The best of Free Market at Work

[Democracy Highlander]

"""
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Two new reports involving the painkiller Vioxx
raise fresh concerns about how drug companies influence the interpretation
and publication of medical research.

The reports claim Merck & Co. frequently paid academic scientists to take
credit for research articles prepared by company-hired medical writers, a
practice called ghostwriting.

They also contend Merck tried to minimize deaths in two studies that showed
that the now withdrawn Vioxx didn't work at treating or preventing
Alzheimer's disease.

........

While Merck is singled out, the practices are not uncommon, according to
JAMA's editors. In an editorial, they urge strict reforms, including a
ghostwriting crackdown and requiring all authors to spell out their
specific roles. ...

"The manipulation is disgusting. I just didn't realize the extent," she
said.

The practices outlined in JAMA can lead editors to publish biased research
that can result in doctors giving patients improper and even harmful
treatment, she said.
"""

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/16/vioxx.articles.ap/index.html


This is what the lack of regulation and democratic supervision over
the "free markets" looks like: Fraud.
Remember, a for profit corporation exist for a single reason to maximize the
profits to it shareholders at any cost. Without a close supervision and
regulation that cost lots of money if broken, any corporation will cut
corners, mislead, lie or even engage in fraud.

Yet, there are still few idiots out there prizing the "free market self
control" and asking for more deregulation. This pathetic gang of true
believers into the free-market religion will do anything to force their
stupid cred onto the rest of the society, at any cost. Including killing
people by depriving them of any access to care into the name of "free
market" gods.

Even, there is a presidency candidate who ask for a "free market solution to
health care problem". Now, how stupid can that be ?

--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.

 

[kwag7693@hotmail.com]

On Apr 16, 1:06 pm, Democracy Highlander
<nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> """
> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Two new reports involving the painkiller Vioxx
> raise fresh concerns about how drug companies influence the interpretation
> and publication of medical research.
>
> The reports claim Merck & Co. frequently paid academic scientists to take
> credit for research articles prepared by company-hired medical writers, a
> practice called ghostwriting.
>
> They also contend Merck tried to minimize deaths in two studies that showed
> that the now withdrawn Vioxx didn't work at treating or preventing
> Alzheimer's disease.
>
> .......
>
> While Merck is singled out, the practices are not uncommon, according to
> JAMA's editors. In an editorial, they urge strict reforms, including a
> ghostwriting crackdown and requiring all authors to spell out their
> specific roles. ...
>
> "The manipulation is disgusting. I just didn't realize the extent," she
> said.
>
> The practices outlined in JAMA can lead editors to publish biased research
> that can result in doctors giving patients improper and even harmful
> treatment, she said.
> """
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/16/vioxx.articles.ap/index.html
>
> This is what the lack of regulation and democratic supervision over
> the "free markets" looks like: Fraud.
> Remember, a for profit corporation exist for a single reason to maximize the
> profits to it shareholders at any cost. Without a close supervision and
> regulation that cost lots of money if broken, any corporation will cut
> corners, mislead, lie or even engage in fraud.

Fraud is fraud and happens in regulated trade also. And you're wrong
about there being no disincentives to fraud in a free market. See
Enron for instance.

> Yet, there are still few idiots out there prizing the "free market self
> control" and asking for more deregulation. This pathetic gang of true
> believers into the free-market religion will do anything to force their
> stupid cred onto the rest of the society, at any cost. Including killing
> people by depriving them of any access to care into the name of "free
> market" gods.

You aren't born with access to the SERVICES of a trained DOCTOR.
People are not killed by the absence of a doctor. You're just trying
to shape the debate into something it isn't by mutating the language
to be more conducive to your point.

> Even, there is a presidency candidate who ask for a "free market solution to
> health care problem". Now, how stupid can that be ?

Seeing that we've known for over 200 years that the market is more
efficient at producing general benefit than a command economy, not so
stupid.

> --
> The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Why?

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Apr 16, 3:23

 

[Video61@tcq.net]

On Apr 16, 3:23 pm, "kwag7...@hotmail.com" <kwag7...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 16, 1:06 pm, Democracy Highlander
>
>
>
> <nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > """
> > CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Two new reports involving the painkiller Vioxx
> > raise fresh concerns about how drug companies influence the interpretation
> > and publication of medical research.
>
> > The reports claim Merck & Co. frequently paid academic scientists to take
> > credit for research articles prepared by company-hired medical writers, a
> > practice called ghostwriting.
>
> > They also contend Merck tried to minimize deaths in two studies that showed
> > that the now withdrawn Vioxx didn't work at treating or preventing
> > Alzheimer's disease.
>
> > .......
>
> > While Merck is singled out, the practices are not uncommon, according to
> > JAMA's editors. In an editorial, they urge strict reforms, including a
> > ghostwriting crackdown and requiring all authors to spell out their
> > specific roles. ...
>
> > "The manipulation is disgusting. I just didn't realize the extent," she
> > said.
>
> > The practices outlined in JAMA can lead editors to publish biased research
> > that can result in doctors giving patients improper and even harmful
> > treatment, she said.
> > """
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/16/vioxx.articles.ap/index.html
>
> > This is what the lack of regulation and democratic supervision over
> > the "free markets" looks like: Fraud.
> > Remember, a for profit corporation exist for a single reason to maximize the
> > profits to it shareholders at any cost. Without a close supervision and
> > regulation that cost lots of money if broken, any corporation will cut
> > corners, mislead, lie or even engage in fraud.
>
> Fraud is fraud and happens in regulated trade also.

true, but its much harder, and usually caught fairly quickly.

And you're wrong
> about there being no disincentives to fraud in a free market. See
> Enron for instance.
>

enron was freed from regulation in the last days of bush one. they
were able to steal for almost a decade where the perps stashed untold
billions away. that is hardly a ringing endorsement for market
fundamentalism.

> > Yet, there are still few idiots out there prizing the "free market self
> > control" and asking for more deregulation. This pathetic gang of true
> > believers into the free-market religion will do anything to force their
> > stupid cred onto the rest of the society, at any cost. Including killing
> > people by depriving them of any access to care into the name of "free
> > market" gods.
>
> You aren't born with access to the SERVICES of a trained DOCTOR.

it depends on what kind of country you want. in our country, if we so
decide collectively as a people, as the founders hoped, and gave us
the tool called the constitution to use, then yes, if we decide, we
get it.

> People are not killed by the absence of a doctor.

liar.

You're just trying
> to shape the debate into something it isn't by mutating the language
> to be more conducive to your point.
>

one who just said what you said, cannot be taken seriously.

> > Even, there is a presidency candidate who ask for a "free market solution to
> > health care problem". Now, how stupid can that be ?
>
> Seeing that we've known for over 200 years that the market is more
> efficient at producing general benefit than a command economy, not so
> stupid.
>

the constitution was not built on free markets, and its plain to see
it. in fact, the founders were rebelling against free markets, we can
collectively tame the markets if we so wish. free markets have never
produced well in america, or any where else. free markets are not
stable, not self righting, not self policing. free markets have to be
bailed out on a regular basis by governments.
every 20-30 years or so a group of cranks come along that think it
will be different this time, then they go about proving its not.
markets always fail, they must be properly regulated. or something on
that order.
JKG

> > --
> > The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.
>
> Why?

because of war, and depression.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who embraces or accepts advise
that makes no sense at all.

 

[Sid9]

<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3594ad8-56e3-4ede-9194-2a39102c0b21@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 1:06 pm, Democracy Highlander
> <nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> """
>> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Two new reports involving the painkiller Vioxx
>> raise fresh concerns about how drug companies influence the
>> interpretation
>> and publication of medical research.
>>
>> The reports claim Merck & Co. frequently paid academic scientists to take
>> credit for research articles prepared by company-hired medical writers, a
>> practice called ghostwriting.
>>
>> They also contend Merck tried to minimize deaths in two studies that
>> showed
>> that the now withdrawn Vioxx didn't work at treating or preventing
>> Alzheimer's disease.
>>
>> .......
>>
>> While Merck is singled out, the practices are not uncommon, according to
>> JAMA's editors. In an editorial, they urge strict reforms, including a
>> ghostwriting crackdown and requiring all authors to spell out their
>> specific roles. ...
>>
>> "The manipulation is disgusting. I just didn't realize the extent," she
>> said.
>>
>> The practices outlined in JAMA can lead editors to publish biased
>> research
>> that can result in doctors giving patients improper and even harmful
>> treatment, she said.
>> """
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/16/vioxx.articles.ap/index.html
>>
>> This is what the lack of regulation and democratic supervision over
>> the "free markets" looks like: Fraud.
>> Remember, a for profit corporation exist for a single reason to maximize
>> the
>> profits to it shareholders at any cost. Without a close supervision and
>> regulation that cost lots of money if broken, any corporation will cut
>> corners, mislead, lie or even engage in fraud.
>
> Fraud is fraud and happens in regulated trade also. And you're wrong
> about there being no disincentives to fraud in a free market. See
> Enron for instance.
>
>> Yet, there are still few idiots out there prizing the "free market self
>> control" and asking for more deregulation. This pathetic gang of true
>> believers into the free-market religion will do anything to force their
>> stupid cred onto the rest of the society, at any cost. Including killing
>> people by depriving them of any access to care into the name of "free
>> market" gods.
>
> You aren't born with access to the SERVICES of a trained DOCTOR.
> People are not killed by the absence of a doctor. You're just trying
> to shape the debate into something it isn't by mutating the language
> to be more conducive to your point.
>
>> Even, there is a presidency candidate who ask for a "free market solution
>> to
>> health care problem". Now, how stupid can that be ?
>
> Seeing that we've known for over 200 years that the market is more
> efficient at producing general benefit than a command economy, not so
> stupid.
>
>> --
>> The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.
>
> Why?

A totally "free market" does
not work in a complicated
advanced society such as
we have.

Buyers do not have the
knowledge needed to
make theoretical Adam
Smith model work.

We've learned from sad
experience that regulation is
needed to control the excesses
and instability of a totally
free market.

The Republican, Reagan,
Gingrich, Bush, Sr., jr, and
Norquist model is a failure.

 

[Video61@tcq.net]

On Apr 16, 4:59 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b3594ad8-56e3-4ede-9194-2a39102c0b21@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 1:06 pm, Democracy Highlander
> > <nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> """
> >> CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Two new reports involving the painkiller Vioxx
> >> raise fresh concerns about how drug companies influence the
> >> interpretation
> >> and publication of medical research.
>
> >> The reports claim Merck & Co. frequently paid academic scientists to take
> >> credit for research articles prepared by company-hired medical writers, a
> >> practice called ghostwriting.
>
> >> They also contend Merck tried to minimize deaths in two studies that
> >> showed
> >> that the now withdrawn Vioxx didn't work at treating or preventing
> >> Alzheimer's disease.
>
> >> .......
>
> >> While Merck is singled out, the practices are not uncommon, according to
> >> JAMA's editors. In an editorial, they urge strict reforms, including a
> >> ghostwriting crackdown and requiring all authors to spell out their
> >> specific roles. ...
>
> >> "The manipulation is disgusting. I just didn't realize the extent," she
> >> said.
>
> >> The practices outlined in JAMA can lead editors to publish biased
> >> research
> >> that can result in doctors giving patients improper and even harmful
> >> treatment, she said.
> >> """
>
> >>http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/04/16/vioxx.articles.ap/index.html
>
> >> This is what the lack of regulation and democratic supervision over
> >> the "free markets" looks like: Fraud.
> >> Remember, a for profit corporation exist for a single reason to maximize
> >> the
> >> profits to it shareholders at any cost. Without a close supervision and
> >> regulation that cost lots of money if broken, any corporation will cut
> >> corners, mislead, lie or even engage in fraud.
>
> > Fraud is fraud and happens in regulated trade also. And you're wrong
> > about there being no disincentives to fraud in a free market. See
> > Enron for instance.
>
> >> Yet, there are still few idiots out there prizing the "free market self
> >> control" and asking for more deregulation. This pathetic gang of true
> >> believers into the free-market religion will do anything to force their
> >> stupid cred onto the rest of the society, at any cost. Including killing
> >> people by depriving them of any access to care into the name of "free
> >> market" gods.
>
> > You aren't born with access to the SERVICES of a trained DOCTOR.
> > People are not killed by the absence of a doctor. You're just trying
> > to shape the debate into something it isn't by mutating the language
> > to be more conducive to your point.
>
> >> Even, there is a presidency candidate who ask for a "free market solution
> >> to
> >> health care problem". Now, how stupid can that be ?
>
> > Seeing that we've known for over 200 years that the market is more
> > efficient at producing general benefit than a command economy, not so
> > stupid.
>
> >> --
> >> The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.
>
> > Why?
>
> A totally "free market" does
> not work in a complicated
> advanced society such as
> we have.
>
> Buyers do not have the
> knowledge needed to
> make theoretical Adam
> Smith model work.
>
> We've learned from sad
> experience that regulation is
> needed to control the excesses
> and instability of a totally
> free market.
>
> The Republican, Reagan,
> Gingrich, Bush, Sr., jr, and
> Norquist model is a failure.

correct. all information is not perfect, and all players in a market
are not honest, or rational.

 

[Democracy Highlander]

kwag7693@hotmail.com wrote:

> Fraud is fraud and happens in regulated trade also.

Yes, it does. But having more rules to be followed and more milestones to
be hit provide a easier way to detect the fraud in early and kill it while
the damages are still not that big.

> And you're wrong about there being no disincentives to fraud in a free
> market. See Enron for instance.

Nope. You are wrong because you look only at the surface. Actually, every
single support for unregulated markets seems to arise exclusively from a
superficial analyze of mechanisms at work.
The catch here, is the fact that shareholders are protected against the
wrong doing of the CEO they appointed.

Two groups of rich investors choose a CEO for a new company.

Group A, chose a guy which is well known to always obey the laws and a guy
with a strong professional moral.

Group B, chose a guy which is well known to try to cut corners, to push the
things over the edge and without any kind of moral but an insatiable thirst
for money.

In 10 years, group A see their investment growing at 3%..5%/yr steady and
nice.

In 10 years, group B see their investments doubling then growing three times
fold. The stocks skyrocket 300% and in 10 years they cash as dividends
already more than they originally invested. Then, at a party, the CEO gave
them an insider tip (no moral guy, remember) the company is going belly up.
The investors plan selling their stocks while the market still goes upward.

In 12th year, the employees from the group A have a good job security,
pension funds and the small investors and the original rich investors alike
have a 50% more than they originally invested.

In 12th year, B collapse. The employees are left with no job and no
pensions. The small investors and 401k funds are broken, the local economy
where the large company operated, is hit as well.

In meantime, the original rich investors in B cached for over 1 year over 5
times what they invested and now they look to start yet another company
like this. Since the stock sell of took place over a year ago when the
shared still went up for a year, there are no serious evidence of insider
trading and the CEO who sold the tip will not testify (or die by an
engineered "hearth attach" if he wants to).

So compare: 50% if you select a correct guy or 500% if you select a
fraudster as CEO, and as investor you are protected from any liability.
Guess which type of CEO will get the next leadership from the group B ?

If however regulations were in place, the business practices of B would been
avoided and yes, the group B would make only the 50% gain. But people had
jobs and pensions, 401k would work and the local community prosper.

That is. The businessmen pushing for deregulation are almost all of them
just watching for the next opportunity to defraud somebody for a quick
buck.

That is:
Deregulation supporters = MAFIA

> You aren't born with access to the SERVICES of a trained DOCTOR.

You aren't born either with the right to be protected as a kid against
sexual predators. Nor with the right not to be enslaved by the guy with a
bigger gun. Nor with the right not to have your property taken at will by
the guy stronger or faster than you. Nor with the right to a fair judgment
if the richer guy can bribe the judge more than you. .....

ALL this rights are social conventions. Members of the society decided that
it is in the majority interest to have them. And for every hundred of
persons benefiting from police protection there is a thief who is harmed
by the police presence and who will be very happy to have a "small
government" which will take the hands off law enforcement.
Yes, all the thieves are libertarians even if not all the libertarians are
thieves.

So, if the majority decide that it is better to have the right to health
care access for all, then so be it. The right to health care it is no
better or no worst than the right to own property. Both of them are just a
human convention.

> People are not killed by the absence of a doctor. You're just trying
> to shape the debate into something it isn't by mutating the language
> to be more conducive to your point.

Many sick people without access to a doctor die. You are pathetic trying to
lie about that. Hundreds of illnesses are lethal without appropriate care.
How dare can you say trash like this ?

A 2002 statistic showed that over 18000 Americans die each year due to lack
of affordable health care. Today, the number may be way bigger but no new
statistics were published recently.

> Seeing that we've known for over 200 years that the market is more
> efficient at producing general benefit than a command economy, not so
> stupid.

That it is just a blind belief. There is no real prof of that.
Again, it is only the superficiality of insight that made one to claim such
a piece of faith based rubbish.

There are things in the society that work better as a free market and things
that work better as a regulated market and things that work better as a
public service.

The beer production and distribution seems to work perfect as a free market.
Let it alone.

Enron case and the California energy crisis were clear examples that in the
energy sector regulated utilities work way better than free market
enterprises.

And the disaster of the US health care, it is a proof that health care work
better as a public service than a free-market business.

We pay 2.5 times as much as Brits do for health care, yet Brits are
healthier than us despite the fact they drink and smoke more. And for that
tinny fraction (40% of what we pay), UK cover everybody. We pay 2.5 times
as they do and are unable to provide coverage for about 15% of the
population.

The average American pay 2 times as do French for health care. Yet, French
healthcare rank #1 as quality and US rank #37, after some countries that
spend per capita one fifth as we do. And again, French cover everybody, we
fail to cover 15% of the population while paying twice as much. Never mind
of quality.

To believe into a silver bullet, it is just pure fundamentalism.
Talibans do the same. The only difference is that Talibans believe in Allah
while conservatives in Free-Market.
As brain however power, they are 100% identical.


--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.

 

[Democracy Highlander]

Video61@tcq.net wrote:

>> A totally "free market" does
>> not work in a complicated
>> advanced society such as
>> we have.
> correct. all information is not perfect, and all players in a market
> are not honest, or rational.

Actually, free market it is an theoretic abstraction at all levels. It take
a total ignorant of economics to believe that it actually can function.

In reality, unregulated free market it is it own Nemesis. The bigger guy
have unfair advantages over the smaller guy. This prompt the smaller guys
to consolidate. When the former big guy find itself to be a small guy, they
consolidate to eliminate the unfair advantage. And so on. In the end, the
unregulated free market end up as a monopoly or an oligopoly where 1..5
large player control the market at will, and all the freedom on the market
is gone.


It takes rough government regulation to split large players and control
their behavior in order to maintain a quasi-freedom on the market. But by
the definition of freedom, that is no freedom to begin with.


--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.