|
|
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 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.
I know who he is... ; )
>
> >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.
That would require a bit of a weight loss, n'est pas?
> > 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
Well there is balance. Somewhere between India and the U.S. ... lies
Canada.
Zee
|
|