OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
 

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote:

Corporations have a fiduciary responsiblity to their stock holders to
try and achieve profits. That is why they are in business. To
suggest that government should force corporations to develop and
produce a product without a profit motive is totally unrealistic.

PS, this discussion should be taken offline before it turns political.

Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to
produce things like tanks, bombers, etc?


No.

http://www.allpar.com/history/military/preparing.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3428500013.html

You think this was done without gov't incentive?

Again, why should a profit motive drive what's needed for people's
health and welfare? You don't need to explain basic business concepts
to me, as I probably have a better education on the subject than most
here.


If you want a corporation involved, there has to be a profit motive.

Why? There are lots of non-profits in the US.

PS, stop being the newsgroup policeman. Greg and I are having a
pleasant conversation that will only get mishandled by those who have
that motivation.

I don't view myself in that role at all but I do have a long history
here, and have a very good idea how these discussions get out of
control and attract a lot of overheated emotional content. Out of
consideration for others, please find another venue where this
discussion would be more appropriate.

Yet you keep insisting that we shut up when there's no "emotional"
content expressed or implied. Perhaps you're reading in more than is
there. I don't see anyone else (except maybe spoofers) complaining.

OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
 

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:34:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote:

Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to
produce things like tanks, bombers, etc?

That has not happened for 65 years. When it did it was a government
contract that put idle factories back to work. For the last 50 years
tanks, bombers and missiles have been a profit center. The
manufacturers develop a system, bribe enough congressmen to get it
adopted and then try to convince the military it is really what they
need.

That is not unlike how the drug companies work.

So, with such a great economy, I guess it doesn't make much sense to
put people to work... ?

I don't think people were being bribed to produce armaments in WWII..
at least not most.

OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
 

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:16:14 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:25:39 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote:

Corporations have a fiduciary responsiblity to their stock holders to
try and achieve profits. That is why they are in business. To
suggest that government should force corporations to develop and
produce a product without a profit motive is totally unrealistic.

PS, this discussion should be taken offline before it turns political.

Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to
produce things like tanks, bombers, etc?


No.

http://www.allpar.com/history/military/preparing.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3428500013.html

You think this was done without gov't incentive?

Do you think there was no profit motive?

"Chrysler would get a 4% commission for building the factory and
another 4% for building tanks."

Do you think they could have done better if the economy was better? As
I said, the gov't gave them financial incentives.

Again, why should a profit motive drive what's needed for people's
health and welfare? You don't need to explain basic business concepts
to me, as I probably have a better education on the subject than most
here.


If you want a corporation involved, there has to be a profit motive.

Why? There are lots of non-profits in the US.

None of them are producing much innovation.

Producing much innovation? You mean innovating. See the Drucker
Institute for how non-profits innovate.

If you're talking about product innovation, I don't think you want to
use a US car company as an example. :)

OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
 

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:19:53 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:27:00 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:34:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote:

Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to
produce things like tanks, bombers, etc?

That has not happened for 65 years. When it did it was a government
contract that put idle factories back to work. For the last 50 years
tanks, bombers and missiles have been a profit center. The
manufacturers develop a system, bribe enough congressmen to get it
adopted and then try to convince the military it is really what they
need.

That is not unlike how the drug companies work.

So, with such a great economy, I guess it doesn't make much sense to
put people to work... ?

I don't think people were being bribed to produce armaments in WWII..
at least not most.

They were certainly making a lot of money tho.

Depends on your definition of "a lot of money." The primary motivation
was survival both financially and physically (the result of losing the
war).

WWII was an instant end of the depression for the US.

And, your point?

I don't think we can actually compare the buying of the congress in
the 40s like we do now. There were certainly the earmark bribes but
you did not have billion dollar ad campaign costs (even adjusted for
inflation)

I agree. You can't compare the two, however earmarks are not the
terrible thing you make them out to be. Some are wasteful, but many
actually do good at the local level.

OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
 

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:44:21 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:13:19 -0800, wrote:

I don't think we can actually compare the buying of the congress in
the 40s like we do now. There were certainly the earmark bribes but
you did not have billion dollar ad campaign costs (even adjusted for
inflation)

I agree. You can't compare the two, however earmarks are not the
terrible thing you make them out to be. Some are wasteful, but many
actually do good at the local level.


The problem is not the earmark itself, it is what the receiving
congressman sold his vote for on another bill to get it.

(I will vote for your bridge if you will vote for the war)

There are always going to be abuses. In any case, most earmarks are
for worthy projects as far as I can tell.

OT...Drugs just to stay alive....
 

In article ,
says...

Just look at the human genome project. The government spent a lot of
money and got nowhere for over a decade. A private company tackled the
project and broke the code in months.

What a steaming crock of nonsense.