The real emergency facing the US.

First topic message reminder :

WASHINGTON (AP) - The national debt has passed a new milestone, topping $22 trillion for the first time.

The Treasury Department's daily statement showed Tuesday that total outstanding public debt stands at $22.01 trillion. It stood at $19.95 trillion when Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon took office on Jan. 20, 2017.

The national debt is the total of the annual budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this year's deficit will be $897 billion - a 15.1 percent increase over last year's imbalance of $779 billion. In the coming years, the CBO forecasts that the deficit will keep rising, top $1 trillion annually beginning in 2022 and never drop below $1 trillion through 2029. Much of the increase will come from mounting costs to fund Social Security and Medicare as the vast generation of baby boomers continue to retire.

http://www.fox4news.com/business/national-debt-hits-new-milestone-topping-22-trillion?fbclid=IwAR1bOUUFwuxlc8Mrf7C3sIGFCfe4OTk65_fVlggzc2LwJFSQ1IvyZa27rZ0


The real emergency that no one wants to talk about. Debt makes it harder to fight the next recession, climate change or the next war. When the wheels start to fall off, and they always do at some level of debt, the social and military programs won't get funded.

And unfortunately, no one running for president from either major party is remotely interested in making the tough decisions that must be made. In all honesty, it's probably because they know that telling the truth on this topic will guarantee a loss. The secret is to promise free stuff today and kick the payments down the road.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Actually it doesn't matter. Cheney said that Reagan proved deficits don't matter, and he was right. If only because certain people have been saying the end is nigh for about 30 years now.

If deficits don't matter, why collect taxes?  

Somebody has to pay the bills...

Especially the interest on those foreign loans..

Otherwise, if the government falters on a few repayments, you might find that a lot of road tolls and rental on your national power grids are being redirected to the Chinese (government owned) banks; and American farmers and miners might have to start paying for water rights -- for the first time in Amerika's history !

Or maybe the US gov't can simply remove some of the excessive and undeserved tax breaks for the 'top end' of town -- and redirect more money into the bottom half of the economy..

eddie wrote:This country owes this many billion that country owes that many billion another one owes that many billion...

Not enough money exists in the world. It’s all numbers on a screen.

What if everyone said to everyone else:
“I’ll let you off”

No one would owe anything.

Simplistic but fucking true.

Do you know how many people would be unemployed overnight ???

How many industries would disappear..

No more communications, telephones, internet, television.

Where would your food come from next week, next month.. How would you pay for it ?

What about water, power, heating..

I was reading an article about an interesting measure. It seems that the wealthy invest more in suppressing the wages of the middle-class and poor, then they do to enhancing their own position. For example, they apparently are panicked by a rise in the minimum wage.

You would think that if they put more into helping themselves, they would make the overall "world" a better place. But their efforts are toward suppressing the wealth of others. Curious.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

If deficits don't matter, why collect taxes?  

Somebody has to pay the bills...

Especially the interest on those foreign loans..

Otherwise, if the government falters on a few repayments,  you might find that a lot of road tolls and rental on your national power grids are being redirected to the Chinese (government owned) banks;  and American farmers and miners might have to start paying for water rights --  for the first time in Amerika's history  !

Or maybe the US gov't can simply remove some of the excessive and undeserved tax breaks for the 'top end' of town --  and redirect more money into the bottom half of the economy..

I know why we pay taxes ya big dummy.

My whole point through out this thread is the debt and deficits matter. At some point they will really matter. At tjat point there will be decreased government services and inflation like is seen in Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

Original Quill wrote:I was reading an article about an interesting measure.  It seems that the wealthy invest more in suppressing the wages of the middle-class and poor, then they do to enhancing their own position.  For example, they apparently are panicked by a rise in the minimum wage.

You would think that if they put more into helping themselves, they would make the overall "world" a better place.  But their efforts are toward suppressing the wealth of others.  Curious.

Does that article have a link?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:This country owes this many billion that country owes that many billion another one owes that many billion...

Not enough money exists in the world. It’s all numbers on a screen.

What if everyone said to everyone else:
“I’ll let you off”

No one would owe anything.

Simplistic but fucking true.

Do you know how many people would be unemployed overnight ???

How many industries would disappear..

No more communications, telephones, internet, television.

Where would your food come from next week,  next month..   How would you pay for it ?

What about water, power, heating..

Wolfie is right on this one.

Maybe that's why no one cares about debt. They figure it's not a real threat that can lead to the death of tens of millions?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I was reading an article about an interesting measure.  It seems that the wealthy invest more in suppressing the wages of the middle-class and poor, then they do to enhancing their own position.  For example, they apparently are panicked by a rise in the minimum wage.

You would think that if they put more into helping themselves, they would make the overall "world" a better place.  But their efforts are toward suppressing the wealth of others.  Curious.

Does that article have a link?

No, I don't have it...and correction: I wasn't reading it, but remembering it.  Around Monday or Tuesday last week, it was discussed on MSNBC by a group of economists, one of whom espoused this.  I like to write things like that down, but in this case I didn't.  I really regret it, as in retrospect I think it's one of the great realizations of the decade.

I did look for it, and found the following book: Amy Chua, Political Tribes (2019).  In it is written:

Amy Chua wrote:For a blast of irony, contrast Occupy Wall Street with a movement that actually is enormously popular among America’s have-nots and have-lesses. The prosperity gospel is one of the fastest-growing movements in the United States. It teaches that being rich is godly and that God will make people rich if they pray (and tithe) correctly. The number of poor and working-class African and Hispanic Americans who belong to prosperity churches is growing exponentially. Three out of four Hispanic Christians in the United States believe that “God will grant financial success and good health to all believers who have enough faith.” A Mexican American student of mine—whose family members are now in danger of being deported by the Trump administration—recently wrote to me: “In my opinion, the Prosperity Gospel explains how much of my Hispanic family can be anti-Obama and pro-Trump, despite that being so obviously against their self-interest. It’s a coping mechanism for poor people who feel hopeless in this world. Just a few weeks ago, my mom sent me a video of one of her favorite pastors snapchatting from Trump’s inaugural ball. My mom was so excited to see Trump welcoming in men she considers to be ‘holy.’ For me, this is frustrating to no end.”

A part of the magic carpet that Trump is riding upon is the belief that next to godliness, is wealthiness.  And that, the opposite of the the prosperity gospel is not lifting poverty, but suppression of the poor, as they are unholy.  This works into our economical principles by way of a similar dualism: enhance wealth, suppress the poor.  This dualism becomes tax-cuts for the wealthy, don't raise the minimum wage (suppress programs for the poor).  In final words, poverty is simply unclean so leave it alone.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Does that article have a link?

No, I don't have it...and correction: I wasn't reading it, but remembering it.  Around Monday or Tuesday last week, it was discussed on MSNBC by a group of economists, one of whom espoused this.  I like to write things like that down, but in this case I didn't.  I really regret it, as in retrospect I think it's one of the great realizations of the decade.

I did look for it, and found the following book: Amy Chua, Political Tribes (2019).  In it is written:

Amy Chua wrote:For a blast of irony, contrast Occupy Wall Street with a movement that actually is enormously popular among America’s have-nots and have-lesses. The prosperity gospel is one of the fastest-growing movements in the United States. It teaches that being rich is godly and that God will make people rich if they pray (and tithe) correctly. The number of poor and working-class African and Hispanic Americans who belong to prosperity churches is growing exponentially. Three out of four Hispanic Christians in the United States believe that “God will grant financial success and good health to all believers who have enough faith.” A Mexican American student of mine—whose family members are now in danger of being deported by the Trump administration—recently wrote to me: “In my opinion, the Prosperity Gospel explains how much of my Hispanic family can be anti-Obama and pro-Trump, despite that being so obviously against their self-interest. It’s a coping mechanism for poor people who feel hopeless in this world. Just a few weeks ago, my mom sent me a video of one of her favorite pastors snapchatting from Trump’s inaugural ball. My mom was so excited to see Trump welcoming in men she considers to be ‘holy.’ For me, this is frustrating to no end.”

A part of the magic carpet that Trump is riding upon is the belief that next to godliness, is wealthiness.  And that, the opposite of the the prosperity gospel is not lifting poverty, but suppression of the poor, as they are unholy.  This works into our economical principles by way of a similar dualism: enhance wealth, suppress the poor.  This dualism becomes tax-cuts for the wealthy, don't raise the minimum wage (suppress programs for the poor).  In final words, poverty is simply unclean so leave it alone.

Ok, well this thread isn't about Trump but the lack of concern by almost all politicians on the biggest threat facing the country.  

These problems predate Trump and will be here long after he is gone. 

Trump doesn't care about the debt very much, but that makes him typical of politicians of both parties.

But he does care about suppressing the poor and keeping them there.  Look at those corporate tax cuts that were immediately cashed-in for personal wealth by the wealthy.

And how about those tax refunds for the middle class and the poor...zero, and some have to pay.  

Original Quill wrote:But he does care about suppressing the poor and keeping them there.  Look at those corporate tax cuts that were immediately cashed-in for personal wealth by the wealthy.

And how about those tax refunds for the middle class and the poor...zero, and some have to pay.  

I guess you would have to ask him.  

But make no mistake, excessive debt will hurt the poor the most if there is no money left for social programs.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But he does care about suppressing the poor and keeping them there.  Look at those corporate tax cuts that were immediately cashed-in for personal wealth by the wealthy.

And how about those tax refunds for the middle class and the poor...zero, and some have to pay.  

I guess you would have to ask him.  

But make no mistake, excessive debt will hurt the poor the most if there is no money left for social programs.

Could the USA ever afford to cut out Social Security, unemployment and Medicare programmes entirely, though  ?

Removing them would lead to more poverty, more crime, even more homelessness..

And the increasing unrest and desperation could only result in another civil war --  how would the government be turning the military on its own citizens, let alone not being able to pay police and military wages, to help maintain some sense of 'order'.

*******************************************************

IF the US gov't had stopped giving excessive tax cuts to the top end of town back in the 1980s --  and if they had not borrowed to fight foreign wars, while moving ever-greater amounts of public monies into private pockets --  then they could have been able to cap the top income tax rate below 40%,  and not been at the point now where some are mentioning a top rate of 70% for the ultra-high earners..

It's not the aged pensions, veterans, unemployment payments, or medicare that cripples the US social security system, so much, as high family and child payments allied with excessive tax cuts at the top end reducing the revenue base.  A lack of public hospitals, while allowing excessive profit-gouging by healthfunds, doesn't help either.


Reagan and Thatcher proved back in the 1980s that "Trickle Down"/voodoo economics policies simply don't work --  that giving big tax breaks to the top 5% doesn't enrich the bottom half of the economy..    Yet still today, most political parties in western economies are still using that 'Economic Rationalist' argument to support their efforts to keep on reducing taxes  !!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
I guess you would have to ask him.  

But make no mistake, excessive debt will hurt the poor the most if there is no money left for social programs.

Could the USA ever afford to cut out Social Security, unemployment and Medicare programmes entirely, though  ?

Removing them would lead to more poverty, more crime, even more homelessness..

And the increasing unrest and desperation could only result in another civil war --  how would the government be turning the military on its own citizens, let alone not being able to pay police and military wages, to help maintain some sense of 'order'.

*************************************************

IF the US gov't had stopped giving excessive tax cuts to the top end of town back in the 1980s --  and if they had not borrowed to fight foreign wars, while moving ever-greater amounts of public monies into private pockets --  then they could have been able to cap the top income tax rate below 40%,  and not been at the point now where some are mentioning a top rate of 70% for the ultra-high earners..

It's not the aged pensions, veterans, unemployment payments, or medicare that cripples the US social security system, so much, as high family and child payments allied with excessive tax cuts at the top end reducing the revenue base.  A lack of public hospitals, while allowing excessive profit-gouging by healthfunds, doesn't help either.

You can't ever get rid of those programs, but you are going to have to modify them. Most countries have done some tinkering because people keep living longer.

But as you mentioned, civil unrest is a real possibility. Look at other countries where it has happened. The US really can't go broke, because we control our currency. But we can look like Venezuela and start printing it to try to keep ahead of the debt payments. That almost never works, and if the largest economy on the planet starts to go down that road, it will usher in something like the dark ages.

And taxing the billionaires isn't going to fix it. There are about 500 billionaires in this country, with a net worth of around 2.5 trillion. Take every penny they have, and it doesn't run our country for a year.

We have to cut spending.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:This country owes this many billion that country owes that many billion another one owes that many billion...

Not enough money exists in the world. It’s all numbers on a screen.

What if everyone said to everyone else:
“I’ll let you off”

No one would owe anything.

Simplistic but fucking true.

Do you know how many people would be unemployed overnight ???

How many industries would disappear..

No more communications, telephones, internet, television.

Where would your food come from next week,  next month..   How would you pay for it ?

What about water, power, heating..

Yeah, that debt is other peoples pay checks...
you worked all week and your employer owes you nothing cause all debts are cleared
that would suck balls eddie

Debt to an economy is like oil to an engine it is needed for things to run smoothly..
you borrow the material you need to build the product you sell and then payback for the material you used.
the problem is when 'bad debt' when you're borrowing money for things that don't go back into the economy.


there is an argument for clearing old national debts, the ones nations where straddled with by colonial masters as part of their 'independence' deals.... plus others where they are the result of 'exceedingly immoral deals' often with dictators etc that have since been overthrown...
In those case the money is never going to be repaid anyway, all it does it perpetually fuck the nation since the engine of their economy has no oil(access to credit) so it seized, and they are stuck in poverty indefinitely.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
I guess you would have to ask him.  

But make no mistake, excessive debt will hurt the poor the most if there is no money left for social programs.

Could the USA ever afford to cut out Social Security, unemployment and Medicare programmes entirely, though  ?

Removing them would lead to more poverty, more crime, even more homelessness..

And the increasing unrest and desperation could only result in another civil war --  how would the government be turning the military on its own citizens, let alone not being able to pay police and military wages, to help maintain some sense of 'order'.

*************************************************

IF the US gov't had stopped giving excessive tax cuts to the top end of town back in the 1980s --  and if they had not borrowed to fight foreign wars, while moving ever-greater amounts of public monies into private pockets --  then they could have been able to cap the top income tax rate below 40%,  and not been at the point now where some are mentioning a top rate of 70% for the ultra-high earners..

It's not the aged pensions, veterans, unemployment payments, or medicare that cripples the US social security system, so much, as high family and child payments allied with excessive tax cuts at the top end reducing the revenue base.  A lack of public hospitals, while allowing excessive profit-gouging by healthfunds, doesn't help either.

You can't ever get rid of those programs, but you are going to have to modify them. Most countries have done some tinkering because people keep living longer.

But as you mentioned, civil unrest is a real possibility. Look at other countries where it has happened. The US really can't go broke, because we control our currency. But we can look like Venezuela and start printing it to try to keep ahead of the debt payments. That almost never works, and if the largest economy on the planet starts to go down that road, it will usher in something like the dark ages.

And taxing the billionaires isn't going to fix it. There are about 500 billionaires in this country, with a net worth of around 2.5 trillion. Take every penny they have, and it doesn't run our country for a year.

We have to cut spending.

the west would go dark but China will light the east

And the solution is not cut the pathetically low level of stuff you have !!!!!
it's grow your economy by supporting local business by reducing tax breaks and exemptions for bigger business.
in the age of multinationals all big business offshore revenue BUT a local business, all the funds stay circulating locally.
the problem is the Walmarts, they spend the money trying to expand to foreign markets... Your local Butcher spends it on wages for local people etc that get spent in other shops around town... the money is far more likely to stay in the USA (which reduces Debt to GDP ratio, which is the thing that matters, not the dollar value itself)

the other thing is regulation, if you had more regulation on pharmaceuticals you could make healthcare more affordable either to individuals in a private system or tax payers in Public funded one. all the gov't has to to is take control of the medical pricing registry that Insurance companies and hospitals use. stop letting the 2 that benefit from it being as high as possible set the price!!!!
that's just one example of where the Gov't Could get a lot more bang for it's buck if it just implemented some regulation, it's still Market economics just making the playing field suit the outcome society wants rather than let vested interest set the field to suit themselves an no one else.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You can't ever get rid of those programs, but you are going to have to modify them. Most countries have done some tinkering because people keep living longer.

But as you mentioned, civil unrest is a real possibility. Look at other countries where it has happened. The US really can't go broke, because we control our currency. But we can look like Venezuela and start printing it to try to keep ahead of the debt payments. That almost never works, and if the largest economy on the planet starts to go down that road, it will usher in something like the dark ages.

And taxing the billionaires isn't going to fix it. There are about 500 billionaires in this country, with a net worth of around 2.5 trillion. Take every penny they have, and it doesn't run our country for a year.

We have to cut spending.

the west would go dark but China will light the east

And the solution is not cut the pathetically low level of stuff you have !!!!!
it's grow your economy by supporting local business by reducing tax breaks and exemptions for bigger business.
in the age of multinationals all big business offshore revenue BUT a local business, all the funds stay circulating locally.
the problem is the Walmarts, they spend the money trying to expand to foreign markets...  Your local Butcher spends it on wages for local people etc that get spent in other shops around town... the money is far more likely to stay in the USA (which reduces Debt to GDP ratio, which is the thing that matters, not the dollar value itself)  

the other thing is regulation, if you had more regulation on pharmaceuticals you could make healthcare more affordable either to individuals in a private system or tax payers in Public funded one. all the gov't has to to is take control of the medical pricing registry that Insurance companies and hospitals use. stop letting the 2 that benefit from it being as high as possible set the price!!!!
that's just one example of where the Gov't Could get a lot more bang for it's buck if it just implemented some regulation, it's still Market economics just making the playing field suit the outcome society wants rather than let vested interest set the field to suit themselves an no one else.

China holds much of our debt. If we default, they are screwed.

Our economy is the largest on the planet, and growing at a pretty good clip.

Our pharmaceuticals are regulated like crazy. Regulations increase prices. That's why they are so expensive here.

The US government has imposed enough regulations on it's "citizens", and confiscated enough wealth. It has spent itself into a jamb, and it needs to get it's house in order, not expect more money from it's citizens.

It's time for responsible and frugal government handing the very limited role the constitution mandates.

LOL
no they are not
they are hardly regulated compared to Oz
we ban like 60% of USA produced shit, it's illegal to sell because it is fraudulent

And for ones that do work, if they don't agree to the capped price the gov't makes a non-brand of whatever the active ingredient is

Look what other nations are actually doing and compare to your own.... the USA is the least regulated western Nation, across the board from Pharmaceuticals to Guns.. literally the difference in the level of Regulation between Australia and the USA on Guns and Pharmaceutical is about the same, and you know we are used as an example for gun control

PLUS our health care is a tenth the price ... thanks to Our Highly Regulated System.

Maddog wrote:Our pharmaceuticals are regulated like crazy. Regulations increase prices. That's why they are so expensive here.

Contradiction alert!! In some industries public protections might up the costs, but it's hardly true that a regulation to hold down prices is going to cost money. Pharmas have gone crazy creating monopolies on life: you need the medication to live; they charge you your life savings, and then toss you away.

A public protection that makes those pharmaceuticals available to the public by reducing price, is hardly going to up any price.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Our pharmaceuticals are regulated like crazy. Regulations increase prices. That's why they are so expensive here.

Contradiction alert!!  In some industries public protections might up the costs, but it's hardly true that a regulation to hold down prices is going to cost money.  Pharmas have gone crazy creating monopolies on life: you need the medication to live; they charge you your life savings, and then toss you away.

A public protection that makes those pharmaceuticals available to the public by reducing price, is hardly going to up any price.

What would price controls do to supply?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Contradiction alert!!  In some industries public protections might up the costs, but it's hardly true that a regulation to hold down prices is going to cost money.  Pharmas have gone crazy creating monopolies on life: you need the medication to live; they charge you your life savings, and then toss you away.

A public protection that makes those pharmaceuticals available to the public by reducing price, is hardly going to up any price.

What would price controls do to supply?

Nothing. It would reduce the pharma bonanza to a dull roar. All the research and development for that industry, and the qualification of drugs, come from the universities and government labs. Pharmas are just good interposers.

Are you asking whether pharmas would go out of business?  Would they cut off their noses to spite their face?  Doubtful.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What would price controls do to supply?

Nothing.  It would reduce the pharma bonanza to a dull roar.  All the research and development for that industry, and the qualification of drugs, come from the universities and government labs.  Pharmas are just good interposers.

Are you asking whether pharmas would go out of business?  Would they cut off their noses to spite their face?  Doubtful.

In economics, what do price controls do to supply.

Google it.

Big Pharma's, big healthfunds, and their private hospitals, all make government-assisted excessive profits in tha USA...

To such an extent, that in Amerika they make around five times the net profit, that the very same companies make in Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, Framce, Germany, et al..

IF they weren't making a reasonable profit, then they simply wouldn't be operating over here  !

And, they all have shares in each others companies --  effectively "all pissing in the same pot"  -- after all, they need to invest those grossly-excess profits somewhere..


Additionally, these days "big Pharma'" do fuckall (i.e. less than zero..) actual 'research and development'  --  contracting their research and trials to universities, and farming development out to  smaller companies, both in Amerika and abroad...   Big Pharma's main business these days  is in marketing, licensing and patenting, and asset-stripping smaller companies and price-gouging those particular drugs they wanted..

In the absence of any price controls in the USA, and in blatant and illegal collusion with their competitors over there, those big drug companies are STILL maximising their profits !

The world's #1 manufacturer of vaccines and antivenenes is CSL, an Aussie corporation, formerly the Government Serum Laboratories before they privatised it (by floating it on the ASX..) back in the 1980s --  not that many foreigners would know that, as they will see those drugs being marketed under one of the 'big Pharma' brand names.

Well I'm grateful to the pharma companies, and anyone involved in their research. Without some of the drugs which have been developed, I'd probably be stuffed.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Well I'm grateful to the pharma companies, and anyone involved in their research. Without some of the drugs which have been developed, I'd probably be stuffed.

You can also be grateful that you're living in England, rather than the USA -- as you would be paying a lot more for some of them under the American "open market" system..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Well I'm grateful to the pharma companies, and anyone involved in their research. Without some of the drugs which have been developed, I'd probably be stuffed.

You can also be grateful that you're living in England, rather than the USA  --  as you would be paying a lot more for some of them under the American "open market" system..

Oh I am.

Older drugs are cheaper than newer drugs though. They have to protect their investment somehow.

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You can also be grateful that you're living in England, rather than the USA  --  as you would be paying a lot more for some of them under the American "open market" system..

Oh I am.

Older drugs are cheaper than newer drugs though. They have to protect their investment somehow.

Be glad the US creates so many new drugs and charges the American consumer, insurance companies and government so much money to offset the price controls in other countries.  

Maybe there are state run or socialist pharmaceutical companies somewhere creating new drugs, but I'm only aware of companies that need to make a profit.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nothing.  It would reduce the pharma bonanza to a dull roar.  All the research and development for that industry, and the qualification of drugs, come from the universities and government labs.  Pharmas are just good interposers.

Are you asking whether pharmas would go out of business?  Would they cut off their noses to spite their face?  Doubtful.

In economics, what do price controls do to supply.  

Google it.  

Be sure to mention, when the profits are so huge that it constitutes a mega-bonanza!

Then we'll see if supply drops off. Do you think pharmas are going to abandon, and supply is going to fail, with a $100-billion profit product, just because price controls mean they profit only $50-billion? Profit $40-billion? Profit $30-billion? Profit is profit.

Google marginal revenue and monopoly.

On to second grade.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I am.

Older drugs are cheaper than newer drugs though. They have to protect their investment somehow.

Be glad the US creates so many new drugs and charges the American consumer, insurance companies and government so much money to offset the price controls in other countries.  

Maybe there are state run or socialist pharmaceutical companies somewhere creating new drugs, but I'm only aware of companies that need to make a profit.

You're still living in the past, Maddog...

Only a couple of the top multinational "Big Pharma" corp's are still US-based...

With the others being based in Switzerland, Britain, Germany..

They're all still quite happy to charge their American customers 4 or 5 times what the rest of the world is paying.. Largely thanks to your unregulated oligopoly market.

*********************************************

On another, yet still related subject ::  Is Monsanto still the big bad #1 in American pesticide/agribusiness companies  ?  Last year, they were sold to the Germans !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Be glad the US creates so many new drugs and charges the American consumer, insurance companies and government so much money to offset the price controls in other countries.  

Maybe there are state run or socialist pharmaceutical companies somewhere creating new drugs, but I'm only aware of companies that need to make a profit.

You're still living in the past, Maddog...

Only a couple of the top multinational "Big Pharma" corp's are still US-based...

With the others being based in Switzerland, Britain, Germany..

They're all still quite happy to charge their American customers 4 or 5 times what the rest of the world is paying..  Largely thanks to your unregulated oligopoly market.

*********************************************

On another, yet still related subject ::  Is Monsanto still the big bad #1 in American pesticide/agribusiness companies  ?  Last year, they were sold to the Germans !

They are not all US based.  It gets complicated.  They are multinational so they can develop a product in one country while based in another.  

And there is no doubt they use the US to recoup the cost of developing these products while they are still under patent.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You're still living in the past, Maddog...

Only a couple of the top multinational "Big Pharma" corp's are still US-based...

With the others being based in Switzerland, Britain, Germany..

They're all still quite happy to charge their American customers 4 or 5 times what the rest of the world is paying..  Largely thanks to your unregulated oligopoly market.

*********************************************

On another, yet still related subject ::  Is Monsanto still the big bad #1 in American pesticide/agribusiness companies  ?  Last year, they were sold to the Germans !

They are not all US based.  It gets complicated.  They are multinational so they can develop a product in one country while based in another.  

And there is no doubt they use the US to recoup the cost of developing these products while they are still under patent.

They don't develop the products. The wait until the universities develop them, then swoop in and buy out the patent holder.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You're still living in the past, Maddog...

Only a couple of the top multinational "Big Pharma" corp's are still US-based...

With the others being based in Switzerland, Britain, Germany..

They're all still quite happy to charge their American customers 4 or 5 times what the rest of the world is paying..  Largely thanks to your unregulated oligopoly market.

*********************************************

On another, yet still related subject ::  Is Monsanto still the big bad #1 in American pesticide/agribusiness companies  ?  Last year, they were sold to the Germans !

They are not all US based.  It gets complicated.  They are multinational so they can develop a product in one country while based in another.  

And there is no doubt they use the US to recoup the cost of developing these products while they are still under patent.

They don't develop the products.  The wait until the universities develop them, then swoop in and buy out the patent holder.

Exactly this
and one of the main researchers is Universities in Nations with largely State Funded Universities, Since they are not under the hammer to make short term profits like capitalist entities are. they are free to do the research for the purpose of gaining knowledge, if they happen to find something ... Bonus

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:
They are not all US based.  It gets complicated.  They are multinational so they can develop a product in one country while based in another.  

And there is no doubt they use the US to recoup the cost of developing these products while they are still under patent.

They don't develop the products.  The wait until the universities develop them, then swoop in and buy out the patent holder.

So they pay universities? 

Or the researcher at the university? 

Could you post an example where a pharmaceutical company did this?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They don't develop the products.  The wait until the universities develop them, then swoop in and buy out the patent holder.

So they pay universities? 

Or the researcher at the university? 

I said "patent holder".  

Maddog wrote:Could you post an example where a pharmaceutical company did this?

Dr. Jonas Salk, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, came up with the first version of a polio vaccine in 1950 .

In that case, however, the United States government usurped the role of the pharma, and took control of patent rights, in turn licensing every pharmaceutical company under the patent.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


So they pay universities? 

Or the researcher at the university? 

I said "patent holder".  

Maddog wrote:Could you post an example where a pharmaceutical company did this?

Dr. Jonas Salk, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, came up with the first version of a polio vaccine in 1950 .

In that case, however, the United States government usurped the role of the pharma, and took control of patent rights, in turn licensing every pharmaceutical company under the patent.

OK. Find a recent case where Pharma did what you said they did.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most if these companies also have huge R & D departments.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I said "patent holder".  



Dr. Jonas Salk, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, came up with the first version of a polio vaccine in 1950 .

In that case, however, the United States government usurped the role of the pharma, and took control of patent rights, in turn licensing every pharmaceutical company under the patent.

OK. Find a recent case where Pharma did what you said they did.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most if these companies also have huge R & D departments.

I just showed you the pattern.  Were Polio not so important a disease (FDR was afflicted by Polio) it would have been left to one of the pharmas to distribute.  The point is that pharmas step in after all the time and expense has been undertaken, and purchase exclusive rights so as to have a monopoly.

Alfred Alberts, an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis, was snatched up by Merck Research Laboratories, just as he was about to come out with his ground-breaking work on cholesterol-lowering statins...and notably, Lovastatin.

Anyone with obesity issues is familiar with the drug. You could be doing this research yourself, if you wanted to. Try Google.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:
OK. Find a recent case where Pharma did what you said they did.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most if these companies also have huge R & D departments.

I just showed you the pattern.  Were Polio not so important a disease (FDR was afflicted by Polio) it would have been left to one of the pharmas to distribute.  The point is that pharmas step in after all the time and expense has been undertaken, and purchase exclusive rights so as to have a monopoly.

Alfred Alberts, an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis, was snatched up by Merck Research Laboratories, just as he was about to come out with his ground-breaking work on cholesterol-lowering statins...and notably, Lovastatin.

Anyone with obesity issues is familiar with the drug.  You could be doing this research yourself, if you wanted to.  Try Google.

I research my claims, not yours.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I just showed you the pattern.  Were Polio not so important a disease (FDR was afflicted by Polio) it would have been left to one of the pharmas to distribute.  The point is that pharmas step in after all the time and expense has been undertaken, and purchase exclusive rights so as to have a monopoly.

Alfred Alberts, an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis, was snatched up by Merck Research Laboratories, just as he was about to come out with his ground-breaking work on cholesterol-lowering statins...and notably, Lovastatin.

Anyone with obesity issues is familiar with the drug.  You could be doing this research yourself, if you wanted to.  Try Google.

I research my claims, not yours.

Apparently not. You are the one who expressed a need for examples.

Anyway, because it was tangential to my statement, I've provided you some. Don't ever say I never did anything for ya.