Unfettered Capitalism

[bripat9643]

How is the stock market a "business bias?" In case you aren't aware of it, corporations began paying their executives when the government passed tax disincentives for paying them in salary.

The stock market prioritizes shareholder interests over employees, and that represents a business bias. Government passed those tax incentives because rich individuals bribed Democrat and Republican politicians for such actions.

The stock market prioritizes shareholder interests over employees, and that represents a business bias.

Owners get to decide, failures don't.

Government passed those tax incentives because rich individuals bribed Democrat and Republican politicians for such actions.

They bribed Clinton to make executive salary over $1 million non-deductible? Hilarious!!!

Then they whine when companies compensate their executives with stock.

 

[gipper]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

 

[georgephillip]

"Market failure" is a con conceived by politicians so they can justify using tax dollars to put their constituents on the payroll.

"Market failure may occur when each individual consumer makes a correct decision for himself or herself, but these are found to be the wrong decisions for the group.

"The term refers to any situation where the individual incentives for rational behavior do not result in rational outcomes for the whole group."

What is market failure? Definition and meaning - Market Business News

 

[bripat9643]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

 

[bripat9643]

"Market failure" is a con conceived by politicians so they can justify using tax dollars to put their constituents on the payroll.

"Market failure may occur when each individual consumer makes a correct decision for himself or herself, but these are found to be the wrong decisions for the group.

"The term refers to any situation where the individual incentives for rational behavior do not result in rational outcomes for the whole group."

What is market failure? Definition and meaning - Market Business News

As I said, it's a con. For example, know more than other people is a "market failure?" How could government possible make it possible for every person to know the same things?

 

[gipper]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

Payoff. It’s a racket. But I doubt they pay that much. More lies.

 

[gipper]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

You are owned and controlled by the establishment. Wake up.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

Payoff. It’s a racket. But I doubt they pay that much. More lies.

"payoff" to whom? Certainly not the drug companies.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

You are owned and controlled by the establishment. Wake up.

You're the one spouting establishment propaganda, asshole.

 

[gipper]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

Payoff. It’s a racket. But I doubt they pay that much. More lies.

"payoff" to whom? Certainly not the drug companies.

Jesus you’re slow. It’s pay off to government. Government and big pharma are one.

 

[gipper]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

You are owned and controlled by the establishment. Wake up.

You're the one spouting establishment propaganda, asshole.

What? The establishment loves big pharma. It never criticizes it. They own the government, msm, and much of academia. But you don’t know this. The establishment is big pharma and you fully support them. Stupidly. I don’t.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

Payoff. It’s a racket. But I doubt they pay that much. More lies.

"payoff" to whom? Certainly not the drug companies.

Jesus you’re slow. It’s pay off to government. Government and big pharma are one.

The FDA makes it more expensive to develop a drug, as a payoff to government?

You're making no sense.

 

[gipper]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

Payoff. It’s a racket. But I doubt they pay that much. More lies.

"payoff" to whom? Certainly not the drug companies.

Jesus you’re slow. It’s pay off to government. Government and big pharma are one.

The FDA makes it more expensive to develop a drug, as a payoff to government?

You're making no sense.

BS. Get informed. It’s all a fucking racket, but you’re blind to it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BS. Get informed. It’s all a fucking racket, but you’re blind to it.

It is a racket. But you can't explain how it's a payoff to government.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

You are owned and controlled by the establishment. Wake up.

You're the one spouting establishment propaganda, asshole.

What? The establishment loves big pharma. It never criticizes it. They own the government, msm, and much of academia. But you don’t know this. The establishment is big pharma and you fully support them. Stupidly. I don’t.

How does big pharma benefit by paying $1 billion to get a new drug approved? You still haven't explained that.

 

[bripat9643]

BS. Get informed. It’s all a fucking racket, but you’re blind to it.

It is a racket. But you can't explain how it's a payoff to government.

Or to "big pharma."

 

[bripat9643]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

Payoff. It’s a racket. But I doubt they pay that much. More lies.

"payoff" to whom? Certainly not the drug companies.

Jesus you’re slow. It’s pay off to government. Government and big pharma are one.

Government doesn't get the money, moron.

 

[gipper]

BS. Get informed. It’s all a fucking racket, but you’re blind to it.

It is a racket. But you can't explain how it's a payoff to government.

They pay uncle to sell their dumb drugs. Uncle is doing very little regulating. The senior people in both government and big pharma trade places. It’s the revolving door. Get informed.

 

[gipper]

That's a complex subject. Some Libertarians would say they are. Others would say not.

How can anyone suggest government protected monopolies are not interfering with a "free" market?

Dean Baker, "The Reform of Intellectual Property", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 32.

"The economics profession has devoted vast amount of research and textbook space to proving the inefficiency of various forms of protectionism.

"The basic story in this work is that protectionism causes the price to exceed the marginal cost of production.

"All of this work is entirely applicable to patents and copyrights, except the impact is at least an order of magnitude larger than with most instances of protectionism in international trade.

"While tariffs and quotas rarely raise the price of goods by more than 30 or 40 percent, patents on prescription drugs typically raise the price of protected products by 300 to 400 percent, or more, above the marginal cost."

The FDA raises the cost of prescription drugs by $1 billion for each drug, and you support what it does. Now you want to convince us that you're concerned about drug costs.

Who are you trying to kid?

The FDA is a rubber stamp for big Pharma. If you don’t know this you don’t know much.

If that's the case, then why does it cost $1 billion to get a drug approved?

All you ever do is post establishment pap.

Payoff. It’s a racket. But I doubt they pay that much. More lies.

"payoff" to whom? Certainly not the drug companies.

Jesus you’re slow. It’s pay off to government. Government and big pharma are one.

Government doesn't get the money, moron.

Stop posting. You know nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

BS. Get informed. It’s all a fucking racket, but you’re blind to it.

It is a racket. But you can't explain how it's a payoff to government.

They pay uncle to sell their dumb drugs. Uncle is doing very little regulating. The senior people in both government and big pharma trade places. It’s the revolving door. Get informed.

That still doesn't explain how the $1 billion is a payoff to big government or big pharma