[fluff]

Are you trying to make the claim that under communism, those drugs would make it to the 3rd world?

What was your position at the pharm co?

Why do you see Communism as the only alternative to capitalism? Why is your defence of capitalism simply based around 'would it be any better under communism'? Just because communism has problems that does not make capitalism wonderful. Isn't this thread about capitalism and the evils thereof?

So, basically under a capitalist system poor people are screwed. Address the point, don't obfuscate.

 

[ncrider]

Alexis DH makes me laugh. How long does it take you to make that **** up DH?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis DH makes me laugh. How long does it take you to make that **** up DH?

it depends...what part?

 

[ohio]

Why do you see Communism as the only alternative to capitalism? Why is your defence of capitalism simply based around 'would it be any better under communism'? Just because communism has problems that does not make capitalism wonderful. Isn't this thread about capitalism and the evils thereof?

Yes, that is what this thread is about. My point is that the problem you point out is NOT a symptom of Capitalism. The same behavior exists under any economic system, including capitalism's opposite. Therefore, self interest and shortsightedness are not evils that results from capitalism; they are evils that result from human nature.

I am addressing the point.

Now, go have a look at http://www.tuckbsi.org and you will find that capitalism and compassion are not mutually exclusive, and that a market system is an incredibly powerful lever to affect change for the positive when used creatively. I helped organize the '04 event and can speak in more depth about those panels, but '05 looks to be even better.

This thread has been all about blaming corruption, greed, and exploitation on the economic system, and failing to recognize the root cause of all of those things... poor government. Bad social policies and checks and balances, not bad economics. The dilemna there is that we are on such a "self-determination" kick that we won't give the aid (monetary and in human capital/involvement) to build the government infrastructure necessary to support the development that foreign investment could bring.

 

[ohio]

the same can be said about foreing investment and monopolies in the 3rd world.. dont you think? ...

Um, monopolies result from the "true capitalism" you seem to want so badly. If you're upset about monopolies, you should be all for controlled capitalism. Monopolies are prevented by strong government. Additionally, the communism you espouse is by definition a system of monopolies. You seem alright with that. Make up your mind.

As for foreign investment, again, point out the downside. If it's that it only goes to a select few, it's not a downside... it's still a positive sum game versus zero foreign investment. If it's that it goes to corrupt government officials off-shore accounts, it's a corruption issue not a capitalism one and can result under ANY economic system.

I would restrict inmigration less.
to make a fair deal. just like free capital flow models (which actually mean, free capital flow from the 1st world to the 3rd world were profits are bigger and riskier). i would treat workforce as a capital.

You seem to lack an understanding of the inertial aspect of a real-world market. If borders were entirely open, there would be an extreme influx of people into the US. An influx so great that it would far surpass a surplus before the immigrants even realized what they were doing. What they would then find is that even the low paying manual-labor and menial jobs were unavailable, and they would be broke, jobless, and unskilled in a country with a FAR higher cost of living. They would have nothing to send home to their families, and their home countries would be robbed of their strongest laborers. Ignoring any impact it may have on the host country, you must admit that this would be a very bad thing.

I will agree that we should allow more immigration, but to allow free flow of human capital would be foolhardy at best.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Um, monopolies result from the "true capitalism" you seem to want so badly. If you're upset about monopolies, you should be all for controlled capitalism. Monopolies are prevented by strong government. Additionally, the communism you espouse is by definition a system of monopolies. You seem alright with that. Make up your mind.

As for foreign investment, again, point out the downside. If it's that it only goes to a select few, it's not a downside... it's still a positive sum game versus zero foreign investment. If it's that it goes to corrupt government officials off-shore accounts, it's a corruption issue not a capitalism one and can result under ANY economic system.



You seem to lack an understanding of the inertial aspect of a real-world market. If borders were entirely open, there would be an extreme influx of people into the US. An influx so great that it would far surpass a surplus before the immigrants even realized what they were doing. What they would then find is that even the low paying manual-labor and menial jobs were unavailable, and they would be broke, jobless, and unskilled in a country with a FAR higher cost of living. They would have nothing to send home to their families, and their home countries would be robbed of their strongest laborers. Ignoring any impact it may have on the host country, you must admit that this would be a very bad thing.

I will agree that we should allow more immigration, but to allow free flow of human capital would be foolhardy at best.

i dont say an open border is the way to go either, but a more open inmigration policy.
this wont attract unlimited millions to the states, another inertial aspect here. inmigrants will flock as long as conditions are better. after the first hundreds million things will even out with the rest of the world. of course it will be a shock, but a similar shock to that of free capitals rampaging the 3rd world, or walmarts ripping appart small businesses in small towns in the US....

the surplus of labor in the 1st world would lower the wages up there, and raise the wages in the 3rd world, since there would be less labor offer, making some sort of universally comparable wage, thus opportunity for upward mobility being about the same regardless of your birthplace.

i mean, my proposition is that of making the whole world ONE big labor AND capital market at the same time.
not making one small labor market, and then a huge capital market. that is unfair, because it concentrates the profits in one side too much.
which is the main weakness of capitalism. and i dont talk concentrating wealth in a small elite in a country, but concentrating wealth in a small elite of countries in the world, and fvck the rest outside those countries. which is pretty much what goes on right now.

and the case of monopolies in communisms and capitalisms. monopolies for profits are much worse than monopolies for production in terms of its impact on people.

 

[Changleen]

You seem to lack an understanding of the inertial aspect of a real-world market. If borders were entirely open, there would be an extreme influx of people into the US.

Uh, I just wanted to say that there's not much evidence for this. Everyone though that's what'd happen when Europe opened it's internal borders. It did happen to a small extent, but nothing like to the extent people feared or what you have described, and they mostly went to one country whose benefit systems and immigration policy were most liberally slanted towards them and who did the worst job of dealing withthem overall - the UK. That was getting off the point a bit - the point is won't necassarily happen if the US has sensible immigration and benefit policies.

 

[fluff]

Yes, that is what this thread is about. My point is that the problem you point out is NOT a symptom of Capitalism. The same behavior exists under any economic system, including capitalism's opposite. Therefore, self interest and shortsightedness are not evils that results from capitalism; they are evils that result from human nature.

I am addressing the point.

Now, go have a look at http://www.tuckbsi.org and you will find that capitalism and compassion are not mutually exclusive, and that a market system is an incredibly powerful lever to affect change for the positive when used creatively. I helped organize the '04 event and can speak in more depth about those panels, but '05 looks to be even better.

This thread has been all about blaming corruption, greed, and exploitation on the economic system, and failing to recognize the root cause of all of those things... poor government. Bad social policies and checks and balances, not bad economics. The dilemna there is that we are on such a "self-determination" kick that we won't give the aid (monetary and in human capital/involvement) to build the government infrastructure necessary to support the development that foreign investment could bring.

Sorry, I thought you said that corruption, greed and exploitation are the fault of the govt?

Perhaps the definition of capitalism is the problem here, but in my mind a government that regulates corporations and markets sufficiently to ensure good social policies etc is not running a purely capitalist system so is not captured under the label.

The policy of the pharmaceutical that I worked for was a direct result of the free-market policies of the UK which have made share-price king and have created an ethos where profit and efficiency must be seen to grow year on year.

A pure capitalist system has no incentive to curtail corruption (the grease that makes the system run), ameleriorate greed (the incentive to enhance one's position and earnings), or end exploitation (the means to improve your revenue/expenditure ratio).

I like the fact that you refrained from mentioning Communism by name but nevertheless you referred to it and I agree that it also is flawed, although arguably a worldwide communist regime would provide a better minimum standard of living than a worldwide capitalist regime. Equally arguable is that it would provide a lower top standard of living and perhaps a lower average.

Greed is part of human nature and will never allow an unregulated system to offer responsible social policies, at what point regulation interferes with your definition of capitalism is what defines this argument I guess.

 

[ohio]

this wont attract unlimited millions to the states, another inertial aspect here. inmigrants will flock as long as conditions are better. after the first hundreds million things will even out with the rest of the world.

Yes, there are inertias on both ends, but the "first hundred million" (which I think is a far higher number than would occur) would simply destroy their own livelihood. The surplus of labor would only exist at the lowest end of the labor market, in the unskilled minimum-wage arena. If you don't buffer or slow that process somehow, you're being irresponsible. Like I said, I would prefer more relaxed immigration policies and quotas, but not a completely free labor market.

Uh, I just wanted to say that there's not much evidence for this. Everyone though that's what'd happen when Europe opened it's internal borders.

You're joking, right? The disparities in the EU don't even approach what we're talking about here.

Perhaps the definition of capitalism is the problem here, but in my mind a government that regulates corporations and markets sufficiently to ensure good social policies etc is not running a purely capitalist system so is not captured under the label.

So by inference, your definition of "running a purely capitalist system" is a government that NOT insuring good social policies. Uh, no wonder you think capitalism is evil. You've defined it as such.

Capitalism is use of a market-BASED system for distribution of goods and services. That doesn't mean governments can't create those markets, or impose rules on them.

The other issue is that good social policy does NOT require a high degree of regulation. Please look up the link I posted earlier. It is clear that you believe good policy requires acting against your own direct profit, and this is not the case. It is highly effective to leverage capitalism, by creating a situation where good social/environmental/developmental policy IS profitable, and then allowing the market to take care of the rest.

We agree that your drug company will not take an action that will hurt it's bottom line, right? But will take an action from which it will profit, right? Their fear isn't that Africans will get cheap drugs, it's that the core wealthy markets will get cheap drugs. Eliminate that possibility (distribution through UN/Red Cross, RFID tagging on shipping to prevent re-importing, leverage existing infrastructure (policy, FDA, war-on-drugs), etc.), and the drug company will be happy to sell the drugs in Africa and anything above their marginal cost.

 

[Changleen]

You're joking, right? The disparities in the EU don't even approach what we're talking about here.

http://www.ips-dc.org/EUlessons/ They are of a similar magnitude if not quite as bad - and the US government also has a role to play in reducing that disparity no? Isn't that a sensible part of a complete strategy to ease migrationary pressures?

 

[ohio]

http://www.ips-dc.org/EUlessons/ They are of a similar magnitude if not quite as bad - and the US government also has a role to play in reducing that disparity no? Isn't that a sensible part of a complete strategy to ease migrationary pressures?

How can they be not quite as bad but of similar magnitude?

And yes, the US does have a role to play in reducing the disparity, but that is a seperate issue from whether or not open borders would accomplish that.

And no, nothing about open borders are sensible. There absolutely MUST be a buffer to slow the process, for the benefit of BOTH sides.

 

[fluff]

Please look up the link I posted earlier.

If you can post a more specific URL I'll gladly look it up, I spent 5 minutes looking for the right info yesterday and then other tasks called...

 

[ohio]

If you can post a more specific URL I'll gladly look it up, I spent 5 minutes looking for the right info yesterday and then other tasks called...

http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/clubs/bsi/2004/index.htm

Scroll down to the links to the 4 panels ("Greening the Supply Chain" etc.) Click any one of them, and then click the links to "See -----'s presentation"

This will open up powerpoint presentations on various examples of sustainable business ventures and the issues around them, such how they are structured, what the goals were, and where they have failed or succeeded.

Those are all from last year's event. This year looks to be even more interesting, but the presentations aren't available online before the actual event.

 

[Changleen]

How can they be not quite as bad but of similar magnitude?

And yes, the US does have a role to play in reducing the disparity, but that is a seperate issue from whether or not open borders would accomplish that.

And no, nothing about open borders are sensible. There absolutely MUST be a buffer to slow the process, for the benefit of BOTH sides.

Oh, I agree totally. You can't just switch to open borders overnight, if you ever even could have open borders under the current world political state. I'm just saying, it wouldn't be this mass stampede you were portraying it might be.

And by the way magnitude generally means within the same power of ten order. 56 or 85 guys a month are within the same magnitude, but 360 compared to 56 is an order of magnitude higher.

 

[ohio]

And by the way magnitude generally means within the same power of ten order.

No that's "order of magnitude." Also "power of ten order" is redundant. You mean just "power of ten."
"magnitude" alone just means size, and in this case we were discussing the size of the problem, not the sizes of the populations. The disparity between Spain and France is not comparable to the disparity between the US and Peru, or even Mexico.

And aid money pumped in to reduce "disparities" is money thrown away if the government is too corrupt to implement and support any development.