| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 14:56:18
I was just reading the poverty thread and reading those kinds of stats always leaves me with a slight feeling of hopelessness.
I don't think I can stop the cycle of greed in this world for things to change. God knows I don't have enough coin to make that big of a difference. It leaves me to think that our biggest collective power for the most of us middle class type people is where we spend our dollars. Maybe that's incredibly naive but whatever it makes me feel a bit better...to try not to contribute to the crap. But its difficult to do research on all companies so perhaps we can let everyone know which companies we try to avoid and why.
Personally and I'm not trying to dis Americans but it easy to see that they are buying up all of our companies so I try to shop Canadian (which ain't easy because you can shop at a store here that has Canadian in its title only to find out that the major shareholders are American).
And I don't buy any over-priced brand name things because well I can't afford it and I don't derive my self-esteem by wearing someone else's name on my clothing etc.
And if its financially feasible I try to shop at smaller mom and pop type stores.
We all know Wal-Mart and their near monopoly and sweat-shop abusing ways. But what else people? Maybe I'll stop shopping at certain places if I knew some reasoning. How bout you?
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 06:39:37
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
Monsieur
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1563 Posts
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 12:39:07 Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
Economy is about destroying/recreating (see Schumpeter)
Funny you mentioned that, I´m cooking dinner in my friends house now and his flatmate is reading an economics textbook (Pearson Ed) by two monkish-looking Swedes called Funky Business and the back quote sez: "Funky Business provides a funky, unique, well-documented and defiant perspective on the New World Order." I flicked through it and a chapter heading had a photo of a controlled demolition with a quote by Mao: "Destroy to create." so it should read see Mao instead of Schumpeter.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
I will not underestimate you by mentioning that Schumpeter wrote his BUSINESS CYCLES in the 1920s, before Mao's "economic policies".
But his idea of economy as creative destruction is an organic one - think of new life coming from dead bodies etc. It is the exact opposite from the tabula rasa suggested by Mao, Stalin or the Nazis.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 06:33:55
quote:
there is another worldview, which I stupidly call the "artistic" worldview. It is a way of seeing humanity's spiritual energy is better expended in seeking enlightenment, beauty, fun, God,...aesthetics, music, art, sex, whatever. In truth, this way of thinking is far healthier for the human animal and is a far more peaceful existence. Think of the story of Ferdinand - the bull that would not fight - just wanted to sniff the flowers. Remember - he never changes - he goes back to the meadow. Humanity is actually more like Ferdinand than it knows...only he's being forced to stay in the arena far longer than he should have...and its getting ugly...he's getting ugly and bloody and his true docile spirit is beginning to fade...all because the show must go on.
or something.
i'm not eloquent or clear-headed enough to fully articulate this.
In any case - seeing the world only as an economist would is narrow.
Actually, modern economics (especially since Nash and the game theory) is exploring Ferdinand's point of view. That has actually been one of its burning topics over the last couple of decades. Behavioral economics is one of the hottest areas (Daniel Kahneman who recently won the Nobel prize is a psychologist), even in more "quantitative" areas of economics such as finance (Fama and French explained apparently "irrational" market risk premia).
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 03:24:10
I wouldn´t worry about it too much guys, there are less folk in the projection booth than you think.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 03:08:01
Yes.
Join Us. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 02:56:08
We have all seen the fire. But there is no way out, so you better join us and watch the movie.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 01:41:46
Sometimes I feel like I´m in a cinema and I spot a fire in the corner of the theatre and when I point it out the other spectators say, Ssh this is the good part.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 00:25:17
Cool topic, C, gonna' have some reading to do tomorrow...
 "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 11:52:35
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
The ideology behind GM is to have a sustainable hardy crop that will provide for nutrients that are lacking. The ideology is a good one, the problem comes from the corporations and their abuse of the system.
I guess this is where we differ... I agree that it seems like a great idea - but i don't think the cost...the total lack of familiarity and experience, with *any* long-term efforts, make this a safe endeavor.
Also, the huge number of bad decisions (ie, getting them 'out there' without further study) and corporate greed (like suing Percy Schmeiser over 'crop drift') makes for a very dangerous combination.
Simply put, we're not ready for it, if there is 'good' that can be had from gen. modification.
 "Live life like you're gonna die...because you are." - William Shatner, You'll Have Time / Has Been |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 11:53:18
quote:
Monsieur
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1563 Posts
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 12:39:07 Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
Economy is about destroying/recreating (see Schumpeter)
Funny you mentioned that, I´m cooking dinner in my friends house now and his flatmate is reading an economics textbook (Pearson Ed) by two monkish-looking Swedes called Funky Business and the back quote sez: "Funky Business provides a funky, unique, well-documented and defiant perspective on the New World Order." I flicked through it and a chapter heading had a photo of a controlled demolition with a quote by Mao: "Destroy to create." so it should read see Mao instead of Schumpeter.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| floop |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 11:20:17
i blame Canada |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 11:11:28
Owen, you made me chuckle.
I love London and all, but when a Masters graduate can't get a job of any sort, something is wrong. I blame the corporations.
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 10:19:20
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Good stuff kitty. Somebody give this woman a well-paying job.
I think there are some great career opportunities at Monsanto.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 10:09:22
Good stuff kitty. Somebody give this woman a well-paying job. |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 09:03:02
Coffee, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
| vilainde |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 08:57:53
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:19:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking Oppenheimer out of the equation would solve nothing until you've changed the mindset of everybody down through the system.
The Oppenheimer family run Anglo-American which owns more than 1,600 companies and is the world's leading producer of gold, platinum, diamonds and lots of other resources both strategic and precious. And the country they are based in just happens to have severe problems with poverty. Coincidence?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
That's it! I'm officially boycotting diamonds.
Denis
I love Guitar Wolf from the Erath! |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 08:56:09
quote:
How do you feel about potential cross-contamination with other plants? There have been examples of GMO crops actually affecting entirely different species...
Feel free to throw some examples my way. I know there are concerns that gene transfer from crop to weed is a problem and this is why so many genetic crop fields are experimental and in so far as it is possible, isolated, to examine this very effect.
quote:
It's my understanding that genetic modification is in many ways a total crap-shoot, and it's nearly impossible to really predict the effects we're having.
Ah well no that’s not exactly correct. The exact effect is near impossible to determine prior to manipulation but this doesn’t mean what people think it means. When you take a gene from source A and transfer it to source B you do so knowing the in situ properties of the gene in its original source. There is no way the gene is going to entirely change its characteristics from (for example) a longer ripening time of fruit to a turn your head green and swell to the size of a truck gene. The difficulty in determining the exact effect comes from the way the gene will interact in its new environment. There are ways of attempting to apply some control over this. A gene construct in experimental plants will involve the transfer of not only the segment of gene encoding the desired property but a promoter (something that will drive the transcription or reading of the gene and can be controlled) and a reporter (a measurable quality the best known in situ reporter being GFP – green fluorescent protein). This way the control of the gene expression can be experimentally modelled giving an idea of how well the gene will function in the new environment. Some promoters express at great levels and express all the time (like the CMV35S promoter) and some express only when triggered. In most GM crops the less fucking around you do is considered the better so a gene will be inserted in the area of the genome where expression is going to be most natural. There’s no point for example sticking a “nutrient gene” (you have no idea how much I shuddered writing that) into the part of the genome that expresses for stalk formation when what you want is the gene to express in the fruit. Placing the gene can be difficult as well, there is a solid theoretical way of doing it that 99% of the time works just fine but there is the 1% chance of abnormal placement. This does not mean that the abnormality will cause a badness, it means that it will be less effective.
So you have isolated your gene and you know where you want it to go, you’ve run theoretical models in laboratory using a good reporter promoter fusion and you’re ready to place your gene into the genome of the plant for transformation. The gene for insertion will be added into a specific section of DNA using restriction enzymes, which will ensure (99% of the time) that the right gene is in the right place to get the desired effect and again in theory you have a predictable result.
However, as with all genetics the unpredictable nature comes from the host environment. After genome mapping it was expected that everyone would know everything there was to know about the organism mapped. This isn’t the case and new branches of sciences such as metabolomics, proteomics and epigenetics have branched from this examining the intra and extra cellular interactions that determine the make up and role of an organism with as much importance as the DNA code. This is how the effectiveness of transgenic organisms can be less straight forward as once predicted but where would science be if it stopped at the first difficulty? With more being understood all the time about the complex interactions the science will be improved and give more predictable results.
It is (I repeat) NOT that no one knows what will happen, there is only really two options it will work in the way expected vs it won’t work at all, what can’t be predicted is how well it will work.
quote:
It 'sounds' nice to produce vaccines, or more hardy plants...but how successful has this been, even on this front? (Not to mention how greedy corporations are...)
As far as vaccines are concerned I’m a bit rusty on all of this, I know that some root vegetables have been experimentally transformed for this purpose but I don’t know if this has moved to mass producible scale yet. In the realm of transgenics in general though it has been well publicised that transgenic animals have been able to produce products like the haemophiliac protein and insulin in their milk. Widely used and very successful. As for the hardy nature of crops, I think the classic example of a success story in this field is the extended ripening period of transgenic tomatoes that were (I don’t know if they still are because of public concern) widely available in the supermarket in products such as purees and sauces. Corporations are nothing to do with the scientific principle and should not therefore be included in it.
quote:
One example of how useless this can be is the so-called 'golden rice', which has been engineered to contain more beta-carotine/Vit. A, but even then, you still need to eat a fairly significant amount in order to get your RDA...
One example yes, the theory is a good one. Look at the communities that are lacking in these essential nutrients (causing numerous health problems), look at their major food source and engineer the compromise. I don’t (without researching it) know much of the golden rice problem, it’s been a long time since I looked at this, but I would imagine the problem was the in situ expression of the desired quantity (the beta-carotine/vit A). I’ll look into what the problem was and get back to this.
quote:
A better option would be to find crops that contain needed nutrients and grow them instead... Think of all the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent on 'golden rice'...think of the people that could have been helped directly. (I believe that it has been banned most everywhere.)
Crops that contain needed nutrients and were widely available and were super hardy what a vision indeed is this! Golden rice may be one failure in scientific terms but one failure does not make the science bad or worth abandoning. The ideology behind GM is to have a sustainable hardy crop that will provide for nutrients that are lacking. The ideology is a good one, the problem comes from the corporations and their abuse of the system. Sadly it’s the same in most sciences. Biomedical and pharmacological university and research departments make the breakthroughs and medical companies cash in on it (although for anyone who suffers arthritis, any recurrent muscular bone disorder or anyone suffering post chemotherapy nausea I strongly suggest a visit to your local dope dealer – stick it to the man!). Same with GM, same with a bunch of things, if there is money to be made the science with the good intentions is bent to the will of profit. Again, this does not make the science bad. As for directly using the funding, give a man a fish and he feeds his family for a day…. Same theory.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 06:45:24
Not everything, just poverty.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 03:28:21
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:19:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking Oppenheimer out of the equation would solve nothing until you've changed the mindset of everybody down through the system.
The Oppenheimer family run Anglo-American which owns more than 1,600 companies and is the world's leading producer of gold, platinum, diamonds and lots of other resources both strategic and precious. And the country they are based in just happens to have severe problems with poverty. Coincidence?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
Not really relevant. You can find poverty in every country, plenty more severely than SA or Zimbabwe. You can blame massive corporations for a lot of things, but not for everything.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 02:40:51
quote:
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:19:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking Oppenheimer out of the equation would solve nothing until you've changed the mindset of everybody down through the system.
The Oppenheimer family run Anglo-American which owns more than 1,600 companies and is the world's leading producer of gold, platinum, diamonds and lots of other resources both strategic and precious. And the country they are based in just happens to have severe problems with poverty. Coincidence?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 01:00:46
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
There are many many benefits to GM crops. The ability to grow crops in unfavourable conditions, edible vaccines and so on. It's the theory I entirely approve of I don't approve of the way companies like monsanto use the technology.
I know a lot of people are anti-GM but I don't really understand their reasoning (or lack of often enough) for it.
How do you feel about potential cross-contamination with other plants? There have been examples of GMO crops actually affecting entirely different species...
It's my understanding that genetic modification is in many ways a total crap-shoot, and it's nearly impossible to really predict the effects we're having.
It 'sounds' nice to produce vaccines, or more hardy plants...but how successful has this been, even on this front? (Not to mention how greedy corporations are...)
One example of how useless this can be is the so-called 'golden rice', which has been engineered to contain more beta-carotine/Vit. A, but even then, you still need to eat a fairly significant amount in order to get your RDA...
A better option would be to find crops that contain needed nutrients and grow them instead... Think of all the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent on 'golden rice'...think of the people that could have been helped directly. (I believe that it has been banned most everywhere.)
"Live life like you're gonna die...because you are." - William Shatner, You'll Have Time / Has Been |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 00:51:01
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
So, who should we NOT boycott? Is there any company that ISN'T evil, or at least affiliated with evil?
As mentioned, smaller companies.
My general practice is 'if you've seen a commercial for it, it's prolly not good to buy'. (Not a hard and fast rule, but good all-round.)
Few 'big' companies maintain any decent standards, so look for smaller ones...and sometimes you'd be surprised with how good stuff can be from them...
For example, sodas from smaller, organic companies are usually *quite* delicious.
"Live life like you're gonna die...because you are." - William Shatner, You'll Have Time / Has Been |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:25:50
nuh uh. people are fundamentally Ferdinand The Bull.
are too.
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 07:11:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 05:22:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if some family or organisation controls the diamonds?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So control of the precious resources of a country has no bearing on the control of the country...
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So control of the diamonds is not going to stop poverty in South Africa.
How you figure?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
I just looked at this and though, whoops, that doesn't sound like something I'd say, I don't agree with that. Then I worked out it was your previous post, and I'd got my own confused with the signature. Doh...
Like Wilhelm was saying, it's not so much the politics as the people. Taking Oppenheimer out of the equation would solve nothing until you've changed the mindset of everybody down through the system. People are fundamentally greedy, its not political.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 15:06:53
quote:
Originally posted by Monsieur
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
Actually I didn't say I shop Canadian and always in smaller shops.
I said I shop Canadian (we do have some big companies here) and/or when and if I can I shop at mom and pop type stores.
I shop Canadian because I feel there are enough thriving american corporations and I'd rather give my dollars to the Canadian stores, supporting my own country's economy.
And if I can shop smaller it tends to be at things like the local farmer's market. I'd rather give the little guy my bucks than somebody like Loblaw's.
Its a delicate balance.
But that is where your mistake is. This thread is not about economic efficiency, but perhaps more about distribution of wealth and humanity.
Either way monsieur, I doubt everyone would do this, and even if we did I could argue that instead of making this sector less developed as you say, we could be giving everyone more of a choice than let's say Wal-Mart. Conversely, if noone did this, perhaps all we'd have to shop at is Wal-Mart. You took business, you know that basically the world is made up of a handful of transnationals. How long before it is only just one or two? Efficiency at what price?
__________
Don't believe the hype.
I suppose you are familiar with Ricardo's theory of comparative advantages. It is one of the very few theories that most economists agree upon.
If Canadian aluminium production is more efficient than the US one, and US retail is more efficient, than it is rational that Canada abandons its retail companies and the US imports its aluminium from Canada.
This is not just a theory. Take the example of France vs UK. Each time a French company is about to be acquired, politicians try to prevent a foreign player from coming into our domestic market. In the UK, there has been a "laissez faire" policy at least since Thatcher. Well, the development of our neighbour country has been much faster than ours over this period. Actually, many UK companies have never been so strong. I know that this has been made at a certain social cost. But we are about to pay that social cost in France too, and we're ten years late.
Secondly, I think that the fear of a "big brother" controlling all the world's economy is irrational. The history is full of examples of broken monopolies. Especially now, because the technology is changing everything so quickly. Some people complain about Google's supremacy. That company didn't exist 10 years ago. Look at the US telecom sector. ATT/SouthBell was announced this morning. Basically, they are rebuilding Ma Bell again (it was dismantled years ago). Economy is about destroying/recreating (see Schumpeter). Historical evidence is clearly against the idea of a trend towards a single company dominating everything.
True there are some sectors where your freedom of choice is limited. That's why you have anti-trust watchdogs in every developed country. I don't know how they work in the USA, but they are doing a good job in Europe.
As for your humanity issues, I don't see why protecting Canadian economy is "humane". I am not sure that the fat guys sitting at boards of Canadian companies are nicer than their American (or French) counterparts. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, save your money by shopping at Wal Mart and send it to Somalia.
I am being a little bit agressive here. I don't necessarily disagree with you that much, I just want to underline the fact that people who point out some very noble reasons for boyoctting a company or some other political action usually do it to defend their own little interest.
Of course, I very often buy stuff at my local small shop. I like the guy who works there, and I find it charming that his small shop is still working, although there is a supermarket just accross the street.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust
economists.
there is more than one mindset.
one is that the human animal 'produces' - that there are 'fruits of labor'...this view inevitably and ultimately results in the members of a society (or 'an economy' as you may see it) becoming enslaved to their society. They are forced to produce...for the good of 'society'...to "pull their own weight" when in actuality they pull far more than their own weight, with 'society', government, economy along for the ride and still they struggle to feed themselves. There is no stasis in this world view - there is only growth - bigger, more, etc. "Growth of less than 3% for three consecutive quarters is a recession". This is the ideology of the cancer cell. (Yes, I’ve heard that before too.) This world view is too narrow to accommodate the nature of the human condition, which, if anything is certainly not to produce merely for the sake of production - growth. The human spirit has value in the economic worldview only in the sense of what it can produce/make/do/give, etc.
In central Kentucky there are bumper stickers that the development community wears that say "GROWTH IS GOOD" - bright green background, big white letters. These people want the horse farms and all of the surrounding greenspace in the Lexington/Louisville area for 'development'. "Aesthetics don't pay the bills." They don't understand that the only reason there is growth is because of the greenspace...and that growth and urban sprawl must be controlled (and not by 'the market') or we'll all end up living next to strip malls...of course they think this is good because what the hell - its convenient...meanwhile it has somehow become attractive to live in the middle of a golf course.
there is another worldview, which I stupidly call the "artistic" worldview. It is a way of seeing humanity's spiritual energy is better expended in seeking enlightenment, beauty, fun, God,...aesthetics, music, art, sex, whatever. In truth, this way of thinking is far healthier for the human animal and is a far more peaceful existence. Think of the story of Ferdinand - the bull that would not fight - just wanted to sniff the flowers. Remember - he never changes - he goes back to the meadow. Humanity is actually more like Ferdinand than it knows...only he's being forced to stay in the arena far longer than he should have...and its getting ugly...he's getting ugly and bloody and his true docile spirit is beginning to fade...all because the show must go on.
or something.
i'm not eloquent or clear-headed enough to fully articulate this.
In any case - seeing the world only as an economist would is narrow.
Read Jeremy Rifkin's book "Entropy." Chicken Little, he.
Oh, and boycott ExxonMobil - mainly because they are greedy bastards. http://www.exxposeexxon.com/
[spelling]
|
| Newo |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 12:10:40
Then the policies haven´t changed fundamentally, only enough to anaesthetise public opinion. There´s always enough money to bomb a country flat or set up a dictatorship but when it comes to feeding a country, we´ve been well-conditioned to believe these suits with their spiels like "The road to peace/food is looong and we´ll fix it tomorrow", always tomorrow. To me, modern political discourse is a collective hallucination and those in need of help won´t see much change as long as we´re taking it seriously.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| offerw |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:57:45
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
Curious how parties come and go and the policies remain static, no?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
Policies have changed but I fear those most desperately in need of help have seen little of the change improve their lives.
wilhelm |
| HeywoodJablome |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:18:05
Don't ever buy anything ever again. You can make everything you need out of hemp, it says so in High Times.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
"And that's when Abe Lincoln said ..'Don't diss my homies'." |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 11:08:43
Curious how parties come and go and the policies remain static, no?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| offerw |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 10:09:18
quote:
South Africa during apartheid you´ve got overt and violent control, overseen by family Oppenheimer who owned 80% of companies on countries´ stockmarket and nearly all the diamonds and gold. Apartheid ends, South Africa joins the haha free world and afterward family Oppenheimer own 80% of companies on countries´ stockmarket and nearly all the diamonds and gold. The power structure doesn´t change a bit, just the superficie, basically we´ve come up with some pretty fiendish new ways of convincing people they´re not slaves.
Oppenheimer/ Anglo-American certainly did not oversee the National Party government. They did make huge profit out of the economic and social segregation which was enforced by the NP. Anglo today has much better relations with the ANC government than it has ever had with any previous government. Throught the black empowerment deals which Anglo and all other huge companies have made the colour of the hands holding the money are starting to change. Sad thing is the new hands holding on to the money have no interest in sharing it with their poverty stricken brothers.
wilhelm |
| offerw |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 09:43:08
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
Pfizer and GFK have awful HIV/AIDs ethics. They were the forefront in making these drugs on a large scale and sell them to countries where there is a high incidence of AIDs. They bind them in to contracts which means these multinational corporations are their sole suppliers. Places like India which are gaining economic strength and especially in scientific fields are very up and coming if not over taking us in some ways have their own companies that produce the same drugs for a fraction of a price. Countries are blocked from purchasing these drugs though by the action of the large medical companies like Pfizer and GSK. I believe pfizer actually tried to sue one government for an extortionate amount of money for trying to switch drugs providers.
The amount of money these companies make sickens me, the cost of treatment and the tight hold on the market sickens me. I used to keep an eye on costs in one operating theatre, I had a look at how much some things cost to produce and how much they get sold for and it's no wonder the health service is always short of money. They're over a barrel.
"In 2002 the pharmaceutical industry had the highest proportion of profit in relation to sales in the Fortune 500 (Fortuna magazine's listing of top 500 US corporations)The pharmaceutical sector's returns were on average 16 percent, four times the median for Fortune 500 companies. Glaxo Wellcome's return on revenue was 31 percent, ten times the median average." quoted from witness to AIDS by Edwin Cameron.
Pharmaceutical companies are responsible for developing and improving most of the world's drugs. They argue that if it wasn't financialy profitable to develop new drugs medical progress would be much slower. Sad but true. Still it doesn't justify the huge profits they take.
In South Africa the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) started importing generic Diflucan from Malaysia at a quarter of the price of the patent protected Pfizer product sold locally. The subsequent legal action taken by Pfizer (and the government!) caused huge media and public outrage. It was incredible that the pharmaceutical and the government would want to prevent affordable drug delivery to the poor and hardest hit by HIV.
Eventually Pfizer backed down and in a sudden change of heart have started donating free Diflucan at over four hundred HIV clinics in poor communities. They have subsequently started distibuting the drug free of charge in 25 developing countries hit by the AIDS epidemic.
Still, pharmaceuticals are fighting for the implementation of patent laws in developing countries (some developing countries have now been given to 2016 to comply)
They will keep on reaping huge profits.
wilhelm |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 09:33:17
quote:
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 07:11:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 05:22:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if some family or organisation controls the diamonds?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So control of the precious resources of a country has no bearing on the control of the country...
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So control of the diamonds is not going to stop poverty in South Africa.
How you figure?
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 08:41:41
My trouble with Monsanto is they are producing a GM Canola that has the potential to become a dominant weed. But I'm not at all sure what I would boycott. |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 08:30:15
quote:
Unless you count the fact that we are quickly losing our Canadian culture to Americanization
Canadian culture!!! Hahahaha.
They can never take away my curling rocks. |
| Fartbone |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 07:18:43
I try to boycott morons but then I wouldn't have pixiesmusic.com
Horale Cabrones |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 03/07/2006 : 07:11:04
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
Cheeseman1000 Posted - 03/07/2006 : 05:22:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if some family or organisation controls the diamonds?
So control of the precious resources of a country has no bearing on the control of the country...
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now!
So control of the diamonds is not going to stop poverty in South Africa.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
|
|
