|
|
fresh~horses wrote:
> Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Hawki63@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > hmmm...I suppose this could go to auto
> > > manufacturing...furniture...clothes...etc
> > >
> > > how many are ACTUALLY unique??
> > >
> > > they are ALL "me too"
> > >
> > > but then...THAT is a different issue..
> > >
> > > yeah right
> >
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > I seem to remember trying this argument on Zee and getting the response
> > that me-too autos didn't count because drugs are a different
> > commodity-- one which saves lives.
>
>
>
>
> You seem to remember wrong boyo. You can expect things like this to
> happen now you're 50. You'll have other problems too.
COMMENT:
You've got me on this one. That argument was actually advanced by
somebody called MassiveBrainInjury@sleazyISP, who appeared in one
thread only to challenge some of my arguments, then disappeared off the
net forever. Sniff, I'll miss it.
>From MassiveBrainInjury:
(Note that I'm just dealing with the difference between your example
of SUV's and me-too drugs. There are many other differences such as:
no one needs an SUV; many people only avoid death, pain, and suffering
with the aid of drugs. A mis-allocation of resources in the auto
industry has trivial consequences: a mis-allocation of resources in
the drug industry means that people die or suffer needlessly.)
Mr. BrainInjury seemed to feel that all the advertising dollars spent
by car companies that come out of customers' pockets somehow magically
appear as novel improvements in SUVs and so on (so there really aren't
any "me-too SUVs anyway), but the same doesn't happen in the drug
industry. He seemed to think this was due to some difference in patent
law for drugs vs. auto improvements. I didn't agree with him (I think
misallocation of auto resources results in people suffering and dying
all the time), but as I say, he's no longer around to argue with.
So my apologies. It's hard to tell one anonymous poster with a bad
argument from another sometimes.
> Your erections won't be as high and hard as they were when you were 28.
Bah. I'll believe it when I see it.
> Drugs are (in civilized western nations) healthcare not stockholders
> share.
COMMENT:
LOL. In "civilized" nations like India and Brazil, when they removed
drug development from stockholders, it simply removed itself to other
countries. Following which India and Brazil reverted to
"uncivilization" again, in this aspect, in order to get the capital to
return (which is started to do). Not liking the consequences that
followed after it had fled. You see, India and Brazil wanted to trade
and sell things also, and India and Brazil did not enjoy being
internationally stolen from. Stealing is one thing, being stolen FROM
is entirely a different experience.
If "civlization" consists of robbing capitalists so that they decide no
longer to invest in your "needed industries," then many countries in
the last century have found that "high civilization" leads directly to
poverty. The entire Communist ("second") world, for example. And a lot
of the third world, too (Mexico's nationalized oil didn't help it much,
did it?). Few people, no matter how highly cultured, will stand for
simple confiscation of their hard work and money. They are strange that
way.
SBH
|
|