NYC Protest

[roy22341]

Hes not really a 911 truther

Simply because he doesn't believe the bullshit that "The Turrurists attacked Americuh cuz of our freedoms!" doesn't mean he doesn't believe that a group of 19 Muslims slammed planes full of people into buildings full of people. Whether it was a situation that was preventable and avoidable is a matter that should be looked into, but that does not equate to "controlled demolition by the secret government Illuminati overlords."

 

[Aaron Smith]

Anyone who argues for a massive tariff on all imported goods is just not thinking very thoroughly, as that cost would be directly passed on to the American consumer. I don't think any of the Wall Street protesters are in favor of paying a whole lot more money for nearly everything they already buy each week. It wouldn't magically recreate our industrial base, and would likely serve to destroy a lot of companies (or force them to move out of the US market entirely). Everyone would have even less money to spend, and unemployment would increase.

Total joke.

 

[Revson]

This is the most absolute bullshit. 100 milion in vaccines is worthless. Only fools will fall for that. Are you one of those guys who thinks Bono Vox is saving the world through charity?
20% of all the drugs in the world are for sale on poor countries. These poor countries represent 80% of all the sick people in the world.
42% of these drugs are used in USA, while only 1% in Africa.
In the last 25 years, 1.233 drugs were put on the market. Only 13 of them related to diseases from tropical countries.

Check how much was spent to erradicate malaria and tuberculosis, and how much was spent on obesity and erection disfunction drugs.

These matters won´t be solved by private companies fooling idiots to think they´re saints using their pocket change. The only way to solve this problem is through politics. Use of public money to the public benefit. That should be the role of the government on our current world, to serve as a buffer between the savage quest for profit and what the people really need.

How did South Korea did so well in so little time? Was it by charity and ONGs or by putting quality education as a primary objective on their agenda?

None of anything you just said here matters. You said companies don't make products that won't turn a profit and won't do anything that won't give them a profit and I gave you a specific example to counter that. You can say all you want about statistics and blab on about how this one charitable donation only vaccinated 1/5 of the children in Africa (it did), but in my example (which is not an isolated incident, mind you) I've shown you where a company spends money because there is a NEED and did so out of their own pocket.

As I said in my previous post, vaccines and drugs for real health aren't profitable and that's why we have boner pills, weight loss pills, sleeping pills, etc. The fact that they even spend money researching new vaccines and treatments that will do real good is a direct contradiction to what you say and think about capitalism.

Kazrog and Aaron - very nicely put.

 

[MindMunch]

None of anything you just said here matters.

If THIS doesn´t matter
20% of all the drugs in the world are for sale on poor countries. These poor countries represent 80% of all the sick people in the world.
42% of these drugs are used in USA, while only 1% in Africa.
I wonder what does matter to you.

You said companies don't make products that won't turn a profit and won't do anything that won't give them a profit and I gave you a specific example to counter that. You can say all you want about statistics and blab on about how this one charitable donation only vaccinated 1/5 of the children in Africa (it did), but in my example (which is not an isolated incident, mind you) I've shown you where a company spends money because there is a NEED and did so out of their own pocket.

You are being tricked. These charity that doesn´t solve shit is literally just money used as advertising. You can boost your profit immensely if your image is well received by the consumer. This is basic marketing technique.

When they are studying what charity they will do, the leading question is "what will make our image stronger to the consumer" and never "what do the world need". The single fact that these decisions are made by the marketing department instead of medical research speaks by itself.

As I said in my previous post, vaccines and drugs for real health aren't profitable and that's why we have boner pills, weight loss pills, sleeping pills, etc. The fact that they even spend money researching new vaccines and treatments that will do real good is a direct contradiction to what you say and think about capitalism.

Are you trolling me? Do you have even the slightest idea of how much money these companies make with "vaccines and drugs for real health"? A product that the entire population need?

I never said all products made in capitalism are useless, but it´s not the need that dictates what will be produced, it´s the profit. Read about the development of AIDS drugs and enjoy the battle these companies made to never let any poor put their hands on the medicine. The drug industry is one of the dirtiest cartels in history and you think they´re saints?

 

[Revson]

If THIS doesn´t matter
20% of all the drugs in the world are for sale on poor countries. These poor countries represent 80% of all the sick people in the world.
42% of these drugs are used in USA, while only 1% in Africa.
I wonder what does matter to you.

It doesn't matter because this is not the topic we're arguing. We're arguing about whether companies are only about profitability.

You are being tricked. These charity that doesn´t solve shit is literally just money used as advertising. You can boost your profit immensely if your image is well received by the consumer. This is basic marketing technique.

When they are studying what charity they will do, the leading question is "what will make our image stronger to the consumer" and never "what do the world need". The single fact that these decisions are made by the marketing department instead of medical research speaks by itself.

So? They stop looking like giant assholes for 5 minutes and people get help that otherwise wouldn't. Are you against mutual benefit?

And ultimately, who cares the reason for donating their money? They don't have to do it, they aren't obligated to do it. That's what taxes are for. They're giving away their money to help a cause. Despite what you think, someone in that corporation gives a shit about that cause and legitimately wants to help. Whether it's the CEO or Peggy working down in accounting or someone in between, there's at least one person who believes in what they're doing.

Are you trolling me? Do you have even the slightest idea of how much money these companies make with "vaccines and drugs for real health"? A product that the entire population need?

I know they make a shitload more money off their tent-pole drugs (heh, boner pill joke) that they spend so much money advertising.

I never said all products made in capitalism are useless, but it´s not the need that dictates what will be produced, it´s the profit. Read about the development of AIDS drugs and enjoy the battle these companies made to never let any poor put their hands on the medicine.

So profit is the mother of invention, not necessity? Why would there even be an AIDS drug if we didn't need it?

The drug industry is one of the dirtiest cartels in history and you think they´re saints?

When did I ever say that? I said they gave a shitload of money/vaccines to charity to help the poor and sick in Africa.

 

[MindMunch]

It doesn't matter because this is not the topic we're arguing. We're arguing about whether companies are only about profitability.

It is absolutely on topic with the subject. Less than 1.5% of the total of drugs released are for diseases of poor countries, that hold 80% of the total of sick people. That means that the medical research is driven exclusively by profit, not need. Not health. Not care. Profit.

That's what taxes are for.

That´s what I´ve always said. The government must use the public money (taxes) to solve the public needs (like health), not to bailout reckless banks. If the government isn´t doing its job, that´s the people´s right to protest, which is what this thread is all about.

You take a government that will gladly spend billions on wars to destroy other people, but refuse to pay for cancer treatment for its own people saying that "this is a comunist thing". If the people take the streets to demand it, "they are lazy hippies, go back to work".

They're giving away their money to help a cause. Despite what you think, someone in that corporation gives a shit about that cause and legitimately wants to help. Whether it's the CEO or Peggy working down in accounting or someone in between, there's at least one person who believes in what they're doing.

No. They are only doing it because a boost in the image of the company turns into more profit. How come they don´t break all the patents of their drugs for poor countries, then? Not so much of a pure heart, uh?

I know they make a shitload more money off their tent-pole drugs (heh, boner pill joke) that they spend so much money advertising.

It is not only "cosmetic drugs". Do you remember Tamiflu? The drug that, suddenly, everyone had to take to not die of aviary flu? It was just a few years ago. $100 a dose. Can you imagine how much money these companies made by selling it to the entire world?

So profit is the mother of invention, not necessity? Why would there even be an AIDS drug if we didn't need it?

No. Not necessity. There are AIDS drugs because it´s profitable. It´s a disease that also affects rich people in rich countries. And right now it´s not even a cure, it´s an expensive cocktail of drugs that the sick must take for the rest of his life. If you ask me, the drug companies will rather leave this the way it is now and never find an one-time solution.

How much effort is being made to find a cure for ebola, a disease so gruesome that looks like a curse, but only threatens poor countries?

When did I ever say that? I said they gave a shitload of money/vaccines to charity to help the poor and sick in Africa.

But you say as if it was a substitute for actually solve the problem using public power. "Look how capitalism can solve the problems of the needed". As if we keep on this system, these matters will eventually be solved by private companies. They never will.

Laissez-faire and free market my ass. There´s a quote attributed to Einstein that says "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Adam Smith´s invisible hand is wrong and never worked, and yet we can always see people preaching by it like a dogma.

 

[Glenn Fricker]

FWIW, I support the protesters.... the financial system needs a good, swift kick in the ass.

 

[Revson]

It is absolutely on topic with the subject. Less than 1.5% of the total of drugs released are for diseases of poor countries, that hold 80% of the total of sick people. That means that the medical research is driven exclusively by profit, not need. Not health. Not care. Profit.

Exclusively by profit? No. If that were the case then the "less than 1.5%" figure would be "0%". Is it profit driven? Absolutely, but it's not exclusive.

That´s what I´ve always said. The government must use the public money (taxes) to solve the public needs (like health), not to bailout reckless banks. If the government isn´t doing its job, that´s the people´s right to protest, which is what this thread is all about.

But in the previous block you seem to be saying that rich countries need to take care of poor countries too. How is that helping me? I'm not rich, I pay taxes, why should my money go to another country to take care of their sick?

I don't agree that the government should have bailed out the banks, that goes against the principles of the free market. Businesses should rise and fall on their own merits without the presence of the government hands.

You take a government that will gladly spend billions on wars to destroy other people, but refuse to pay for cancer treatment for its own people saying that "this is a comunist thing". If the people take the streets to demand it, "they are lazy hippies, go back to work".

So this is a government thing now, not a capitalist thing?

As I've said in a previous post, if it were financially viable to cover all medical expenses for everyone in this country I would be all for it. The simple fact that one treatment that less than half a million people need has ballooned from a $100 million budget to a $20 billion budget of public money means we can't do it. If we were to truly try something like this in the U.S. our country would go bankrupt very soon.

No. They are only doing it because a boost in the image of the company turns into more profit. How come they don´t break all the patents of their drugs for poor countries, then? Not so much of a pure heart, uh?

They have done that when an outbreak occurs so other companies can process the generic versions to stop the disease in its tracks.

It is not only "cosmetic drugs". Do you remember Tamiflu? The drug that, suddenly, everyone had to take to not die of aviary flu? It was just a few years ago. $100 a dose. Can you imagine how much money these companies made by selling it to the entire world?

I didn't take it, don't really know anyone who did.

No. Not necessity. There are AIDS drugs because it´s profitable. It´s a disease that also affects rich people in rich countries. And right now it´s not even a cure, it´s an expensive cocktail of drugs that the sick must take for the rest of his life. If you ask me, the drug companies will rather leave this the way it is now and never find an one-time solution.

Wow, are you actually saying that AIDS drugs weren't made out of a necessity to fight a terrible disease? Are you also a research chemist that has spent years developing a cure only to have it locked away by Pharma execs? Most of what you're saying is speculation based on a hatred of a system.

How much effort is being made to find a cure for ebola, a disease so gruesome that looks like a curse, but only threatens poor countries?

Here's one.
http://ebola.emedtv.com/ebola/ebola-research.html

And another
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2010/Pages/experimentalMarburgVax.aspx

And I found those after 1 minute of searching.

But you say as if it was a substitute for actually solve the problem using public power. "Look how capitalism can solve the problems of the needed". As if we keep on this system, these matters will eventually be solved by private companies. They never will.

And how will any other system solve any other problem? Please detail it for me.

Laissez-faire and free market my ass. There´s a quote attributed to Einstein that says "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Adam Smith´s invisible hand is wrong and never worked, and yet we can always see people preaching by it like a dogma.

That would be great if we were a Laissez-faire, free market economy in the U.S. We aren't though. We do have considerable government regulation, despite what you want to believe and that's why we're referred to as a mixed economy.

 

[kvoid]

For a minute, ignore the structures - governments, corporations, political systems, religions, allegiances, and other distractions, and you are left with humans and money. Entrust a large amount of money to a small group of humans, even with the best of intentions that the money will be utilized to foster some greater good, and you will create a black box where corruption can (and likely will) occur. What we need is more transparency and tougher punishment for corruption, not different political systems or other intermediary layers. Democracy, capitalism, socialism, etc. are all abstraction layers between humans, money, and actions. None of these systems work when there are people actively subverting them behind closed doors. Any system can be subverted or hacked, no matter how well designed. This is as true in computer science as it is in human interactions.

One thing is for certain - swapping out one old, misguided, tried-and-flawed system for another will not solve anything.

I bailed from this conversation when the trolling SNR reached primate levels, but I must second your notion here. I do not ascribe to any of these isms, socialism or capitalism or whatever. The only thing I see is two models in action, and they are both broken to shits and sing the same refrain.

Privatize profits, socialize losses.

I'll go back to the old Winnie Churchill quote:

The greatest vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth, the greatest virtue of communism is the equal sharing of misery.

Well, the only thing I see today is a really awful cocktail of both. Our systems are broken and will only get more broken if something drastic is not done. I could be one of the choir of "don't give a shit" as a) I don't have any loans to pay, b) I have a decent amount in savings and continue to make money, but if the world turns on it's hinge I don't see living in it as a very pretty prospect, there's certainly enough misery as is, and I for one don't find pleasure in seeing people starve.

 

[kvoid]

On topic re: Big Pharma, I urge everyone interested to see this:

 

[MindMunch]

Exclusively by profit? No. If that were the case then the "less than 1.5%" figure would be "0%". Is it profit driven? Absolutely, but it's not exclusive.

You´re wrong again. There is money in poor countries. They still can profit from them, just not as much.

But in the previous block you seem to be saying that rich countries need to take care of poor countries too. How is that helping me? I'm not rich, I pay taxes, why should my money go to another country to take care of their sick?

Wrong again. I´ve never said that. I´ve said that public money should be used to solve public matters. That medicine should not follow market rules. Health should not be profit driven. You rely on private money to solve these issues through charity. You are wrong.

So this is a government thing now, not a capitalist thing?

A capitalist government. One that is more worried about making the rich richer than to serve the population.

As I've said in a previous post, if it were financially viable to cover all medical expenses for everyone in this country I would be all for it. The simple fact that one treatment that less than half a million people need has ballooned from a $100 million budget to a $20 billion budget of public money means we can't do it. If we were to truly try something like this in the U.S. our country would go bankrupt very soon.

Wrong. You can. England can. Even Cuba did it. Try to spend less in missiles and bailouts and more on health care.

They have done that when an outbreak occurs so other companies can process the generic versions to stop the disease in its tracks.

Again: go study the AIDS drugs cartels. I´m not saying "google on the first blog you find". STUDY it, because you clearly haven´t.

I didn't take it, don't really know anyone who did.

Your government spent more than $1.5 billion on it.

Wow, are you actually saying that AIDS drugs weren't made out of a necessity to fight a terrible disease?

That´s exactly what I´m saying.

Are you also a research chemist that has spent years developing a cure only to have it locked away by Pharma execs? Most of what you're saying is speculation based on a hatred of a system.

No speculation. I know what I'm talking about. My mother worked over 30 years on public health and epidemiology with names such as Albert Sabin.

Here's one.
http://ebola.emedtv.com/ebola/ebola-research.html

And another
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2010/Pages/experimentalMarburgVax.aspx

And I found those after 1 minute of searching.

HAHAHAHA! Want to know how much money was spent on Ebola research? Less than $3 million. How much your country spent on war last year alone? $663.8 billion. Now, tell me again that your economy is driven by need.

And how will any other system solve any other problem? Please detail it for me.

Go study yourself. I can recommend Lafargue to start as it is a very easy reading.

We do have considerable government regulation, despite what you want to believe and that's why we're referred to as a mixed economy.

Yes, for your people. What about the ones being fucked in other countries, the ones who actually make your economy work? You can´t slave an american, but a chinese it´s ok. Hundreds of years ago it was ok if the slaves came from Africa and, just like back them, now you pay to destroy any civil movement across the seas to prevent that to keep going.

Go study what have your country done to Chile. Learn who was Jango, Allende, Pinochet and Geisel.

 

[kass]

No. The production on a capitalist society is after the profit, not the need. For example, there´s hunger in our world. Poor people that need food and medication to diseases such as Malaria.

But poor people don´t have money. The industry won´t spend loads of money in medical research to make a product they can´t sell. So they make faster iPhones instead. A product they can profit, not that people need.

Production is based on expectation of profit. Revenues are realized only when people actually make their decisions on what they spend their money on. You ignore that "need" varies with price. Your explanations reek of wishes for central planning. It is totally clear that prices, and profits/losses must be used for resources to be allocated efficiently. Even Lenin came 'round to that.


Your scenario about overproduction is silly. You ignore the fact that demand varies with price, and production varies with expectation of profit.

 

[kass]

Yes, for your people. What about the ones being fucked in other countries, the ones who actually make your economy work? You can´t slave an american, but a chinese it´s ok. Hundreds of years ago it was ok if the slaves came from Africa and, just like back them, now you pay to destroy any civil movement across the seas to prevent that to keep going.

What a joke.

 

[MindMunch]

Production is based on expectation of profit. Revenues are realized only when people actually make their decisions on what they spend their money on. You ignore that "need" varies with price. Your explanations reek of wishes for central planning. It is totally clear that prices, and profits/losses must be used for resources to be allocated efficiently. Even Lenin came 'round to that.

Your scenario about overproduction is silly. You ignore the fact that demand varies with price, and production varies with expectation of profit.

I never ignored any of this. Of course production varies with expectation of profit, that´s exactly why when half of the population doesn´t have jobs to consume, industry hire less and does not grow. You know what is recession, right?

 

[MindMunch]

What a joke.

What a dumbass. Make an iphone in the USA and sell it by the same price you sell it using chinese workforce, then.
Are you denying that CIA had a direct hand on the dictatorships in latin america?

 

[kass]

What a dumbass. Make an iphone in the USA and sell it by the same price you sell it using chinese workforce, then.
Are you denying that CIA had a direct hand on the dictatorships in latin america?

Im not apple. I cant make an Iphone.


This country thrived like no other without going multinational.


The people being fucked over in other countries are people being given JOBS that give them opportunities they didn't have. These raise their living standards. Stop with the slave shit dude. They get PAID MONEY for their voluntary efforts. Ask your self what their alternatives are.

A century ago we were all sleeping on the same bed in a small 1 room house with no AC and shoveling shit in the hot sun all day, and dieing a lot younger. Every rich country has been there. I'm grateful our living standards have risen so much do to the evil employer exploitation. I get exploited every day from 12-5. I love it. I go to school the rest of the time so I can be exploited by a hospital one day, and maybe even go on to exploit some other people in my own business.


Africa enslaved more europeans than europeans enslaved africans.

 

[Revson]

You´re wrong again. There is money in poor countries. They still can profit from them, just not as much.

But what's even the point of trying to profit from them if they can get someone else to pay more? I thought we were trying to maximize profits here?

Wrong again. I´ve never said that. I´ve said that public money should be used to solve public matters. That medicine should not follow market rules. Health should not be profit driven. You rely on private money to solve these issues through charity. You are wrong.

You were harping on the fact that we don't spend money developing treatments for tropical diseases. There aren't really any tropical diseases in the U.S. so why should we spend money, public or private, researching them?

In a perfect world, medicine wouldn't follow market rules, farmers would give me a slab of cow whenever I wanted steak, and the cable would always work. Unfortunately, we don't live in fantasyland and the most effective way to get something accomplished is to offer incentives.

A capitalist government. One that is more worried about making the rich richer than to serve the population.

And now you're generalizing despite the fact that there are many in office who support what the protesters are doing.

Wrong. You can. England can. Even Cuba did it. Try to spend less in missiles and bailouts and more on health care.

England and Cuba don't have 300+ million people living there. And why would so many people in Cuba prefer to hop in an inner-tube and paddle 90 miles to Florida than stay in Cuba? Even 1 person doing that means something is going wrong.

OK, so we spend less on the military. That's gonna be a bunch of jobs gone right there. Considering our military budget is less than 5% of our GDP is should make all the difference in the world.

Your government spent more than $1.5 billion on it.

And they shouldn't have. I agree that it's a waste.

That´s exactly what I´m saying.

You're wrong.

No speculation. I know what I'm talking about. My mother worked over 30 years on public health and epidemiology with names such as Albert Sabin.

My dad's a lawyer, that means I know everything about judicial procedure.

HAHAHAHA! Want to know how much money was spent on Ebola research? Less than $3 million. How much your country spent on war last year alone? $663.8 billion. Now, tell me again that your economy is driven by need.

Again, why do we need to spend money on a disease that is foreign to us? We don't, we do it to help others.

Yes, for your people. What about the ones being fucked in other countries, the ones who actually make your economy work? You can´t slave an american, but a chinese it´s ok. Hundreds of years ago it was ok if the slaves came from Africa and, just like back them, now you pay to destroy any civil movement across the seas to prevent that to keep going.

And we're back to where we started. I do believe Kass already made a strong argument against this.

Go study what have your country done to Chile. Learn who was Jango, Allende, Pinochet and Geisel.

You mean go study how Milton Friedman helped transform Chile into the strongest economy in Latin America? Is that what you're asking? Because that's what happened in the 80's and continues today.

 

[kass]

I never ignored any of this. Of course production varies with expectation of profit, that´s exactly why when half of the population doesn´t have jobs to consume, industry hire less and does not grow. You know what is recession, right?

So you are only talking about a recession? a simply market correction?


Youre just saying that a recession is the horrible inevitable consequence of a capitalist system?



Ok, Ill go along with that.


Thats not the picture you painted.

A recession is what happens that prevents your feared ZERO JOBS / BILLIONS OF PRODUCTS problem.

 

[MindMunch]

The people being fucked over in other countries are people being given JOBS that give them opportunities they didn't have. These raise their living standards. Stop with the slave shit dude. They get PAID MONEY for their voluntary efforts. Ask your self what their alternatives are.

This speech is so full of shit that the last time I´ve heard it it was from the mouth of a racist. You fail to understand what is social fight. You know that women receive an average of 30% less wage than men doing the same job, right? So, following your logic, your answer to that is "these bitches should be pleased that they even have jobs, if they don´t want it this way they should go back to the kitchen."

I get exploited every day from 12-5. I love it. I go to school the rest of the time so I can be exploited by a hospital one day, and maybe even go on to exploit some other people in my own business.

Ever read the Prison Notebooks? This is hegemony written all over it.

So you are only talking about a recession? a simply market correction?

Youre just saying that a recession is the horrible inevitable consequence of a capitalist system?

Ok, Ill go along with that.

Thats not the picture you painted.

A recession is what happens that prevents your feared ZERO JOBS / BILLIONS OF PRODUCTS problem.

A simply arket correction? I knew you didn´t knew shit about economy. I bet that about game theory neither.

But what's even the point of trying to profit from them if they can get someone else to pay more? I thought we were trying to maximize profits here?

It is profit maximization. Car factories make expensive cars to profit on rich people, and also cheap cars to profit on poor people.

You were harping on the fact that we don't spend money developing treatments for tropical diseases. There aren't really any tropical diseases in the U.S. so why should we spend money, public or private, researching them?

I was giving you a clear example that capitalism is driven by profit instead of need, and no private company in the world will solve these problems through charity.

And now you're generalizing despite the fact that there are many in office who support what the protesters are doing.

No generalization here. People in suits are also submited. Also get cancer. You don´t have to be a farmer to be exploited by the system and get pissed.

England and Cuba don't have 300+ million people living there. And why would so many people in Cuba prefer to hop in an inner-tube and paddle 90 miles to Florida than stay in Cuba? Even 1 person doing that means something is going wrong.

OK, so we spend less on the military. That's gonna be a bunch of jobs gone right there. Considering our military budget is less than 5% of our GDP is should make all the difference in the world.

More people is also more taxes. It does not stop any health politics.
Some people in Cuba try to reach other countries for many different reasons, but I asure you that it´s not because of lack of medical treatment, which is the reason I cited as an example of proper public medical care.

About the jobs, you can always use the workforce you used for killing other people to save your own people. How about that?

You're wrong.

I´m right and I can prove it.

My dad's a lawyer, that means I know everything about judicial procedure.

Don´t know about your case, but in my I have absolute certain about what I´m saying and have all the arguments in the world to back it up.

You mean go study how Milton Friedman helped transform Chile into the strongest economy in Latin America? Is that what you're asking? Because that's what happened in the 80's and continues today.

OK, I don´t think you know what you´re talking about, but this is so wrong... I mean, not only wrong, but also so offensive that if you have said that right in my face I would have to kick your ass. Also want to glorify Hitler for giving jobs to everyone? Mengele medical research? Because what you wrote is at the same level of absurd.

 

[Revson]

So you've resorted to calling people racist, threatening violence, and making comparisons to Nazis. Kudos to you sir.