Capitalism and Nationalism

[IControlThePast]

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.

People can request over the counter medications. I forget the exact statistics, but drug companies spend way more on PR than they actually do on research. There are quite a few drug reps who are paid good money and provided cars, and they go around to Doctors' Offices to try and convince them to buy the brand of drug they are selling, often bringing presents, and trial results. Some hold conferences (which can be a week long) at the Ritz Carlton, Boca Raton, Hawaii, or in a box suite in the stadium of the closest NFL team during the game. They provide these services and extend them to the families of the Doctors. Anyways, the US shouldn't be exploited for all the R&D money. If every country operated on National Healthcare then drug companies would raise the price for those countries so they could afford R&D.

 

[IControlThePast]

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?

If we don't know what they're selling, or how things really compare, we don't have the free will to pick the best product out of the market.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If we don't know what they're selling, or how things really compare, we don't have the free will to pick the best product out of the market.

But we do have the freewill to do our own research. Not that I'm anti -ad. I thought you were anti-ad at first. Seemed like you heading to a place I would have to pound you for being. My bad.

 

[IControlThePast]

But we do have the freewill to do our own research. Not that I'm anti -ad. I thought you were anti-ad at first. Seemed like you heading to a place I would have to pound you for being. My bad.

People don't do their own research, and an uninformed buyer will only select the best product out of luck. They have the free will to have a free market, but they choose not to make informed decisions. An easy example is computers. Most people will buy a Dell or something, while their best option at any pricepoint is to build their own. It will save them lots of time and money, and everyone is smart enough to do it, even if they have no computer knowledge. It's easier than following a cooking recipe. Each part is individually waranteed, and you have less downtime because you know how to fix it yourself. It is cheaper because parts retailing companies buy in bulk too, and they cut out the middleman retailer who builds it for you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

People don't do their own research, and an uninformed buyer will only select the best product out of luck. They have the free will to have a free market, but they choose not to make informed decisions. An easy example is computers. Most people will buy a Dell or something, while their best option at any pricepoint is to build their own. It will save them lots of time and money, and everyone is smart enough to do it, even if they have no computer knowledge. It's easier than following a cooking recipe. Each part is individually waranteed, and you have less downtime because you know how to fix it yourself. It is cheaper because parts retailing companies buy in bulk too, and they cut out the middleman retailer who builds it for you.

Then their CHOICE is to make an uninformed purchase.

You must realize that people don't WANT to build their own computer, AND THEY"RE WILLING TO PAY NOT TO HAVE TO. Specialization has a value.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

People can request over the counter medications. I forget the exact statistics, but drug companies spend way more on PR than they actually do on research. There are quite a few drug reps who are paid good money and provided cars, and they go around to Doctors' Offices to try and convince them to buy the brand of drug they are selling, often bringing presents, and trial results. Some hold conferences (which can be a week long) at the Ritz Carlton, Boca Raton, Hawaii, or in a box suite in the stadium of the closest NFL team during the game. They provide these services and extend them to the families of the Doctors. Anyways, the US shouldn't be exploited for all the R&D money. If every country operated on National Healthcare then drug companies would raise the price for those countries so they could afford R&D.

Man, that money paid to drug reps should be going to lawyers to sue corporations. This just ain't right.

 

[IControlThePast]

Man, that money paid to drug reps should be going to lawyers to sue corporations. This just ain't right.

Or maybe it should be going towards developing drugs that don't blind or kill you :tng:. I was the beneficiary of some of that money, so I can't complain too much about it. I wonder how much it cost for them to provide me spring break at the Ritz, and a plane ticket down to Florida.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Or maybe it should be going towards developing drugs that don't blind or kill you :tng:. I was the beneficiary of some of that money, so I can't complain too much about it. I wonder how much it cost for them to provide me spring break at the Ritz, and a plane ticket down to Florida.

Maybe they generate sales in excess of their compensation. And some of that goes to r&d. Kill the industry with overregulation and socialism and presto, no new innovations.

Man. Im gonna start growing my own food.

 

[IControlThePast]

Maybe they generate sales in excess of their compensation. And some of that goes to r&d. Kill the industry with overregulation and socialism and presto, no new innovations.

Man. Im gonna start growing my own food.

You're probably not in the right climate to grow everything you want, you probably don't have the land either, you won't be able to match or exceed the store selection, and gardening will undoubtedly take more time than buying from the store.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're probably not in the right climate to grow everything you want, you probably don't have the land either, you won't be able to match or exceed the store selection, and gardening will undoubtedly take more time than buying from the store.

I can't find any Whopper seeds either.

 

[Shattered]

I can't find any Whopper seeds either.

They're on top of the bun, silly!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

I agree to some regulations on infrastructures like the one you mention to avoid some waste. If you had followed my point about which regulations are acceptable instead of having an egoistic embolism about it, shutting down the conversation, we might be further along now in the conversation. As it is, I'll have to stay up to at least ten to beat your ass. Please don't inconvenience me in the future.

Trains are what happened here in the second half of the century, therefore RELATIVELY free markets are no longer tenable? is this your proof? this sucks.

Your straw man of "conservatives want no market regulation whatsoever" is that, an ineffective and transparent straw man.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They're on top of the bun, silly!

BAM! Genius!

 

[Shattered]

BAM! Genius!

Kickass. What's my cut?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Kickass. What's my cut?

Well 50% of zero is zero. So here ya go!

 

[Shattered]

Well 50% of zero is zero. So here ya go!

Aww hell. If I hadn't already zinged ya for somethin else, I'd ding ya for that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Aww hell. If I hadn't already zinged ya for somethin else, I'd ding ya for that.

There's a gift for you in your User CP!

 

[Shattered]

Aww! You DO <s>love</s> <s>like</s> tolerate me!

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

I was going to respond, but since you are no longer a member, I guess I'll just save it for later.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have seen no Republican who's against trust busting legislation. Your argument is still a strawman, x. Are you retarded?