BF2S Forums US pharmaceutical company defends 5,000% price increase on AIDS drug

Dilbert_X wrote:

And yet the regulation seems to benefit the corporations, not the citizens.

If there were a cash benefit to Glaxo-Ig-Smithkline-Farben from allowing gays to marry you can bet your bottom both sides of your govt would be lining up to vote for it whatever the bible says or the people actually want.

They haven't worked out how to make a profit from recreational drugs, since they're so easy to produce at home - otherwise you'd have that too.

Who are you arguing with? It's certainly not me. I've said for years that regulation does more harm than good due to regulatory capture.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Proper regulation works fine, no regulation is as bad as rigged regulation.

You seem to be in favour of proper and reasonable regulation which benefits people fairly

Jay wrote:

During your lifetime? Sure. Write a book? You should be the sole benefactor during your lifetime. Afterwards? Public domain. If it's a corporation like Disney where they've developed characters intrinsic to their business? Sure.

But then you keep jumping back to saying you want no regulation at all.

No, I never said that either.

I've said that regulations should be kept to a minimum and should mostly combat fraud and dangers to consumers. Anything beyond these simple concepts and our possibly well-meaning, but experientially deficient, politicians and bureaucrats become dependent on the very industry they are attempting to control to write the rules. Of course he who writes the rules will favor his own company. In many instances regulation is requested by existing companies in order to cement their market share.

This is all called crony capitalism here in America, and you would be hard pressed to find a defender of the system. It's certainly not me.

I hope someone shoots him. You will get economic and political change if politicians and CEOs were assassinated or summarily executed in a short amount of time.

Jay wrote:

This is all called crony capitalism here in America, and you would be hard pressed to find a defender of the system. It's certainly not me.

I just don't see any difference.

Crony capitalism is sold to the dumb masses as free-market libertarianism, with the promise that everyone can be a CEO and have a helicopter to ride to work.

Except its as good as impossible, the 'free-market' is thoroughly rigged and the average peon will toil for nothing as the occasional shyster reaps immense wealth through luck, fraud or who his daddy was.

AAWO together with ADL and the Hidden Child Organization honored Albanian individuals and families who saved and helped Jews during the World War II. In particular. A community ceremony was organized for Bicaku family who saved the lives of 26 Jewish people during the war. Political and congressional leaders in the NY area attended, including the Albanian Embassador to the UN and other prominent organizations’ representatives such as the Vice-Chairman of National Albanian American Council, Martin Shkreli.

http://aawomq.org/2007/01/17/the-jewish … y-17-2007/


It looks like he is mobbed up with the vast Zionist conspiracy.

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Proper regulation works fine, no regulation is as bad as rigged regulation.

You seem to be in favour of proper and reasonable regulation which benefits people fairly

Jay wrote:

During your lifetime? Sure. Write a book? You should be the sole benefactor during your lifetime. Afterwards? Public domain. If it's a corporation like Disney where they've developed characters intrinsic to their business? Sure.

But then you keep jumping back to saying you want no regulation at all.

No, I never said that either.

I've said that regulations should be kept to a minimum and should mostly combat fraud and dangers to consumers. Anything beyond these simple concepts and our possibly well-meaning, but experientially deficient, politicians and bureaucrats become dependent on the very industry they are attempting to control to write the rules. Of course he who writes the rules will favor his own company. In many instances regulation is requested by existing companies in order to cement their market share.

This is all called crony capitalism here in America, and you would be hard pressed to find a defender of the system. It's certainly not me.

And also a market with high barrier to entry should be regulated due to the inherent price-gouging and market manipulation (I guess that falls under fraud?).  In fact, all utility and national resources should be owned by the nation state and run by private enterprise for a small, previously agreed upon margin.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Proper regulation works fine, no regulation is as bad as rigged regulation.

You seem to be in favour of proper and reasonable regulation which benefits people fairly

But then you keep jumping back to saying you want no regulation at all.

No, I never said that either.

I've said that regulations should be kept to a minimum and should mostly combat fraud and dangers to consumers. Anything beyond these simple concepts and our possibly well-meaning, but experientially deficient, politicians and bureaucrats become dependent on the very industry they are attempting to control to write the rules. Of course he who writes the rules will favor his own company. In many instances regulation is requested by existing companies in order to cement their market share.

This is all called crony capitalism here in America, and you would be hard pressed to find a defender of the system. It's certainly not me.

And also a market with high barrier to entry should be regulated due to the inherent price-gouging and market manipulation (I guess that falls under fraud?).  In fact, all utility and national resources should be owned by the nation state and run by private enterprise for a small, previously agreed upon margin.

Doesn't necessarily work out for the benefit of the populace when your national budget becomes dependent on resources. Just look at what happened to the oil producing nations when oil plummeted to 50 bucks a barrel, almost all of them are going to be bankrupt and will see very harsh cuts to national budgets.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Some of the oil producing gulf states have actively taken steps to diversify their economy.  But your statement is completely irrelevant to the regulation conversation.

Only regulation needed is consumer protection and that's about it. Everything else falls under contract law.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Some of the oil producing gulf states have actively taken steps to diversify their economy.  But your statement is completely irrelevant to the regulation conversation.

Only regulation needed is consumer protection and that's about it. Everything else falls under contract law.

Does a corporation have a contract with the government? Does a corporation have a contract with the people? What in a contract stops a company from sending pollutants into a watershed?  I don't even know what you're talking about? It's obvious that you are studying some kind of contract law right now with your penchant to bring it up in every argument, but unfortunately "contract law" isn't some divine mandate for the world to do good.

Does a corporation have a contract with the people?

Actually it does. When a corporation sells a good, it creates a contract with the end user. See Carbolic Smokeballs.

What in a contract stops a company from sending pollutants into a watershed?

All pollutants fall under public/private nuisance in torts. A lot of times when people actually want a factory to stop they use tort law to grant an injunction.

Most consumer regulations are already derived from the common law in contracts/torts and the only thing really necessary is to make justice more accessible in order to equal the playing field against large companies.

Who has deeper pockets and can hire more lawyers? Is it a corporation or the average individual citizen?

why do you think I mentioned equitable access to lawyers? What do you think public nuisance falls under. The public (eg gov) foots the bill. You should know costs can be awarded for lawsuits even if you're on the losing end.

If a company simply declares themselves bankrupt who wins, and who cleans up the mess then?

Rarely has a company went kthnxbai after every single environmental disaster. Even the asbestos cases in Aus the builders/developers didn't go bankrupt prior to lawsuit.

Does taking legal action after the event clean pollutants out of a watershed?

What do you think courts of equity are for? they order injunctions and specific performance all the time. That's the entire point of their existence.

It's all in the contract law, Dilbert. (i don't know what that means)