Capitalism works.

[Dowding]

Thank-you Naso! - I agree with virtually everything you say   . I just want to highlight one particular part of your post:

 

Originally posted by Naso:


p.s.
...when every argument treated is reduced by you in a US centered POV?
Can we talk freely without involving the nationalistic issues?
please?

This is EXACTLY on the mark.   If you hadn't said it I would have, Naso. At which point did I say sleeping sickness was a problem created by the US, and should be solved by the US? AK, Maverick - you can't discuss a problem unless it has been directed at your country, and if it isn't - why let that stop you, eh?

300 million USD - this has been given as an estimate by experts, perhaps you know better?

 

Maybe it would be better to give the currency you are referencing.

How would that help? I'm sure people with sleeping sickness could feel better with a bit money in their hands - maybe they could put it between their teeth to stop themselves screaming as the arsenic burns through their body? Money is needed start producing the drug, the people themselves don't need a bit of loose change. I thought that was obvious...

 

Someone is going to put it in a facial hair removal formula? Since when does facial hair removal become a $300 million industry?

Never said it could be, if you care to re-read my post. They probably wouldn't get that amount. But they would get a DAMNED SIGHT MORE for a cosmetics product for wealthy people, than a drug for some of the poorest people on the planet. And that would be incentive enough to make the product instead of the cure.

 

This story is a generalization of capitalism at its worst. It is also a story that is vague and misleading.

I think it is VERY specific in highlighting a major problem with our current way of doing things in the world. There are many other examples of the this kind of tradgedy in the world - sleeping sickness is a little known one. I will repeat what I said earlier, that my information comes from a TV program called 'Hidden Stories' - hence I think it was worth repeating here, in case people hadn't heard about it. Just because you are so knowledgeable, doesn't mean everyone else is. I wouldn't have known anything about it without this program.

As for your comment about non-capitalists not doing anything - my point is that there is no other system in the world, and certainly no other system which can tackle the problem. I live in a capitalist country, with limited socialist ideals. As StSanta has already pointed out, socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

My post was an attack on capitalism, sure, but it was also an attack on every system of government for letting the problem arise and then doing nothing to alleviate it. Read my last line in the original post, please.

 

If you want capitalists to handle it.. do nothing.

I'm shocked you actually believe this. Let capitalism solve the problem? How can you say that - when has any company solved such an awful situation? And tell me when capitalism is going to solve the problem - this is NOT a new issue, and it has parallels with other long-running African issues. It's already had many years - how many more should we give it? Don't you think it is disgusting that market forces should be allowed to dictate a cow to be more important than a human life?

In the end it will be the charitable organistaions which will try to solve the problem - and these rely on the hearts of ordinary people to give money. I'm sorry, but that isn't capitalism.

And BTW, it angers me greatly that you reduce this to the status of a 'troll'. It is nothing of the sort.

Toad - I knew you were having a L-A-U-G-H.  

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Naso]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
 
Wow! Hooked and landed a giant Naso-fish without trolling at all!

Yes, Naso, PLEASE look at both my posts!

First post: Used the "BIG GRIN" after each paragraph.

Second Post: Used the "SMILE".

Now, from MY pov, the BIG GRIN indicates a joke.......in fact I said I was just kidding!

The SMILE says the same thing. It's a J-O-K-E.

You're too easy to catch, Naso...so I'll throw you back. After all, I wasn't even fishing.

Maybe it's that Italian centered POV that makes you so easy to land. Touchy, Touchy, Touchy! Take a de-e-e-e-p breath...relax.


Laugh! Smile!

Life is no drill, you only get one pass. You don't want to die all tensed up, now do you?

                                           


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-25-2000).]

  muhahahahaha !!!!

Who's the pray?  

Ok, ok, i admit, i cheated, forgive me please.

I dont use grin or smile, and i name your name because you've become harder to catch.

Is unfair, i know, sorry.

BTW, and serious now, the post BEFORE the P.S. was serious, just the p.s. part was... ehm.. fishing.  

Hey Toad, we think different in somethink, but i respect you, <S>!!.

And i take very few think too seriously, i am always ready to smile, and i believe irony is a good way to look at thinks.  

Anyway, and serious, can all we keep this discussion separate from particular nation?
I think is regarding an economical behaviour, not a state behaviour, and we can remain cold-blooded enough to have a smart discussion.

p.s. I re-read your first post... mmmm...  

 

Originally posted by Toad:
Clearly, if what you say is true, this is something that needs doing. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as free lunch, so SOMEONE will have to pay.

Tell you what, the US is spending multiple billions keeping troops in the Balkans every year. How about we bring them home, you guys take over and we'll pay for the drug? Deal? Compared to the Balkans, $300 million is pocket change.

 

Just think what a world it would be if we didn't have to WASTE so much money on stuff like Bosnia.

[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 09-25-2000).]

[AKDejaVu]

Dowding, you need to get more information than just a "TV show".

Read up on Speeping Sickness.  Found out what drugs are available. Find out how many strains there are and how effective all the drugs are for them.

Also... find out when the disease was first stamped out.

The disease had been attacked already and whiped out once before.  7 years later, it begins to pop up again.  It takes a bit for it to reach epidemic levels... complicated by the fact that it can show simptoms as late as 2 years after contracting it.

Several doctors have outlined planes that include insecticides, diagnostics and treatements for the disease.  Most of these need a somewhat stable environment to be executed in.  Civil war has a tendancy to make that more difficult.

I have no idea who sponsered the show you are talking about.  I have no idea what their agenda is.  If you think it was merely to help the people of Sudan, you are naive.

And.. I can't help but wonder who developed and paid for the drugs that wiped it out the first time.  I'm sure it was from charitable donations from multiple private sources who did not earn their money.. they found it.

Capitalism wiped it out the first time... it will most likely do it again.  Wether you like to admit it or not.

AKDejaVu

[miko2d]

 A brief overview of the basics of the capitalism.

 1. People do things they like and spend their effort (expressed as money) accordingly. Those activities include recreation, charity and many others.
 In order to facilitate those activities people organize groups, clubs, etc. If they need a more official status, they form a foundation or a non-profit company. The goal of a charitable foundation of a non-prifit company is whatever they want it to be.

 2. People have to earn their livelihood. For that they have work in some capacity or organize or enable other people to work. The results of their efforts is converted into money since money is much easier to store or transfer then natural products. To facilitate such activities and get an official status, people form publicly-held or private companies. The goal of a company is to make wealth for it's owners that they (owners) can spend as they wish. The prodicts or services a company produces to make money for it's owners are mostly coincidental.
 If some industry has higher risk-adjusted return on a capital then the average, then the money will flow into such an industry, production will increase, prices and profitability drop until the return comes down to average.

 So a charity should be personal. If farmaceutical companies are singled out to pay for something just because they have caught your notice, two things may occur:
a) Since some of the profits are spent to help "noble causes", the profitability of the companies will drop, the capital will flow out to other sectors, the production will drop. There will be shortage of drugs and they will become more expensive.

b) Since some of the profits are spent to help "noble causes", the companies will raise prices on their products. Drugs will become more expensive.

 So sick people in US will suffer.

Two scenarios:
 a) People work and make money. They form charitable foundation, raise $100 and $99 gets to the poor african people. The capitalist way.

 b) Drug companies are forced to give $100 so that $50 gets to poor african people.
 As the result the drugs become more expensive and the government has to subsidize them. In order to do that they will have to raise at least $300 in taxes.
 In this case some newly hired beureaucrats will decide who get the money and how much, what drugs we cah have, etc... The socialist way.

miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Dowding]

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Dowding, you need to get more information than just a "TV show".

I did thanks, the 'TV show', as you put it, was just part of the research I have done. The program is called 'Unreported World', which looks into how the supposed 'trickle-down' of wealth from the developed world to the 3rd world is not actually working very well. The journalist, Saira Shah, followed an American aid worker in South Sudan, described by the World Health Organisation as an area where "the disease is epidemic due to a high prevalence and an important transmission level".

The only agenda I could make out was one to increase the exposure this problem gets in the West. I wasn't inventing the details and I don't think they were. Must be my naivety again - perhaps there are some drugs I can take to reduce this and make me more cynical. I'll do some research into it.

Other sources I used include reports from health workers and NGO's in the region and lecturers notes.

It's true that the disease was almost wiped out (in the 1960s), mainly because there was a structured program of screening. This allowed health workers to treat the disease at an early stage, when the Trypanosomiasis parasite is most vulnerable. But that was then, and this is now. Civil war in Sudan has destroyed any chance of bringing in a similar program - people are diagnosed much later, when the parasite has reached the CNS. The drugs that were so effective in the early stages are now pretty ineffective, and are dangerous in themselves (10% mortality rate due to the drugs alone).

So now we have a situation where health workers are only able to treat people who are in an advanced state of the disease. They need a drug that will combat the disease with as little discomfort and risk to patient as possible; fortunately DFMO was produced years ago, and is able to fulfill these requirements.

The problem is the pharmeceutrical companies are reluctant to develop it further, or even produce it, as I have described previously.

As one lecturer points out concerning the disease and its elimination:

"Clearly, research is needed to identify metabolic pathways, enzymes and antigens that are specific to the organism. At the present time, the amount of money that is being spent on these types of projects amounts to around 0.001% of what is spent globally on research in cardiovascular disease."

It's clear to me that the organisations that have the power to solve this problem, the pharmeceutrical companies, are not doing so BECAUSE of capitalism and the global marketplace. I'm not saying that socialism could solve this problem - that is not my point. As I said, I don't know what system could.

And when it comes to charities and other NGOs, it is the spirit of socialism (at least as I understand it) that makes us give to these causes. The will to do better for our fellow man is what drives both us sat at home and the people there in Africa doing the work. Capitalism won't be responsible for helping these people; left to its own devices the global market-place would allow the suffering to continue.

[Jigster]

*cough* Government owns most the big business in the UK right?

That's NOT socialist ideals. That's socialism.

Everyone knows capitalism sucks. But better to have a choice and get thrown out on yer bellybutton then to never have the chance at all, no?

- Jig

[mietla]

 

Originally posted by Naso:
And Mietla, capitalism works FOR YOU, not for the homeless starving 100 meters from your nose.

I would if they worked as hard as I do. Sitting in a gutter does not pay much.

But egoism is part of the capitalistic education so i am not surprised.
[/b]

How much money did you give away last year? Believe me, I did more than my share. And I'm talking about the voluntary giving.

In addition, I half on my total income has been stolen by the government and given away to all kinds of bums.


[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-25-2000).]

[mietla]

 

Originaly posted by dowding:
I get the feeling that you are anti-socialist (from this and other posts).

My preference for the Black Plague gave you a hint, huh?  

I lived it from most of my life, and left my country because of it. Thank you very much.  

[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Dowding]

 

Originally posted by Jigster:
*cough* Government owns most the big business in the UK right?

Sorry pal, with all due respect I've got to point out that this is bollocks.  

I don't know where you get your information from but this couldn't be further from the truth. There are virtually no public companies anymore in the UK; everythihng was privatised by Thatcher - utilities companies, public transport - just about everything that wasn't nailed down  . Evil squeak that she was (and is).

Big business is as insidious here as it is anywhere else; when I talk about big business I mean the monolithic multinationals. Most British companies have been swallowed up by larger competitors - just look at our now non-existent motor industry. Rolls-Royce owned by BMW; ironic how things turned out it the end, eh?

We lead the way in a few specialised fields industrially, but that's about it. Just because our government pretends to be socialist, doesn't mean they go around buying up private companies to be nationalised. It ain't communism you know?  

Mietla, if you don't mind me asking, which country are you from?

[mietla]

Not at all, I was born in Poland, and I spent most of my life there.

[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Dowding]

I know that you already know this, but Poland was under a communist government, wasn't it? I think that socialism can have a place in a democracy, without having to be enshrined in a communist system. Communism doesn't work, but socialism through democracy can be a success.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-26-2000).]

[mietla]

Socialism, communism... same poison. They are just different stages of the same terminal disease. Besides, the government in Poland never referred to itself as communist, they were very careful to call themselves socialist.

Once you accept the notion that the goverment provides goodies, you have to accept the notion that the government rations, or even takes away.

Clearly, we fundamentally differ in our thinking.

You welcome the government as a leader, protector, provider and a nanny. I reject this notion with a passion. I see the government as a passive entity, with very few obligations as enumerated in the Constitution (national defense being the primary).

You see the government as a problem solver, I see it as a problem and conflict maker (class warfare, race baiting, seniors vs young people, school propaganda etc.).

You see an involuntary re-distribution of fruits of someone's labor, as a good thing. I call it thievery and find it fundamentally unfair, immoral and abhorring.

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by mietla:
Socialism, communism... same poison.

Unfortunately Mietla, after having been born in Poland and lived under that system you are simply not as qualified as Dowding to comment on the benefits or problems of socialism/communism.

ROTFLMFAO!

Right on, Meitla!

 

[StSanta]

Toad, you know I luv you, bro, but...


Claiming communism and socialism is the same is a claim of an idjit, pure and simple. Or someone full of resentment acting on feelings.

When you make such a claim, you have to take in account the full range of definitions, and socialism has definitions that differ from communism.

Capitalism, slavery, same poison.  

Note: I myself am a big time capitalist, and not the least bit ashamed of it. If I only could rid Denmark of the Social Democrats...

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

[Toad]

Hey, Santa, don't argue with me...argue with Mietla! He said, it not I. Besides, the humor is that Mietla has "been there, done that." Just about everyone else that posts here is a "theoretician".  

The basic original intent of the US government evisioned by the founding fathers was that the Federal government would handle interstate commerce and foreign relations.

Sounds good to me! "That government governs best which governs LEAST."

I never have thought a bunch of professional lifetime bureaucrats would ever do anything but try to increase their power at the expense of the governed....and it's the same no matter what country you look at.

As I recall, you don't feel the need of a religious organization to make you feel one with the "cosmic all".

Why would you think you need a government organization to run your personal affairs?