Fascist Corporatism

[Dr.Traveler]

As for Facism and Big Business: never said that big business lifted Hitler to power, but big business thrived under Hitler in Germany. Hitler was very much pro-business, pro-military, and nationalistic. Plus, folks forget that Hitler's pro business/military policies were the darling of many big business types right here in the States.

Hitler was only rejected by folks here in the US once it became clear where a pro-military, pro big business, nationalistic government would logically lead: to war.

 

[Vanquish]

Exactly. What happened to the free (gag me) market? If you can't exist without one particular customer - then you better keep them happy or suffer the market consequences.

It can, so make it illegal for government to purchase drugs or pay for them. Problem solved.

A better argument would be that as a government representing the people, that it's unfair for the government to treat any particular company differently than another. Oh wait...that wouldnt work either. Parties should be able to freely contract.

What does this have to do with treating one company different from another?

Oh well, bullshit debunked. Why does the right always try to get people to feel sorry for the rich?

The only thing you "debunked" is the theory that you have a brain.

You've typed some pretty bland words that end up signifying nothing.

Make it illegal for the government to purchase drugs? That's ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. The government IS a market actor (in fact, there's a whole body of law on that topic alone for the uninformed)...and as such should be able to freely choose who they do business with.

I was attempting to give the only real leg of an argument you might have for showing what the government did was wrong...but it doesnt really hold up because...wait for it...the government wasn't wrong.

There's not an equal protection or fairness argument to be made because market actors should be able to choose who they deal with, within the law (no racist, sexist, ageist policies).

Think of it hypothetically. You've got a widget that you want to sell. The widget doesnt hurt anyone. It's not illegal to have or sell or buy widgets - neither on a city, county, state or federal level. A guy walks up and wants to buy the widget. You've got two choices - either you can sell or not sell to the guy. You ought to be free to make that decision.

Perhaps you know that this guy is going to take your widget and make obscene gestures in church with it - and you don't like that. You choose not to sell. Or maybe that's just your kind of humour - and you decide you DO want to sell. That's up to you as well.

The government shouldnt be FORCED to use a company as a vendor a company that's price gouging to the point of being unconscionable.

I dont know about your dumb ass, but I like a government that enforces consumer protections creatively.

 

[The Rabbi]

As for Facism and Big Business: never said that big business lifted Hitler to power, but big business thrived under Hitler in Germany. Hitler was very much pro-business, pro-military, and nationalistic. Plus, folks forget that Hitler's pro business/military policies were the darling of many big business types right here in the States.

Hitler was only rejected by folks here in the US once it became clear where a pro-military, pro big business, nationalistic government would logically lead: to war.

Do you have any kind of proof for any of that? Henry Ford liked Hitler because Ford was an anti-semite. But outside of that I don't see too many mentions of CEO's goose-stepping around.
Hitler was supported here by German-Americans and Irish-Americans for their own purposes. But the public in general rejected fascism. They were also anti military, as witnessed by the Bonus March incident.

 

[editec]

Fascism in the blending of corporate power and Federal power until they are virtually indistinguishable.

You know...much like we have right here, right now, in America?

When the DEMS do it, the Republicans can see it and they call it socialism.

When the GOP does it, the Democrats can see it and they call it cronnyism.


Apprantly it's only the Indpendents who see it as being the SAME thing regardless of what party does it.

Death to all partisans.

We owe it to the children.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fascism in the blending of corporate power and Federal power until they are virtually indistinguishable.

You know...much like we have right here, right now, in America?

When the DEMS do it, the Republicans can see it and they call it socialism.

When the GOP does it, the Democrats can see it and they call it cronnyism.


Apprantly it's only the Indpendents who see it as being the SAME thing regardless of what party does it.

Death to all partisans.

We owe it to the children.

You're an idiot.
You need to go look up what fascsism actually is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in today's WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.

4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com


"Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I think you need to get a life PC. I say this because I actually have one, and you seem to covet lots of attention based on the ideas and words of others. Many (most) 'artists' (I suspect that is how you see yourself) suffered, lived and experienced the highs and lows of life. I suspect you were born with a silver spoon up your ass, or, were born in poverty and hate those you knew and lived around in your formative years. Much as most callous conservatives, I suspect you're a new form of soiciopath; one not mentally ill, but one so callous they are unable feel the pain of others and only care for yourself and others you find important.

Your post apprears to have been written by the hamsters in the Kia commercial..."you can go with this, or you can go with that...."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOHwjjhFTac]YouTube - 2010 Kia Soul Hamster Commercial | Black Sheep Kia Hamsters Video[/ame]


The one with the hoodie could be your new avatar!


But, what is sad, is that I see the ugly head of jealously in your post!



Doo-da-dippity!

Jealously? Hardly. Disgust best describes how I feel. It's hard to imagine what created someone like you and the other callous conservatives who dominate this board.

 

[editec]

Fascism in the blending of corporate power and Federal power until they are virtually indistinguishable.

You know...much like we have right here, right now, in America?

When the DEMS do it, the Republicans can see it and they call it socialism.

When the GOP does it, the Democrats can see it and they call it cronnyism.


Apprantly it's only the Indpendents who see it as being the SAME thing regardless of what party does it.

Death to all partisans.

We owe it to the children.

You're an idiot.
You need to go look up what fascsism actually is.

Okay....here is the definition according to the MAN WHO INVENTED IT

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”


Benito Mussolini

That's what I got.

What do you got, Lad?

Nothing.

You're an empty vessel.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Do you have any kind of proof for any of that? Henry Ford liked Hitler because Ford was an anti-semite. But outside of that I don't see too many mentions of CEO's goose-stepping around.

Lindbergh, Ford, and Grandpappy Bush were some of the most well known. Ford, GM, and IBM still face allegations they helped arm the Nazi's prior to the war's outbreak. Wallis Simpson was also fairly well known as a Nazi. Hearst, JFK's Father, and Rockefeller also have faced allegations over time of ties to fascist governments.

Hitler certainly was not popular with the general American populace, but with the rich and powerful he was certainly more popular than folks realize. This, btw, is hardly something new to fascism. American business owners tend to jump into bed with foreign dictatorships at the first sign of profitability.

Folks fail to realize just how close it was here in the States. If FDR hadn't held back the extremists in his own party, we'd have been Communists, or the next best thing, inside a few years. At the same time he was fending off the fringe Right that was falling more and more towards a fascist line. It was a fairly bleak time.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Oh, let me add this.

This story broke last week (Tuesday IIRC). IT's one of the stories I mentioned in passing in this post where I talked about stories you should pay attention to instead of the birth certificate drama.

It is a pretty deeply disturbing story. The idea the Fed's can legally tell a CEO to take a hike is pretty incredible. However, the more you dig into this story the worse and worse it looks for the CEO of Forest Pharm. This issue is hardly the first offense they've been caught for and the grand sum of the fines involved is less than what the company made in a single quarter from one of the drugs involved.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Why should the taxpayers pay for anything they don't want to pay for?

You're kidding right?

 

[Vanquish]

Why should the taxpayers pay for anything they don't want to pay for?

You're kidding right?

On one level, he's right. If taxpayers don't want to pay, they shouldn't pay.

What he fails to realize is...there's a process for deciding that...called elections. You vote in the people who make the laws and the taxes or you vote them out.

We don't have a pure democracy where everyone votes on everything...we're just too big and too busy for that.

 

[Nic_Driver]

On one level, he's right. If taxpayers don't want to pay, they shouldn't pay.

That's great on paper but seriously...

We don't have a pure democracy where everyone votes on everything

We don't have a democracy we have a republic.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have any kind of proof for any of that? Henry Ford liked Hitler because Ford was an anti-semite. But outside of that I don't see too many mentions of CEO's goose-stepping around.

Lindbergh, Ford, and Grandpappy Bush were some of the most well known. Ford, GM, and IBM still face allegations they helped arm the Nazi's prior to the war's outbreak. Wallis Simpson was also fairly well known as a Nazi. Hearst, JFK's Father, and Rockefeller also have faced allegations over time of ties to fascist governments.

Hitler certainly was not popular with the general American populace, but with the rich and powerful he was certainly more popular than folks realize. This, btw, is hardly something new to fascism. American business owners tend to jump into bed with foreign dictatorships at the first sign of profitability.

Folks fail to realize just how close it was here in the States. If FDR hadn't held back the extremists in his own party, we'd have been Communists, or the next best thing, inside a few years. At the same time he was fending off the fringe Right that was falling more and more towards a fascist line. It was a fairly bleak time.

Lindbergh wasn't an industrialist. Grandpappy Bush was practically unknown.
The companies you mention got into dutch for doing business with the Nazis. That doesn't necessarily mean they agreed with the ideology. A buck is a buck.
So your proposition is false.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here are some links on this case. It is far far older than most folks here realize:

Yet, Forest waged an aggressive campaign from 1998 through at least 2005 to promote the use of Celexa and Lexapro in children and teenagers, although neither drug was approved for pediatric patients, according to regulators.

With the aid of about 1,500 sales representatives, Celexa sales skyrocketed from $92 million in 1999 to $1.6 billion in 2002 — making it a blockbuster drug. But the firm was under pressure to sell as much Celexa as possible because the U.S patent on the drug would expire in 2004.

Seeking greater market share, Forest and Lundbeck had undertaken two pediatric studies. Forest's 2001 study by a Texas child psychiatrist was positive, indicating that Celexa was more effective than a placebo in treating depressed children. But the FDA concluded that the Lundbeck study, which was concluded in mid-2001, was "clearly negative" and showed no basis for using Celexa to treat depression in children and adolescents.

In the Lundbeck study, 14 children taking Celexa attempted suicide or had suicidal thoughts compared with only 5 patients taking placebo.

A small circle of Forest's top executives, including Olanoff, were aware of the negative study, regulators said, but failed for the next three years to tell company sales agents about the findings.

Instead, senior executives misrepresented the safety and effectiveness of Celexa to the firm's executive advisory board of leading psychiatrists, its professional affairs unit that is responsible for providing "balanced" information to physicians, and pediatric specialists whom the company hired to give promotional speeches on Celexa and Lexapro.

As a result, regulators said, pediatricians nationwide were misled into thinking that Celexa had been found safe for children.

Olanoff, who is now Forest's president and chief operating officer, did not return repeated phone calls.

From: Forest's push for profits led to drugmaker's woes

Forest Pharmaceuticals Sentenced to Pay $164 Million for Criminal Violations
WASHINGTON -- Drug manufacturer Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner to pay a criminal fine of $150 million and forfeit assets of $14 million following the company’s guilty plea in November 2010 to one felony count of obstructing justice, one misdemeanor count of distributing an unapproved new drug in interstate commerce and one misdemeanor count of distributing a misbranded drug in interstate commerce, the Justice Department announced. The company, a subsidiary of New York City-based Forest Laboratories Inc., pleaded guilty to charges related to obstruction of an FDA regulatory inspection, to the distribution of Levothroid, which at the time was an unapproved new drug, and to the illegal promotion of the anti-depressant drug Celexa for use in treating children and adolescents.

Today’s sentencing of Forest was the final component of a global resolution totaling more than $313 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations against Forest and its parent company in connection with the distribution and marketing of certain drugs. In September 2010, Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals entered a civil settlement to resolve False Claims Act charges involving three of its drugs: Levothroid, Celexa and Lexapro. As part of the civil settlement, Forest agreed to pay more $149 million, including more than $88 million to the federal government and more than $60 million to the states.

From: Forest Pharmaceuticals Sentenced to Pay $164 Million for Criminal Violations

For some perspective on how profitable the drugs in question were:

Fourth-quarter drug sales fell to $618.3 million from $725.1 million last year. Celexa sales decreased to $6.2 million for the quarter, down from $245.7 million in the prior-year period. The steep decline was offset partially by the company's other antidepressant, Lexapro, which generated sales of $399.4 million, up 14 percent from $351.8 million in the year-ago quarter.

From:FirstWord Mobile

For the record: I'm not crazy about the government's decision here, but the situation is just above and beyond the pale. And the government does legally have the power to refuse to do business with a CEO, it's just a highly unusual use of that power.

If this was in response to my post, I think you're missing the point.

Agreed that there was misconduct and wrongful and unethical marketing of a product or products. It was appropriate to file suit to stop that and apply appropriate punative measures.

But the point is that the CEO was neither named nor implicated in the suit or any misconduct. So it just doesn't make sense to punish the CEO while allowing the business to continue to conduct business. You get the job only if you put in a new CEO, and that sounds suspiciously like you get the job if you put in a new CEO of our choosing or liking. That is exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany which is why you can now point to an amicable relationship between government and the Hazi regime. That was by design, not happenstance. And if you think those busineses were then independent, you would be sadly mistaken.

 

[Vanquish]

Bullshit invoking the Nazi's. You've been screaming that for years and there's no Nazi style government even close to coming to power you (insert insult).

Nic - of course we have a republic. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. But democracy is an important ideal in the American Way of life. We fight for democracy across the globe.