It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is appalling. Another example of a world gone wrong.
Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight
Gonna Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight
Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night
While they: Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight
No novelty about that. Two things are absolutely essential. One, that there be a basic safety net. That we accept in a modern society that there has to be a level of income below which people are not allowed to go. I do not join this attack on welfare, this notion the poor should be allowed to starve. Another thing is a strong educational system, which allows people to escape from poverty in the next generation. Those are the two absolute essentials.
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" unemployed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.
While I recognize the great value and importance of prescription drugs and strongly support a continued U.S. focus on pharmaceutical research and development, our nation's seniors cannot be asked to subsidize the drug costs of other wealthy industrialized nations any longer.
Here the businessman–self-selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders–is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and, jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds–all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.
An enormous amount of direct advertising from pharmaceutical companies are offering a kind of instantaneous solution to problems.
As the article explained, neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory — and hence the ability to escape poverty — for the rest of the child’s life.
How poor are they that have not patience! What wound did ever heal but by degrees?
"Well-being isn’t just about our relationship with things, it’s also about our relationships with each other. Poverty hurts, not just because it can leave you feeling hungry, cold and sick, but because it can also leave you feeling ignored, excluded and ashamed. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Adam Smith argued that all of us want others to pay attention to us and treat us with respect. And "it is chiefly from this regard to the sentiments of mankind, that we pursue riches and avoid poverty."
Medication for logic. Very funny.
Do I think the pharmaceutical companies should be required by law to sell their products at a reduced rate?
My first thought is No, I don't.
But on second thought ....... perhaps. Possibly. In some cases.
They would obviously flunk the hell out of my little vignette, or morality evaluation.
Our laws are absolutely based on morals, they are morality codified. They set a minimum standard for a collective which we agree not to go below.
In these artificial persons, which have NOT been subject to millions of years of evolution they are absolutely foreign and although I often hear, "well people make up corporations, so their morals count," no they dont. The officers have a fiduciary duty to make profit, not compassionate decisions.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I have to ask this: when you go to work, do you leave your morality at home? I don't; I have quit good jobs because I could not follow their demands without sacrificing my morality. Have you? Would you?
And I am also certain you must have spent long hours contemplating how moral arose, how they work, and their relationship to business, since all you hang that on is your personal experience.
Originally posted by kevinunknown
As we all know Greece is in going through a period of economic hell making cuts everywhere they can. This has obvious implications for the citizens in that they are all (apart from the rich who have cut and run) going to have even less money. To try and help maintain key health services the Greek government announced at 25% cut in the price of pharmaceuticals. This to me makes sense at the very least the Greeks should have the ability to at least keep their health if they stand to lose the jobs, homes and education. It seems to be a moral obligation not a political one for the state to ensure the health of their populous similar to security, and if they cannot afford basic health care then cut the price of the medication.
However the rich man does not agree, he says these people should have to pay full price even if they can’t afford it. The rich man has quite literally taken the attitude if the poor of Greece cannot afford to pay the full price then they can die. Two pharmaceutical giants have refused to supply Greece with anymore drugs, one of these firms supplies Insulin to the Greek state for diabetics, there are 50,000 living off them in Greece. This firm is called Novo Nordisk also claim the Greek state owes them $36 million, last year they had revenue of about $172 million. Greece has been loyal customers for years and now that they are putting the poor first the rich man is pulling the plug. It’s not like they are asking for free medication, just medication the can afford.
This is a perfect example of how the rich man wields his little bits of evil paper not only to control the poor but also control a state. They have just pulled out, they do not look at how this will impact on the lives of the poor but rather how it will impact on their shear holders bank accounts. It’s a disgusting example highlighting unfairness of the capitalist system.
Anyone agree? or got other examples of this?
[edit on 30-6-2010 by kevinunknown]
Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by truthquest
What do you work for this pharmaceutical company or something?
Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Welcome to the world.
We can have the government run everything, equalizing the way of life for everybody that puts a huge wall from people going beyond in accelerating their life...
We can have corporations rule the world, where unless you find a way to adapt your skills and squeeze in to live the good life, you are stuck making simple decisions that could bankrupt you.