The Great (and Continuing) Economic Debate of the 20th Century

Imprimis/Hillsdale College ^ | March 2006 | Steve Forbes

[CowboyJay]

"Wouldn't that make their backers legally bullet-proof?"

ROTFL! It's called the pharmaceutical industry. Why do you think they're the only ones allowed to advertise controlled-substances on TV? They get to sell cocaine, opiates, amphetimines and all the other goodies. Manufacturers of ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine are making a killing by selling directly or indirectly to large-scale meth manufacturers south of the border. That's gotten a little attention from government, but only after quite a few people raised a BIG stink about it. The pharm lobby screams bloody-murder up on the hill every time someone cracks down on the scam.

[1rudeboy]

Manufacturers of ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine are making a killing by selling directly or indirectly to large-scale meth manufacturers south of the border.

More nonsense.

[durasell]

"[solitary, poor], nasty, *brutish*, and short


Solitary? He was an optimist.

[CowboyJay]

"More nonsense."

Yup. It is nonsense. If shareholders, or even the corporations were held liable, ephedrine would be taken off the shelves overnight. Were it not for the pharmaceutical lobby, it would already be a controlled substance. If we did that, and took control of our borders, the meth problem in this country would basically cease to exist overnight.

We had a similar problem with quaaludes in the past. Not nearly as addictive as meth, but still destructive. We made the key ingredient unavailable and, voila, problem solved. I don't have any sympathy for the damage meth users do to themselves. They cost we taxpayers huge amounts of money, and their kids end-up paying the biggest price in the long-run.

[1rudeboy]

Name one American firm that manufactures any meth precursor that sells it into Mexico for the use of producing meth. Just one. I'm curious to see who's at the helm of the next Enron.

[CowboyJay]

"Name one American firm that manufactures any meth precursor that sells it into Mexico for the use of producing meth. Just one."

There's only one meth precursor that counts: ephedrinates. They require laboratory precision, and delicate processes to manufacture. If ephedrinates go away, so does the meth. Instantly.

Is it sold under the expressed purpose of manufacturing meth? NO. Once it's in Mexico however, we have no control whatsoever over where it ends up. It's more complicity or negligence than actual intent to do harm on the part of the corporations. There are manufacturing firms up in Canada that also make the stuff, and sell it into Mexico as well. Aren't NAFTA and open borders grand?

Given the size, scope, costs, and seriousness of the menace meth use presents to our nation, what free and democratic society would logically permit the manufacture and open distribution of ephedrinates? It would long-since have been declared a controlled substance were it not for the disproportionate power of the pharmaceutical lobby. The meth problem is continued for the benefit of pharmaceutical corporations despite the fact that it is massively harmful to individual taxpayers and society as a whole.

Global corporatism at its' finest.

[1rudeboy]

What are you doing to lobby your representatives in Congress to ban ephedrinates?

[hedgetrimmer]

My personal belief is that this form of collectivism has removed the philanthropic nature of pure capitalism.

Which is why "free trade" can make a Chinese communist dictator a millionaire.

[hedgetrimmer]

Big multinational corporations = bad

Why? Because when an company incorporates they are making a compact with the people of the nation that is granting them that status. The people of America provide protections through our government and rule of law so that corporations can do business here. In return, the profitable corporation bolsters the domestic economy of a nation. When a corporation goes multinational, they rely on the American people for protection, but the economic boost now goes out to foreign countries. The American people have all the responsibility for protecting that corporation, but get none or little of the benefit from having granted corporate status to that company.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The American people have all the responsibility for protecting that corporation, but get none or little of the benefit from having granted corporate status to that company.

Just 40% of the profits.

[durasell]

Corporations are machines. You would be foolish to make a compact with a machine. Actually, you might have more success making a compact with your toaster.

As machines, they only have two obligations, both closely tied to their survival:

A)Produce money for the owners/shareholders
B)Obey the laws of the countries in which they do busines

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't understand Jay's obsession with corporations. Countries without limited liability corporations are economic basket cases. Makes me wonder why Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts aren't behind Jay's crusade.

[durasell]

I don't understand Jay's obsession with corporations.



I suspect that he's worried about the apparent pooling of economic power corporations are currently amassing and that his expectations that corporations act in a "moral" manner haven't been met.

[hedgetrimmer]

Just 40% of the profits.

Really?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really?

You don't understand corporate taxes? I'm shocked.

[hedgetrimmer]

How about multinational corporations that work against the best interests of the nation because they have got in bed with the chinese communists?

Jim Owens, chairman and chief executive of Caterpillar on Wednesday warned that deteriorating trade relations between the US and China could plunge the global economy into recession and called on Congress to back away from protectionist measures. He spoke as Congress prepares to consider legislation that could impose a range of tariffs on Chinese exports in an effort to slim a trade deficit that ballooned to more than $200bn .

So Congress wants to do something to stablize our economy, but the multinational corporate head winds up as a mouthpiece for the chinese government insisting that any moves on our part will create a global catastrophe.

That truly is the antithesis of the independent country we once were, and we can thank all the "free traders" out there for it.

China this week pledged to meet US complaints about the trade imbalance as part of next month’s trip to Washington by Hu Jintao, Chinese president, but has also warned the US to take responsibility for its economic problems.

Would that be taking back some of the debt China has purchased to artificially lower our interest rates? How has the US got into a position where China is warning us about our economy?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Brilliant article by an arch fiend attempting to sugar coat the Eeevil capitalists as the loot and plunder their way across the Universe.

Imagine implying ayrabs should have property rights like the English.

Imagine not trumpeting like a bull elephant about how we have a "trade deficit" which will destroy us.

Imagine not running frightened into the night crying about "globalisation" and "outsourcing" and worrying that we will have no more jobs in ten years.

Who does he think he is.

[CowboyJay]

"Just 40% of the profits."

As opposed to 100%. Inefficient use of capital.

[CowboyJay]

If you're gonna talk smack, why not address me directly?

It's not about morality, pal. It's about the continued economic health of our nation, and the long-term protection of our freedoms. I'm guessing you don't give a flying flip about either. This makes you something other than a Republican or a conservative. I'm guessing you're either a nihilistic Libertarian (anarchist) or some type of NWO fascist.

[LowCountryJoe]

Any guesses what the new definition of "corporatism" means?

A system instituted by dishonest people filled with corruption of the highest order: these corrupt individuals are immune from normal supply and demand functions that exist EVERYWHERE else because they hold too much market power - so much market power, in fact, that they can (and will) cause consumers to do things against their will even without having to twist any arms.

I with the Cowboy on this one. Corporatism is evil. Shareholders must be held accountable for what the corporation does. They are partial owners. Just don't hold me to this position in any subsequent posts - the o ones I may write in the future where I champion for them as victims of corporatist greed.

You free traitors need to get on-board with planned economies...voluntary trade between two entities that both benefit from the transaction creates only corporatist winners...freedom has its limitation (and undesired outcomes) in this way.