Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (21792)	10/10/2004 12:24:09 PM
From: Bob V	Respond to of 23153

I don't understand the uproar created because of cheap drugs from Canada. I live in Canada and my Canadian snowbird friends buy their prescription drugs in Mexico because of significant cost savings.

To: Bruce L who wrote (21792)	10/10/2004 1:44:16 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Bruce, Many of my economic disagreements with liberals revolve around a single issue: not only do they not believe in democracy, but they do not believe in capitalism, that is, they ascribe no value to capital. In the area of pharmaceuticals, they wish for drug companies to continue to spend billions in producing wonder drugs but don't wish to pay more than the incremental cost of extruding a pill or producing a vaccine. They don't understand the risk that capital faces, or the competing uses for it. If computer game software is permitted to keep its return from capital and drugs are not, then capital will flow to more computer game software and less to drugs. There is another word for what Democrats and socialists wish to do to drug companies in terms of getting their products without truly paying for them: theft. In local regulation, you often see the same thing. A local cemetery owner whose land is now 50 acres "developed" and 50 acres trees would like to cut down the trees and develop the rest of the cemetery (its purpose, by history and zoning for the last 50-100 years by the way). He is opposed by the greens who wish him to keep his 50 acres "green", in trees. They effectively want to take the benefit of his land for the community (more trees, more fresh air, more green space) via regulation, without paying for it. This is, of course, or should be, an unconstitutional takings under the 4th amendment, but it's unclear how much money a small businessman can spend fighting the tyranny of the majority. Again, there is another name for what the public proposes: theft. Imagine that, in the name of fresher air, the tyrannical majority passed a law which said that vehicles with license plates ending in 3 could only be driven on Wednesdays. It would make the air cleaner, at least for a while, and it would depress the value of any car with a license plate ending in an unlucky number. Reasonable regulation, or theft? Kb