The Global Economy

[Descalzo]

And besides, Beehive brand dehydrated watermelon rinds only last so long.

Amen to that, too.

[mp3228]

Here's what you do:

 

We already HAVE a globalised economy, and that is why the dollar is stretched out. Thats why it is devalued, and they continue to print more. We didn't have this problem when we had gold backing, and we only had a depression when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. We didn't have these problems BEFORE we had these types of global banks.

 

What you do, is tell the government that we aren't paying off their $11 trillion dept. You are in dept whether you like it or not. They are going to tax you for it, whether you like it or not. Your grandchildren, are more than $32 grand in dept even though they aren't even born.

 

You can't fix the problem by creating MORE of the same problem. You fix the problem by abolishing the departments, and people that caused the problem. Abolish the Federal Reserve, and don't replace it with anything. That is how you fix the problem. The people responsible for this are Ben Bernake, Alan Greenspan, {censored} Cheny, Bush, Rothschild, and Henry Paulson. Look into who owns the majority stock, in the Federal Reserve. Then look into who owns Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Chase Bank, and Citibank. And Lets not forget, that Obama, and McCain both voted FOR this bailout.

 

I don't know a single person who would pay a global bank money. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Just look at Argentina, they are a product of these same crime families.

[Descalzo]

We already HAVE a globalised economy, and that is why the dollar is stretched out. Thats why it is devalued, and they continue to print more. We didn't have this problem when we had gold backing, and we only had a depression when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. We didn't have these problems BEFORE we had these types of global banks.

 

What you do, is tell the government that we aren't paying off their $11 trillion dept. You are in dept whether you like it or not. They are going to tax you for it, whether you like it or not. Your grandchildren, are more than $32 grand in dept even though they aren't even born.

 

You can't fix the problem by creating MORE of the same problem. You fix the problem by abolishing the departments, and people that caused the problem. Abolish the Federal Reserve, and don't replace it with anything. That is how you fix the problem. The people responsible for this are Ben Bernake, Alan Greenspan, {censored} Cheny, Bush, Rothschild, and Henry Paulson. Look into who owns the majority stock, in the Federal Reserve. Then look into who owns Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Chase Bank, and Citibank. And Lets not forget, that Obama, and McCain both voted FOR this bailout.

 

I don't know a single person who would pay a global bank money. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Just look at Argentina, they are a product of these same crime families.

 

Since the government isn't listening to me as much (even though my Representative voted NO on the bailout), my objective in my previous post was not how to get the government to stop being stupid; it was about how to protect yourself from government stupidity.

[solaar]

This is where the hypocrisy of an ultra-capitalist, social-Darwinist system strikes again quite relentlessly.

All efforts are made to keep profits in private hands whereas losses due to the unbelievable incompetence of business leaders are rescued by the state aka the tax payer...

 

It is also the only system where blatant incompetence and irresponsible behaviour is rewarded with golden parachutes.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Well, the Icelandic bank that my uni fund was in was declared insolvent today

 

The £50bn bailout in the UK is a stupid idea, I think the top banks should be nationalised to stop the greedy, capitalist pigs that started this

[mp3228]

Well, the Icelandic bank that my uni fund was in was declared insolvent today

 

The £50bn bailout in the UK is a stupid idea, I think the top banks should be nationalised to stop the greedy, capitalist pigs that started this

 

If they are doing the same in your country as they are in mine, and we know that it has failed here. Do you think there is an political agenda, or an end-all political agenda behind this? The politiions are lining their pockets from it. It was just announced by the AP, that the former scum from Goldman Sachs (of {censored}) is now everseeing the bank robbery.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8100602945.html

 

They are doing this at our expense. The US is alredy 11 trillion in dept to the privately owned Federal Reserve, no thanks to Bush & Staff. I believe they are doing this, to create a "solution" that is a political one. Instead of eliminating the problem, they will create more of the same problem, all while lining their pockets.

 

What do you mean by "inflate?" Are you implying the dollar is over valued? And what is this about the Federal Reserve being able to print money at will? You do realize our national debt is financed, right?

 

The federal reserve is a privately owned bank by those who have stock in it. Majority stock is owned by J.P. Morgan, which is owned by the Rockefellers, Bushes, and Rothschilds, the same Rothschilds that own England's and France's banks. The one in England is located in London's financial district.

 

"inflate" means the devaluation of a currency. Water has more mass than air, just like Gold has more mass than paper.

 

The privately owned Federal Reserve is a series of 13 privately owned banks that were given the authority in 1913 to "print" paper money. In 1971, America lost the GOLD backing to that money, essentially making it worthless paper, thus the Marxist aspect of the falling currency. The more money that is printed, the less it is worth. The same as anything else. For example if there are 5 of something in the world, then they are almost priceless.

 

The stock market is a scam because it holds nothing of value. Just numbers on a computer. Nothing more, nothing less. There is an old saying that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. The same applies to commodaties. I would rather have 1oz of Gold in my hand, rather than the $883 it is worth according to the stock market. In order for that $883 to have value, you would have to put your solid "trust" into the system that is behind it, and Ben Bernake, and David Rockefeller are two people that I certainly do not trust.

 

Edit; I would also like to add, in addition to the above post, that I honestly believe this is engineered. It stinks of pre-planning, and it smells of a behind the curtain political agenda (solution) to a non-problem, when in fact, the true solution is to eliminate those who caused the problem. Abolish the Federal Reserve, and put those responsible behind bars.

[killbot1000]

Lets use a resource based economy.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

So as far as I can tell, especially from the lessons to be learned from this economic crisis, is that capitalism is a very risky business. It all relies on what people think, literally. If investors 'feel' like a stock is going to drop, they drop it first, and if they 'feel' confident they'll invest. I suppose one of the most interesting things about this whole mess, is that everybody in the world is suddenly caring about how investors feel, trying to get their confidence up, which is in fact an emotion. Suddenly the emotionless system of capitalism has feelings. Of course feelings are often times illogical, sometimes even unfounded. That these investors have built their life on the business of capitalism, supporting the ideals and philosophies there of, its interesting that some of them have seemed to lose hope, confidence in that system.

So here we are, the cats out of the bag. Capitalism is at least in some way effected by emotion. Fear, confidence, stress and friendship, amongst other emotions, all are important here. Though Business schools and managers and our bosses tell us to take emotion out of finance, believing it is a system based on rational scientific processes, only the organization is rational, the practice is almost completely emotional. The people who have gotten us here lacked emotion, they gave out loans knowing people couldn't pay providing much short term happiness with a conclusion of bankruptcy. These loaners smiled day after day, getting kudos from their employers for getting so many people to sign up for interested loans (WAMU).

So lets try to make these people 'feel' better, and lets restore their confidence so that they can continue to have confident business practices that take money from people all around the world. Confidently, arrogantly taking money believing they did a great job. Cause its all about the bottom line: profit. Sweet, sweet gains.

[mp3228]

So as far as I can tell, especially from the lessons to be learned from this economic crisis, is that capitalism is a very risky business.

 

This has nothing to do with capitalism. Marxs, Credits, it is socialism at it's best.

 

Socialism is when you have 2 classes. The <%1 who have extreme wealth, and the rest, which are dirt poor. Thats whats going on here. Socialism, has never worked, and there is not one example in all of history where it has ever worked. It always ends up with a dictator of some sorts.

 

Ben Bernake is Epic Failure.

 

Goldman Sachs is in your fridge!

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

Um, the world economy and especially American economy is a capitalist system. This has everything to do with capitalism; the practices and regulations there of. Technically not socialist, I see your point mp, the history of socialism has been that there is a larger population of poor and a small percentage of rich. However, that has been the case for nearly all recorded history. The rich and the poor have existed before money, and economy were even invented. What we're talking about here is how the system that we have now, sociologically speaking a legal-rational capitalist system (Weber, Economy and Society), how this system did what it did and the future of its regulations is what we're talking about here.

[solaar]

Socialism is when you have 2 classes. The <%1 who have extreme wealth, and the rest, which are dirt poor. Thats whats going on here. Socialism, has never worked, and there is not one example in all of history where it has ever worked. It always ends up with a dictator of some sorts.

With all respect to individual opinions but this is utter bollocks. The world consists of many more shades of grey than most of us can ever imagine. I grew up in a system that was social-democrat, fundamentally based perhaps on socialist ideas but which was rather a liberal economic system that contains regulations in order to avoid an uncontrollable proliferation of too many losers in favour of a 'chosen few' who were a bit luckier in life. (BTW I didn't say more intelligent or competent, as especially recent but also past experiences clearly prove that those factors are obviously evenly distributed throughout all social levels.)

 

There are in fact realistic systems that assure reasonable wealth for a vast majority and that are very successful long term without being dictatorial. I think it's about time now to finally put this irrational and reactionary paranoia of anything that ever so remotely reeks of socialism into the waste bin of the ideologies of the dark ages.

 

Regarding LifeDroid's post, there is in fact one very emotional and actually the most driving factor in ultra-capitalist systems - individual GREED.

[Alessandro17]

I agree with you, solaar.

The UK until the first Thatcher years (before she started destroying almost everything) had much of Socialism. Workers and the poor had tons of rights. Unfortunately by the time I left (2005) it seemed OK to spend billions on the Iraqi war and save money from single mothers and the disabled at the same time.

Another country with many Socialist elements was Joop den Uyl Netherlands, and it was a great place where to live.

In Italy many of the best laws in post WW2 History were passed by the Socialists, until under Bettino Craxi they became a gang of criminals, but that has nothing to do with Socialism.

[brainbone]

individual GREED.

 

Unfortunately, any system that tries to quantify and tax greed in the US is labeled as socialist, and socialism has been systematically demonized. Even deep economic troubles seem to not be able to make much headway into reversing the tide against socialism. Worse, the term "corporate socialism" is tossed around, bringing more negative association to socialism.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

I seem to be confused because I can't quite figure out where the connection to socialism came from. Socialism is an ideology, it does in fact exist in various forms within most of our governments. The idea that wealth or resource can be divided up fairly amongst every citizen in a country certainly exists and sometimes is achieved; such as health care in Europe, or Social security in the US. However, the way we achieve having health care or social security is through capitalism. That's were all the money comes from; trading, profit, corporations, mergers, commodities and of course screwing workers out of their money, exploitation (Marx). That some parts of our social systems resemble socialism is no surprise, since the socialist system has many merits for the development of programs that every human needs, since at the end of the day, we are all humans and there are in fact certain things we all need; food, health care, air, etc. It's when some of our needed resources are capitalized on that problems arise; Enron with our energy, WAMU with our house loans, Well-fare to work programs, even FEMA during Katrina are all examples of necessary social systems being run as capitalist since someone saw the potentail for profit.

As for why people see socialism in such a negative light, thats easy, it is a carryover from the cold war and Vietnam. Once those baby boomers are done sapping the earth of everything they can while making obscene amounts of profit for the Western world, I predict a rise in socialist systems, because all the younger people in the world are far more educated and cultured than any baby boomer at the same age in life. We all understand the complex system that the world has become and the need to try to make sure that most people are at least eating, and that our environment needs help after the industrial rapist revolution. This is an economic problem of the past; too much greed. Its the same story again, its the same story capitalism will tell every time it can.

[Descalzo]

Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. (I can't remember who said that)

 

I have serious concerns with socialism. One of them is moral: if the government is forcibly taking money from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, then the beggars no longer need to beg, they demand. The givers no longer get to give, it is taken from them. This takes a lot of the nobility out of it for me.

 

Another problem I have with it is economic/political. Someone needs to explain to me why, if Obama becomes president, suddenly Health Care will no longer be a scarce resource. I understand that no one is coming right out and saying that it will no longer be a scarce resource in so many words, but I've been looking at this, and it seems to me that saying "Everyone will have all they need at no cost to them" and "It's no longer a scarce resource" are pretty much the same thing.

 

I'm actually being serious here.

[brainbone]

Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. (I can't remember who said that)

 

When Peter has made the majority of his loot off the back of Paul... (yes, it's more complex than this, but..)

 

Organized labor, public school, police, libraries, (dare I say health care), etc. ... all forms of socialism, but they help keep society running. Without a stable society, you don't have enough consumers, and without enough consumers, capitalism fails. You need at least some level of socialism for capitalism to function in the long run.

 

Another problem I have with it is economic/political. Someone needs to explain to me why, if Obama becomes president, suddenly Health Care will no longer be a scarce resource.

 

Here's a very short sampling of just some of the problems affecting health care:

 

-- Drug companies have been allowed to advertise their medications. This creates an unavoidable situation where consumers will ask doctors for a drug, whether they need it or not. This keeps drug companies focused on creating new medications that are no better than the medications they replace (often worse), except for the fact that the old medication no longer has a patent. You now need to advertise more, making sure the patient asks for the new, more profitable medication. This leads to higher cost of drugs, lower quality of drugs, and less resource being put into drugs that actually do anything new.

-- Focus has been moved from "curing" illness to making the condition chronic (more profitable)

 

Main problem? There is a focus on profit, instead of the health of the person. Capitalism doesn't mix well with health care. Health care, by it's very nature, is a socialist venture. Moving to capitalism in health care eventually ends in snake oil -- very expensive snake oil -- not better health care.

[Descalzo]

When Peter has made the majority of his loot off the back of Paul... (yes, it's more complex than this, but..)

 

Organized labor, public school, police, libraries, (dare I say health care), etc. ... all forms of socialism, but they help keep society running. Without a stable society, you don't have enough consumers, and without enough consumers, capitalism fails. You need at least some level of socialism for capitalism to function in the long run.

Here's a very short sampling of just some of the problems affecting health care:

 

-- Drug companies have been allowed to advertise their medications. This creates an unavoidable situation where consumers will ask doctors for a drug, whether they need it or not. This keeps drug companies focused on creating new medications that are no better than the medications they replace (often worse), except for the fact that the old medication no longer has a patent. You now need to advertise more, making sure the patient asks for the new, more profitable medication. This leads to higher cost of drugs, lower quality of drugs, and less resource being put into drugs that actually do anything new.

-- Focus has been moved from "curing" illness to making the condition chronic (more profitable)

 

Main problem? There is a focus on profit, instead of the health of the person. Capitalism doesn't mix well with health care. Health care, by it's very nature, is a socialist venture. Moving to capitalism in health care eventually ends in snake oil -- very expensive snake oil -- not better health care.

 

I think one flaw in that line of thinking is that someone who was able to 'cure' a disease would get all of the customers of those who were perpetuating a chronic condition. It would require an agreement between ALL of the companies to prohibit one from breaking free. Besides, wouldn't a socialized system be susceptible to a similar problem? I mean the government officials look good if they are addressing the problem and putting more money into it, whether or not anything gets done. Why cure the problem if you get paid the same either way? Especially if curing it is harder than leaving it as a chronic condition. This would tie right into the government habit of perpetuating a problem to make sure you still have a job.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think there are problems with the system as it is in the USA. I just remain unconvinced that socialism is the answer.

 

My brother-in-law tells me that the US should NOT model its system after Canada's or the UK's, but it should model a new system after Germany's or France's. Anyone have insight into that?

[brainbone]

Why cure the problem if you get paid the same either way?

 

Most medical breakthroughs come from driven individuals -- driven not by motive of profit, but by motive of scientific discovery. Take for example Type I diabetes -- many that have been searing for a cure here are driven because they or, more often, their children have the condition. Funding for the more successful ventures come from private donations and government grants, and HHMI. Where is the profit in Type I diabetes? Test strips, insulin, delivery devices (pumps, etc.). These things have evolved relatively little over the past 15 years -- only enough to keep the patents up-do-date.

 

The thinking that capitalism and medical research can work hand in hand is flawed. Evidence of that is our currently broken system.

 

Again. Take a close look at what the end result of medical care should be. Is it to profit, or is it to help humanity? We will have to agree to disagree here. Medical care, like public schools, police, libraries, etc., is a socialist venture. To take it in any other direction has and will decrease its efficacy.

 

US should NOT model its system after Canada's or the UK's, but it should model a new system after Germany's or France's.

 

A bit dated, but http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs17.pdf

 

Lessons can be learned from all systems.

[Alessandro17]

Here's a very short sampling of just some of the problems affecting health care:

 

-- Drug companies have been allowed to advertise their medications. This creates an unavoidable situation where consumers will ask doctors for a drug, whether they need it or not. This keeps drug companies focused on creating new medications that are no better than the medications they replace (often worse), except for the fact that the old medication no longer has a patent. You now need to advertise more, making sure the patient asks for the new, more profitable medication. This leads to higher cost of drugs, lower quality of drugs, and less resource being put into drugs that actually do anything new.

-- Focus has been moved from "curing" illness to making the condition chronic (more profitable)

 

Main problem? There is a focus on profit, instead of the health of the person. Capitalism doesn't mix well with health care. Health care, by it's very nature, is a socialist venture. Moving to capitalism in health care eventually ends in snake oil -- very expensive snake oil -- not better health care.

 

 

Most medical breakthroughs come from driven individuals -- driven not by motive of profit, but by motive of scientific discovery. Take for example Type I diabetes -- many that have been searing for a cure here are driven because they or, more often, their children have the condition. Funding for the more successful ventures come from private donations and government grants, and HHMI. Where is the profit in Type I diabetes? Test strips, insulin, delivery devices (pumps, etc.). These things have evolved relatively little over the past 15 years -- only enough to keep the patents up-do-date.

 

The thinking that capitalism and medical research can work hand in hand is flawed. Evidence of that is our currently broken system.

 

Again. Take a close look at what the end result of medical care should be. Is it to profit, or is it to help humanity? We will have to agree to disagree here. Medical care, like public schools, police, libraries, etc., is a socialist venture. To take it in any other direction has and will decrease its efficacy.

 

I couldn't agree more. I have always been of the opinion that drug companies are some of the worst criminals you can find. Why? Because nobody can convince me that in 2008 they can't find a cure for cancer or AIDS. There was a medical professor in Italy who had a cure to replace chemotherapy.

He was ridiculed and isolated by his colleagues and the Government, but adored by his patients.

 

Besides, nobody has ever seriously explained where the HIV virus came from. From the apes? Don't make me laugh.

 

I have serious concerns with socialism. One of them is moral: if the government is forcibly taking money from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, then the beggars no longer need to beg, they demand. The givers no longer get to give, it is taken from them. This takes a lot of the nobility out of it for me.

 

So your ideal world is one where a handful of people are filthy-rich and most are poor.

The vast majority of needy are not beggars, they are needy through no fault of their own. I believed the latest economic crisis had taught you that.

And the world you portray (the rich who graciously give small change away and the poor who have to beg), I believed it was long gone, that it belonged to two centuries ago.

[Maxintosh]

nobody has ever seriously explained where the HIV virus came from. From the apes? Don't make me laugh.

It is a well know fact that apes don't like us. They think we're condescending

[aduffbrew]

Besides, nobody has ever seriously explained where the HIV virus came from. From the apes? Don't make me laugh.

No offense, but because you don't understand the epidemiology doesn't make it laughable. Nor does the fact you haven't paid attention indicate nobody has seriously explained it. There are many reputable sources of information if you care to look.

 

So your ideal world is one where a handful of people are filthy-rich and most are poor.

The vast majority of needy are not beggars, they are needy through no fault of their own. I believed the latest economic crisis had taught you that.

And the world you portray (the rich who graciously give small change away and the poor who have to beg), I believed it was long gone, that it belonged to two centuries ago.

Hmmm, you are obviously very young and extremely idealistic. Careful.

 

It is possible to slice and dice history and experience to support most any conclusion you wish. Today there are some impressive examples of democratic socialism at work. I must point out, none are without their drawbacks. In light of the monumental incompetence emanating from Washington DC these days, I can confidently state most Americans are extremely leery of socialism... many fear we have already made too many contradictory and inconsistent concessions in this regard. And while our system is currently experiencing a course changing event, don't count us out yet. You've been allowed to navigate through some pretty sticky situations yourselves.

 

Regarding the debate of education and healthcare, the recognition that they are human rights isn't found among socialists alone. A healthy and educated populace is a tremendous benefit to all. Achieving this has been an illusive goal even among the most socialized nations. This is certainly a fight that capitalism has yet to tackle in a meaningful way. And yes, there ARE private sector alternatives to the state run solutions to universal healthcare and education that are both economical and accessible.

 

Both systems have A LOT of kinks to work out... instead of putting our eggs all in one basket, how about we have a little friendly competition... social democrats vs. the libertarians? Ecological diversity has always proven to be a survival advantage... so why not socio-economic diversity?

 

Yes, I sometimes advocate for stop gap measures that are clearly NOT libertarian but that is because we don't operate in a libertarian system. I do hope as Europe becomes increasingly socialized that we here may return to our experimentalist roots and explore solutions that allow for less government involvement and more choice.

[aduffbrew]

My brother-in-law tells me that the US should NOT model its system after Canada's or the UK's, but it should model a new system after Germany's or France's. Anyone have insight into that?

As both a Québécois and someone who believes the US healthcare system is in its final death throws, I still would advise against the Canadian alternative. While it is far better than Medicare and Medicaid and I am sure many uninsured Americans would jump at the chance, I guarantee those Americans who are currently properly insured would FREAK!

 

The French system has consistently ranked one of the highest in efficacy and one of the lowest in terms of cost per patient. Theirs truly is a marvel looked on in envy by all. In one study of industrialized nations, the US spent the most per patient but had the lowest marks in care received... France was spending less than 1/2 the US amount per patient but scored number one in care. You'd think it would be a no-brainer.. just replicate the French system, right? Well, unfortunately, French healthcare is an integral part of their whole socio-economic system and the total cost must looked at more holistically. Most French enjoy a much healthier lifestyle than the vast majority of Americans so the French system is tackling distinctly different issues. Also, a rigid employment system and high taxation fuel the program. Ironically, this also leads to an unemployment rate that, even in the best of times, would be considered obscene by American standards. When President Sarcozy tried to introduce reform, the young took to the streets in mass protests and riots. This is not to say the French system couldn't be adapted to an American model but it will have its challenges.

[solaar]

BTW, being at the mercy of anybody is never noble for those who are dependent on it. The generous gesture of the greedy to the needy is in fact something that belongs to the realm of feudalism, something from the dark ages of humankind. This has nothing to do with naive idealism, it's a matter of human decency and the general attitude of a society how a human life is valued. Simply practically speaking, history has shown that rampant poverty is a perfect breeding ground for crime, social unrest and in the worst case, violent conflicts. Many countries have already proven that solely relying on the mercy of the filthy rich is never the ultimate answer to social issues.

 

Also let's not be hypocrite, a perfectly healthy society is a myth, especially (and that's the point) in a society that aggressively promotes an unhealthy life style; it already starts in the morning when millions of people's only driving force to go to their jobs is the fear of losing the job and then take unhealthy amounts of stress only for the same reason. Nobody can assume that all citizens stay healthy at all times expecting them to work like horses, eat like pigs, sleep like insects and breathe a cocktail of polluted and synthetically conditioned air. Building a whole economy around this illusory assumption and literally chuck away those who fall through just doesn't make sense. Professional experience is not as easily replaced as in 'just put a healthy junior in'. Many of us in industrialised societies are in fact driven into illness by our own economy.

 

Concerning Germany, from what I know is that they have a system where the monthly premium is solely income-dependent. I reckon that's not a fair system either. If your salary is higher but you're in perfect shape you'd yet pay proportionally more for those who spend half of their time at the doctor's. BTW the Swiss recently rejected a referendum that was suggesting to implement the income-based system. What we have in Switzerland now is a fully private but compulsory health insurance for everyone. You have the choice to find the insurance and the plan that suits you best, also cost-wise. You can assess your own risk (according to your general health) by taking on a higher yearly limit you'd have to pay out of your pocket for therapy in favour of lower monthly premiums. Although private, the point is that the insurance is legally obliged to pay for everything that exceeds your chosen limit and that the medical condition absolutely requires. It's basically a no-frills service like in France but help is legally assured. I know from my medical invoices that my doctor makes about CHF 60 ($55) an hour, on a saturday that is... (roughly the salary of a construction foreman in my country). For someone with such a skill set that's quite reasonable I reckon. The monthly premiums are still affordable too.

 

The problem we have here as well is that branded medication is way too expensive. The pharmaceutical industry is really taking the mickey. There's an increasing number of medical staff that promote the use of generic cheaper drugs that do the job just as well. Not enough yet but it seems like it could serve as a bit of pressure on the industry to lower their prices and an example for the future. Pharmaceutical margins are obscenely phantasmagorical.

[Alessandro17]

No offense, but because you don't understand the epidemiology doesn't make it laughable.

 

Laughable is the theory that the HIV virus comes from the apes.

 

Nor does the fact you haven't paid attention indicate nobody has seriously explained it. There are many reputable sources of information if you care to look.

 

Who told you that I haven't paid attention? To me the most believable explanation is that the HIV virus was created in a lab.

 

Hmmm, you are obviously very young and extremely idealistic. Careful.

 

You'd be surprised.

[brainbone]

most Americans are extremely leery of socialism... many fear we have already made too many contradictory and inconsistent concessions in this regard.

 

But why is that? We already have socialism -- it's just that we're afraid to call it what it is, and embrace it for the good it does.

 

The key is finding the right balance between capitalism and socialism. One cannot exist for prolonged periods without the other... but this throw back to mccarthyism every time a social program is discussed is ridiculous, and something our country needs to get over. Should we privatize your local police force? Certainly a good amount of government waste going on there, and capitalism will only make the police compete and be better, right? Also, why should my neighbor have access to the police when they can't afford to pay for it? This socialist service should be stopped!