meant "pathetic".

 

[IControlThePast]

Who's to decides how the public gets their information? Surely not the government. Only the most obtuse individual relies upon consumer satisfaction based upon some jingle in the adverts or the opinion of some grossly overpaid spokesperson. I'd rather let Caveat Emptor decide our market than the nannyism of government suffocation.

Most people do rely on advertising decide what to buy. Companies don't spend exorbitant amounts of money on something only a couple people listen to. They don't buy a superbowl ad for $2.3 million because people won't listen to the jingle or celebrity.

No, we have a litigious market, which restricts the promises and claims of producers to conform to that which a jury of average citizens considers unworthy of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Checks and balances of such 'snake oil' marketers have been established since the formation of the first corporations in late 17th Century Britannia.

But most advertisements are deviod of any sort of fact, and the rest report in house studies. A McDonals does a taste test and finds people prefer the Big Mac. Hardees does one and finds people prefer the Whopper. Big suprise.

Is it against the free market that some parent buys Generic Frosted Flakes instead of Captain Crunch for their kiddies? No, because the parents are in charge of spending, not the kiddies. And in this example, the government, not the employees of the government, are in charge of the spending.

The Pentagon doesn't have to be in charge of providing office supplies to its workers. In some public institutions, like schools, workers (students) aren't provided office supplies. The workers have the right to decide whether they will each buy their own office supplies or have their employer do it for them at a lesser cost.

Yes, a nationalized healthcare systems is against free market capitalism.

We're not a nation of kiddies, who expect Father to tax us and then dole out our medical treatement according to some greater good for humanity decided upon politicians. I own my body, and my property. I have a god-given right to ensure my health is not dictated by the mandates of the government policy of the day. If I am stripped of my earnings to ensure the well-being of less capable individuals, it should be at my own behest. A national health care system strips me of that right to support my health based upon my own value to society. Eventually, our U.S. national health care system would come to resemble that in Canada and Europe... ineffectual, bankrupt institutions deviod of innovation and absolutely assured to reduce the chances of survival for both myself and my offspring, as well as anyone else's well being with which this whole program was supposed to benefit (per the promises of Democratic Politicians) :teeth:

It goes against Objectivist Capitalistic philosophy for a consumer to do something not in his best interest. It is in his best interest to band together with other consumers so he can effectively increase purchasing power, buy in bulk, and reduce his costs. If we took a "vote" for national healthcare, which means having it pass as legislation, then it was enacted by the people and decided by the people. Australia has a very effective national healthcare system.

 

[Comrade]

Most people do rely on advertising decide what to buy. Companies don't spend exorbitant amounts of money on something only a couple people listen to. They don't buy a superbowl ad for $2.3 million because people won't listen to the jingle or celebrity.

There is certainly a formula for determining the cost of advertising a commercial during the Superbowl. It's a rational, cost-driven formula for maximizing ones' brand. I don't have a problem with it, seeing how the producers of the Super Bowl are themselves at risk of loss by not sufficiently marketing their 30 second spots to the mass market which exists during this widely watched event. I don't know who you would blame in this situation. The people who watch football?

But most advertisements are deviod of any sort of fact, and the rest report in house studies. A McDonals does a taste test and finds people prefer the Big Mac. Hardees does one and finds people prefer the Whopper. Big suprise.

Caveat Emptor. Personally, I like to see an occasional reminder of the temptations which await me down the street at the local fast food joint.

The Pentagon doesn't have to be in charge of providing office supplies to its workers. In some public institutions, like schools, workers (students) aren't provided office supplies. The workers have the right to decide whether they will each buy their own office supplies or have their employer do it for them at a lesser cost.

At the expense of our tax dollars, no doubt. Actually, if they really wanted a particular brand of stapler, I say they pony it up themselves.

It goes against Objectivist Capitalistic philosophy for a consumer to do something not in his best interest. It is in his best interest to band together with other consumers so he can effectively increase purchasing power, buy in bulk, and reduce his costs.

Perhaps, then again such an act would reduce the incentive for producers to differentiate their products, and instead put the power of purchasing in the hands of a very few who rule these consumer product groups.

If we took a "vote" for national healthcare, which means having it pass as legislation, then it was enacted by the people and decided by the people.

Such a vote would LOSE in America today.

Australia has a very effective national healthcare system.

And Canada and Europe have very substandard sytems... what does that prove?

 

[mrsx]

Referred from here.

I will restate my thesis for mrsx's comments:



1. Free market capitalism may be a hallmark of classical Liberalism, but today's liberals do not favor free market capitalism.

2. Nationalizing an industry is not free-market capitalism. It's the exact opposite.


Now, what say you, mrsx?

Sorry about the delay - had to fend off more potty mouth attacks by infantile superPatriots. Here you go...
The “free market” cliché beloved of Republicans is part of an economic theory and an economic reality that has been dead for more than a century. The idea of an “invisible hand,” which if left untrammeled by government interference is central to the writings of both Smith and Ricardo. The former is especially beloved in this country because his Wealth of Nations (1776) addressed many of the complaints against mercantilism, which motivated the colonists to Revolution, and because the wisdom of the free market seems a perfect companion to the democratic process in which individual voters acting freely maximize government efficiency.

The difficulty with the “free market” idea is that it works in a mercantile economy, not in an industrial one. The economic data from which Smith and Ricardo worked was generated by shipping raw materials and natural products (including slaves) from areas of low cost to areas of high profit by sailing ship. Its major driver is competition: if there is a lot of money to be made selling fish to Europe, the fishing fleet will expand, more people will enter the fish trade and competition will maximize market efficiency.

Alas for Ricardo and Smith, the mercantile economy which had existed since the revival of trade in the Middle Ages was, in the very years they were writing, being replaced by the new, industrial economy. The engine of wealth became manufacturing processes, which turned raw materials into mass-produced goods. There emerged for the first time a new concept, the natural monopoly, which arises from the efficiency of scale inherent in manufacture and destroys the competitive regulation of the free market. Simply put, natural monopoly means that the lower unit cost of increased production allows an established manufacturer to drive out new competition. Manufacturing industries tend to concentration and the destruction of competition. General Motors, gobbling up dozens of small car manufacturers or Microsoft eliminating rival operating systems are examples of natural monopoly.

The paradoxical result is that, in an industrial economy, government regulation is necessary to maintain whatever limited benefits competition may bring. The free market exists only as a shibboleth of disingenuous robber barons.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sorry about the delay - had to fend off more potty mouth attacks by infantile superPatriots. Here you go...
The “free market” cliché beloved of Republicans is part of an economic theory and an economic reality that has been dead for more than a century. The idea of an “invisible hand,” which if left untrammeled by government interference is central to the writings of both Smith and Ricardo. The former is especially beloved in this country because his Wealth of Nations (1776) addressed many of the complaints against mercantilism, which motivated the colonists to Revolution, and because the wisdom of the free market seems a perfect companion to the democratic process in which individual voters acting freely maximize government efficiency.

The difficulty with the “free market” idea is that it works in a mercantile economy, not in an industrial one. The economic data from which Smith and Ricardo worked was generated by shipping raw materials and natural products (including slaves) from areas of low cost to areas of high profit by sailing ship. Its major driver is competition: if there is a lot of money to be made selling fish to Europe, the fishing fleet will expand, more people will enter the fish trade and competition will maximize market efficiency.

Alas for Ricardo and Smith, the mercantile economy which had existed since the revival of trade in the Middle Ages was, in the very years they were writing, being replaced by the new, industrial economy. The engine of wealth became manufacturing processes, which turned raw materials into mass-produced goods. There emerged for the first time a new concept, the natural monopoly, which arises from the efficiency of scale inherent in manufacture and destroys the competitive regulation of the free market. Simply put, natural monopoly means that the lower unit cost of increased production allows an established manufacturer to drive out new competition. Manufacturing industries tend to concentration and the destruction of competition. General Motors, gobbling up dozens of small car manufacturers or Microsoft eliminating rival operating systems are examples of natural monopoly.

The paradoxical result is that, in an industrial economy, government regulation is necessary to maintain whatever limited benefits competition may bring. The free market exists only as a shibboleth of disingenuous robber barons.

We're all pretty much OK some regulation. Monopoly laws etc. Why does it take you so many words to say so little.

Let's be honest: You want a completely planned economy. Your little history lesson about boats proves nothing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why is it that relative market freedom works only in a mercantile economy and not in an industrial one? You asserted it does, but I see no logic or evidence supporting that. (We still do trading of non manufactured good you know.)

 

[mrsx]

Why is it that relative market freedom works only in a mercantile economy and not in an industrial one? You asserted it does, but I see no logic or evidence supporting that. (We still do trading of non manufactured good you know.)

The part of my post that deals with "natural monopoly" contains the explanation. Perhaps I was too synoptic. Permit me to give another illustration. Let's suppose you own a railroad that runs profitably from Podunk to Dogpatch. I see this and decide to set up a competing line to get a share of this profitable business. This should, according to Ricardo, produce competition and hold down freight costs. What experience has shown is that your existing line is able to add capacity by putting on more and longer trains far more cheaply than can my line, which has to buy land, stock, lay track etc. Because your line is already profitable, you can even cut prices and run at a loss if you need to drive me out of business. When I fail, you can buy my railroad quite cheaply. This is what happened here in the second half of the 19th century.
You are right that we still do a lot of shipping of natural materials; however, it is now done in the context of an industrial economy. The wheat and soy are grown buy "agri-business," they are shipped by rail and freighter industries and, at the other end, they are used by large industries to mass produce products such as Wonder Bread. It is the profit that comes from selling manufactured products that drives the whole system.

 

[Mr. P]

We're all pretty much OK some regulation. Monopoly laws etc. Why does it take you so many words to say so little.

Let's be honest: You want a completely planned economy. Your little history lesson about boats proves nothing.

It's a nice lil tap dance, don't ya think..He/She still hasn't addressed Jeffs' first post. IMO

If ya can't dazzle em with yer brilliance...Baffle em with yer bullshit.:funnyface

 

[mrsx]

We're all pretty much OK some regulation. Monopoly laws etc. Why does it take you so many words to say so little.

Let's be honest: You want a completely planned economy. Your little history lesson about boats proves nothing.

I am disappointed in your response. You started off pontificating about free markets in the same old Republican cant. Now it appears you are not even an amateur economist. "OK some regulation" is vague enough to be useless. Those many words are a much over-simplified explanation of fundamental economic laws which appear never to have occured to you and which you do not seem to understand. I have no wish to engage in a discussion of macroeconomics with you if you have no better foundation than suggested in your post. It feels like one of those Intelligent Design boards where a biologist attempts to reason with a born again with a thesaurus.

 

[IControlThePast]

There is certainly a formula for determining the cost of advertising a commercial during the Superbowl. It's a rational, cost-driven formula for maximizing ones' brand. I don't have a problem with it, seeing how the producers of the Super Bowl are themselves at risk of loss by not sufficiently marketing their 30 second spots to the mass market which exists during this widely watched event. I don't know who you would blame in this situation. The people who watch football?

I don't really see any specific segment at blame. The people will buy a product from a funny commercial over a dull one with statistics, and most advertisers chose not to do an informative commercial most of the time. It really took me five Levitra Commercials to figure out what the hell they were selling .

Caveat Emptor. Personally, I like to see an occasional reminder of the temptations which await me down the street at the local fast food joint.

As would apparently most people, but we don't have a free market if people decide what to buy based on how good the advertising firm is instead of the product.

At the expense of our tax dollars, no doubt. Actually, if they really wanted a particular brand of stapler, I say they pony it up themselves.

Just reminds me of the stapler in Office Space . At the expense of the employees income.

Perhaps, then again such an act would reduce the incentive for producers to differentiate their products, and instead put the power of purchasing in the hands of a very few who rule these consumer product groups.

People don't decide what medicines they get right now. The power of deciding what the purchase will be is already in the hands of a select few, Doctors, and that's where it will stay. The companies still make a profit in Nationalized Medicine, just not the exorbitant one they do here.

Such a vote would LOSE in America today.

Well then I'm sure you wouldn't be opposed to taking it :tng:. In a Washington Post poll 80% of people who responded would vote for it. It's the Washington Post though, so maybe they only surveyed their readers, but generally large polls taken like this are representative because advertisers and political parties want to know which direction to take. I'm not particularly concerned how the percentages play out in polls though, we just need a vote.

And Canada and Europe have very substandard sytems... what does that prove?

That like anything, there is a right way and a wrong way to do something.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am disappointed in your response.

Oh no.

You started off pontificating about free markets in the same old Republican cant.

Relatively free markets have a proven track record of success. The third world will ultimately rise up from commerce and economic freedom, not convincing the west to hobble itself with socialism.

Now it appears you are not even an amateur economist. "OK some regulation" is vague enough to be useless.

Amateur economist. Because I don't believe the mumbo jumbo of academic theoreticians, divorced from reality. You could ask for an elaboration of what regulations I mean. Or you can act like a second class ho about it.

Those many words are a much over-simplified explanation of fundamental economic laws which appear never to have occured to you and which you do not seem to understand.

No. You made assertion about freemarkets only being workable in the pirate days or something. Seems to me they worked then and are working now. What data do you use to denounce the appropriateness of freedom in the modern context? I think your full of it.

I have no wish to engage in a discussion of macroeconomics with you if you have no better foundation than suggested in your post. It feels like one of those Intelligent Design boards where a biologist attempts to reason with a born again with a thesaurus.

No. You know you're full of crap and can't take the heat. Let's be honest. You can't e even explain your own assertions. It seems like you're the one operating on faith.

 

[Comrade]

I don't really see any specific segment at blame. The people will buy a product from a funny commercial over a dull one with statistics, and most advertisers chose not to do an informative commercial most of the time. It really took me five Levitra Commercials to figure out what the hell they were selling .

LOL! No kidding, I still don't know. Is it for the women to have better sex or the man in the commercial? Actually, it probably doesn't matter... if you help one, you help the other!

As would apparently most people, but we don't have a free market if people decide what to buy based on how good the advertising firm is instead of the product.

Taco bell must spend enourmous amounts of ads, but I eat at Baja Fresh down the street now. Even the best firms can't sell me on what tastes like crap in comparison. But to each their own.

Just reminds me of the stapler in Office Space . At the expense of the employees income.

Awesome movie!

People don't decide what medicines they get right now.

Otherwise people would all be walking around stoned on opiates :tng:

he power of deciding what the purchase will be is already in the hands of a select few, Doctors, and that's where it will stay. The companies still make a profit in Nationalized Medicine, just not the exorbitant one they do here.

I thought people can request Generics? Anyway, the reason drugs are cheaper overseas is because the government artificially reduces prices thus taking a portion of the R&D funds away from the drug company. They'll still sell it to France at half price, because it's manufacture is cheaper than the sale, but if every country operated that way, there would be harly any R&D at all. This why the U.S.A. produces 95% of new drugs today, while others essentially leech off the American who pay full price for this new developement.

Well then I'm sure you wouldn't be opposed to taking it :tng:.

Good point. I'd never oppose a popular vote for something.

That like anything, there is a right way and a wrong way to do something.

True enough.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So which is it, we don't know what they're even selling or our free will has been taken away by devious ad men and capitalists?