Let the Poor DIE!!

reply to post by brainwrek


Last year the made a net profit of something near $200 million I think but I can’t remember the exact number of the top of my head. Just remember though this Greece is operating in extraordinary economic conditions, they are not asking for freebies. This will harm the health care of the people of Greece, no price can be put on a person’s health.

It is a sad fact of human existence that people are unable to see both sides of a situation. This is the reason for wars.

Yes, in the shoes of those in Greece who are going to be suffering, this is an evil deed by the pharmaceuticals who have stopped selling to Greece. But on the other hand, how can Greece simply decide what a pharmaceutical company is going to make? Consider the implications to yourself for a moment; can your country just walk up to you one day and say "You make too much money. Your salary will be cut by 25%"?

No one would sit still for that! Those who could, would take different jobs. Those who could not, would be hurt, possibly terribly.

Consider this for a moment: what if those life-giving medications did not exist at all? Would you still be angry over that? At who?

People, it works very simply: someone, somewhere, sometime started a pharmaceutical company to try and produce drugs to help people. They expected to make money at it; otherwise why would they do it? Starting a company requires a ton of money, unending hassles, and years of work. Anyone who accomplishes such should be compensated for all that, and very well IMHO.

Most larger companies, as they grow, need more cash to operate than any one person (or even small group of people) can provide. So they become public corporations. They sell themselves to individuals in small pieces to raise enough money to continue to grow. Those people buying the stock are just like you and me; indeed, it may be you and me, if we have any sort of retirement pension or IRA. Those are typically invested in the stock market.

Now we have a pharmaceutical company with the financial power to produce the drugs the people need and want. It has to make a profit; else the people who invested in it will go elsewhere and sell their stock off, dropping the stock price and making it impossible for the company to get credit to keep operating. If that happens, some of the people who work at the company will be laid off, and the company will not be able to produce as many drugs... they may have to stop producing certain drugs completely. So it is in everyone's best interests to keep the company producing drugs, which also produces jobs and allows the retired to live a reasonable lifestyle.

Now enter government. Since everyone is 'entitled' to 'free' health care, including drugs, the pharmaceuticals are selling to the government. If the government decides it needs to cut the costs, what are the pharmaceuticals supposed to do? Accept it without question? Allow their profits to drop, allow their ability to produce those drugs to slide, lay off workers and have little to pay those who had invested their money in the company?

Or do the obvious thing: this is the price. Pay it or don't get the medicine.

I'm sorry that sounds so cruel. I really don't want it to be. But if I need a car badly, and you have one for sale, should I be able to tell you how much you will take for that car? No! It belongs to you, and you get to say what you will sell it for. If I take it and give you whatever I want in return, that is called:

THEFT

and it is (properly) illegal. I have taken your property without compensating you properly for it. It is not mine to take; it is only yours to sell.

The real culprit here is the entitlement mentality of the people. There is no such thing as being 'entitled' to health care! One cannot be 'entitled' to the services or products of another! To even think that is ludicrous! There is no such thing as 'free' health care either. It carries a cost that someone must pay, or else you are condoning

SLAVERY

which is also, properly, illegal. Slavery is simply requiring others to perform work for you without compensation or choice, and requiring any company to provide their product at a price set by you, is, indeed, slavery!

So here's the bottom line, folks: Either you

• believe that people have the right to own property and to own their time and talents, or
  
• you believe that everyone's time, resources, and talents belong to someone else (yourself) and they are your slaves to steal from and force to do whatever you wish them to.

There is no other choice.

The bottom line is that the government used this so-called free' health care deal to garner public favor. The people, with their entitlement mentality, of course liked the idea that something could be free to them, without a moment's thought about what it was really costing. Now we are seeing the beginning of the real cost:

• Lack of money
  which leads to
  
• Lack of doctors willing to work for less money
  and
  
• Lack of medicines due to lack of money to buy them
  which then leads to
  
• Lack of services
  which means
  
• Lack of health care

I am about to get royally flamed for this post. Go ahead. Search yourself and you will know I speak the truth, and that is, always, a proper reason to shout down those one disagrees with.

According to human nature anyway. After all, you are entitled to be wrong, right?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

People, it works very simply: someone, somewhere, sometime started a pharmaceutical company to try and produce drugs to help people. They expected to make money at it; otherwise why would they do it? Starting a company requires a ton of money, unending hassles, and years of work. Anyone who accomplishes such should be compensated for all that, and very well IMHO.

A significant portion of research and technology does NOT come out of private companies who spent their own money on R&D. It comes from publicly funded, (tax dollars) research and the people who fund this research should be compensated for all that, and very well IMHO. We arent. Not to mention that nations provide protection for the intellectual rights of these corporations, often on the tax payers dime, and many other subsides.

Insulin, one of the drugs in question in the OP, was one such drug, discovered at the University of Toronto, not by a pharmaceutical company.

These corporations benefit enormously from human society. And not just in the vehicle of profit, but also from our laws, our infrastructure, etc. They can take a cut in profit to return the favor in times of need.

I personally would love to see the corporate form made illegal altogether, and thats another thing to remember, the corporations own society their very lives. We dont have to allow them at all.

reply to post by jtma508


Oh. I didn't understand what you meant in your first post.

jtma, can you go to a free clinic to get these prescriptions? I know it's a longer waiting period, and usually crowded, but it would be worth the wait to get those prescriptions. Either there, or an emergency room. If your b/p was elevated, they would give you the Rx, and while there, you tell them of the other difficulties.

If there is not a free clinic in your town, then drive to one in a nearby town.

Is this possible?

reply to post by TheRedneck

It is a sad fact of human existence that people are unable to see both sides of a situation. This is the reason for wars.

Indeed there are two sides to a situation. And you've given one.

Businesses exist to make money. Every one of us knows that.

But in the circumstances of some of the large corporations....
I mean ..... Could you clear 57 billion dollars next year, instead of 58 billion, and maybe cut some people a break?

There is the element of human responsibility, ethics, and yes, MORALITY. We are not talking about cars here. We are talking about life saving medications. An area that once embarked upon carries with it enormous responsibilities.

You know what they say about the heat in the kitchen.......

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


The people of Greece cant blame the pharma company. They need to place blame solely where it belongs: On themselves and on their government.

Businesses have no obligation to assume more risk and less profits in the name of helping people.

For those who disagree, why dont you go start your own business, say to hell with profits, and stay in business while "helping people"?

[edit on 30-6-2010 by brainwrek]

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


As soon as we start trying to cap the potential earnings of business, we have destroyed the ideas and ideals of capitalism.

What you are asking for is socialism.

That sorting thing starts with small steps like this.

One should stay away from drug companies, unless its a life or death situation then its just not worth it most of the stuff they sell is just to get you hooked on there products. As for Greece they could find a better deal somewhere else its not like there is only one drug company in this world, though they are all the same when big and when small they will cut some profit to be big and profit more.

reply to post by peck420


And as soon as you don't put some restrictions or caps they will grow and instead of capitalism or socialism you will get fascism.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


I would have gone with an Oligarchy, but yes it can.

However, true free markets can and should self regulate.

It's a shame that we will probably never see a true free market.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

True; a lot of the money used in R&D comes form the taxes. That is actually the only way that most new technologies would ever exist. Just try to get private funding on an unproven theory and see how far you will get. Never mind; I can tell you from experience: You will get nowhere.

Also, you seem to think that once the R&D is 'done', the medicines can be made for virtually nothing. Not true; there are plenty of costs associated with manufacturing them, not to mention continuing the R&D to improve them. If there are not, why not just make your own medications and save all that money?

The bottom line is that even though these medications may have been 'developed' using public funds, the development doesn't stop there and it doesn't mean there are not more expenses associated with improving and manufacturing the drugs in question. Those expenses are not borne through tax dollars.

Not to mention that nations provide protection for the intellectual rights of these corporations, often on the tax payers dime, and many other subsides.

Then you can thank the governments that the medicines are not even more expensive than they are now. A lot of the subsidies are designed to lower retail prices to the public, by lowering the out-of-pocket expenses of the manufacturers.

These corporations benefit enormously from human society. And not just in the vehicle of profit, but also from our laws, our infrastructure, etc. They can take a cut in profit to return the favor in times of need.

Whoa, hossy! The public also benefits from the corporations! Or do you not think that having access to the drugs you 'need' is a benefit?

Perhaps you think the University of Toronto would have picked up the slack and started producing medicines if the big evil corporations had not decided to take things over for themselves? Wrong. You are forgetting what a corporation even is: it is a legal entity which allows other legal entities (including individuals) to own portions of it. That's it! That is all a 'corporation' is! I should know; I have owned one in the past.

U of T is not interested in making medicines, my friend, They are interested in learning, and a large part of that learning comes from examination and discovery in fields which are not (yet) profitable enough for a business to operate in. Sure, they discovered insulin; if not for the pharmaceuticals, you would only be able to read about it, not buy it. To do that, you have to have a manufacturer.

I personally would love to see the corporate form made illegal altogether, and thats another thing to remember, the corporations own society their very lives. We dont have to allow them at all.

OK, let's address this: say for the sake of argument that you have the power to wave your hand and make corporations illegal. Which ones? You are aware that there are different types of corporations, right? Are we talking C-corp, S-corp, LLC? Or would you only make corporations over a certain size illegal? What would that size be? Maybe only certain fields? Which fields would corporations be illegal in?

Bear in mind when answering this that whatever corporation you make illegal, you will also stop production of whatever it is that corporation makes, and remove jobs from the economy based on the size of those corporations...


reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Indeed there are two sides to a situation. And you've given one.

I believe the opposing side is already very well represented.

Could you clear 57 billion dollars next year, instead of 58 billion, and maybe cut some people a break?

Suuuure, no problem. Let's just cut the profit 2%... of course that means that those retirees invested in the company will also take 2% less, as well as all of the employees getting a 2% pay cut.... no, wait, the material, equipment, and energy costs can't get cut, so better make that a 4% cut across the board...

Oh, and since Greece is getting a break, how about France? Aren't they having some financial trouble? Or maybe Ecuador? Oh, Canada needs a little relief as well. And of course, the USA is in seriously deep doo-doo financially. After all, fair is fair. So now instead of cutting things 4% we have to cut them what? 50%? more?

It's not as simple as you want it to be.

There is the element of human responsibility, ethics, and yes, MORALITY. We are not talking about cars here. We are talking about life saving medications. An area that once embarked upon carries with it enormous responsibilities.

So are you saying that anyone who starts an endeavor in the field of medicine should be considered a slave? Oh, that's gonna bring in loads of manufacturers... thank God I work in engineering, nor pharmaceuticals...

Sorry, but if you want an industry, any industry including pharmaceuticals, to thrive and produce what we all need (or at least want; I don't take medications; I would rather hurt), you cannot throttle it out of existence. That is exactly what you are suggesting.

It is like cars, like it or not.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Also, you seem to think that once the R&D is 'done', the medicines can be made for virtually nothing. Not true; there are plenty of costs associated with manufacturing them, not to mention continuing the R&D to improve them. If there are not, why not just make your own medications and save all that money?

No, I actually dont think that. I took cost accounting, though I am not a CMA. But because I took cost accounting I also know that you do not have to make a profit on an item to continue making it. In fact, in "line item" cost accounting, it is often advisable to continue to make items that lose money, as long as they are still making enough to cover part of your overhead. There is no one "law" on deciding what to produce or not. "Good will" is also something valuable to a company that is in competition, and they are losing that in this case, though they will sue over this loss in court if someone forces it upon them.

What we are seeing here is the actions of companies that are getting awfully close to monopoly power. Where they dont have to consider goodwill, where they dont have to care about competitive pricing in certain markets, and where they can afford to say, "Pay it or tough."

Which is not anywhere close to the ideal of a free market for you advocates of such.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Whoa, hossy! The public also benefits from the corporations! Or do you not think that having access to the drugs you 'need' is a benefit?

Are you really arguing that without the corporate form we would not have pharmaceuticals? I seriously doubt that. There is demand, there would be supply. Even if we had to have ALL the research done at universitys.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That's it! That is all a 'corporation' is! I should know; I have owned one in the past.

Im proud for you. I studied them, and wrote up articles of incorporation for them. And thats not all that they are. You can have a lot of business forms that allow multiple people to contribute to the business and own portions. Those other forms simply dont include the creation of an "artificial person" and shield you totally from personal liability beyond your investment for the actions of your business as completely as the corporate form does. Corporations are the form of choice not only for the ease in raising capital, but for the absolute escape from personal liability beyond the stock you hold in it. I dont think allowing people to escape personal liability for the things they money does is a good thing, personally.

Anyone who owns stock "Owns one" in a sense, and the logic is flawed. Owning one of anything does not equal a good understanding of the thing (not saying you specifically dont) but the logic you present is just not good. "I own a car there for I understand a car?" "I own a book on physics therefore I understand physics?" I dont think so.

Corporations, I would argue, are antithetical to the very idea of a free market. They exist because of regulation, and they can only be restrained from become oligarchies by further regulation once they are regulated into existence at all.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
To do that, you have to have a manufacturer.

There are lots of things not provided by the free market. (Public goods) This was recognized by Adam Smith and many economists that followed him, and yet we manage to provide these public goods. I personally do not buy the argument that only corporations can and would produce drugs. I think there would be many people willing to do so, although it may end up being a lot of small companies producing smaller quantities and fewer drugs per company. Overall, the demand would be met without the corporate form, even if we had to fund it publicly in some cases.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
OK, let's address this: say for the sake of argument that you have the power to wave your hand and make corporations illegal. Which ones?

All business forms that entail the creation of an artificial person designed to relieve the human persons of liability for the actions of that business form.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Bear in mind when answering this that whatever corporation you make illegal, you will also stop production of whatever it is that corporation makes, and remove jobs from the economy based on the size of those corporations...

The too big to fail argument? Really? Again, though at this point size has gotten so out of control that we would need to transition into a more competitive market environment, too big to fail is actually an argument against them, not for them. We are all experiencing what a great idea it is to let anything get too big to fail.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

No, I actually dont think that. I took cost accounting, though I am not a CMA. But because I took cost accounting I also know that you do not have to make a profit on an item to continue making it. In fact, in "line item" cost accounting, it is often advisable to continue to make items that lose money, as long as they are still making enough to cover part of your overhead. There is no one "law" on deciding what to produce or not. "Good will" is also something valuable to a company that is in competition, and they are losing that in this case, though they will sue over this loss in court if someone forces it upon them.

Yes, it is possible to make a product and sell it for less than it costs. Companies do this regularly to build that 'good will', which is indeed a critical component of competition.

However, it is not possible to sell items for less than it costs to produce them without that extra money coming from somewhere. It is not possible to produce and sell items for cost and receive any compensation for one's own time and effort.

It's otherwise known as 'volunteer work'. not many people make a decent living doing it.

Companies do it on occasion to boost future profits. One item can be sold for cost to build a market, for instance, with the expectation that after the initial program the item being marketed will produce a profit.

NO ONE sells all of their inventory/production 'at cost'. NO ONE. If the books you read say otherwise, I suggest you get new books.

What we are seeing here is the actions of companies that are getting awfully close to monopoly power.

Where a company approaches monopoly power, I agree with you. There must be (and are, supposedly) regulations on the books that will prevent such. I must say I am somewhat shocked that insulin production was being monopolized, though?

Patent rights can lead to monopolization, yes, but it is specified to only last for a particular duration of time. That is one area where I can support monopolization, because without that incentive, the product would probably not even exist. There is little difference between a product not existing and one that is expensive, except that in the latter case some people will be helped.

Are you really arguing that without the corporate form we would not have pharmaceuticals? I seriously doubt that. There is demand, there would be supply. Even if we had to have ALL the research done at universitys.

R&D is not the issue. Manufacturing is the issue. You say you read about cost accounting. Fine. How much does a building to manufacture a product cost? How much do business licenses cost? How much does manufacturing equipment cost? How much does advertising cost?

Do you really expect a University to pay all of those manufacturing costs in order to make a product?

Im proud for you. I studied them, and wrote up articles of incorporation for them.

Thank you. read on:

Anyone who owns stock "Owns one" in a sense, and the logic is flawed. Owning one of anything does not equal a good understanding of the thing (not saying you specifically dont) but the logic you present is just not good. "I own a car there for I understand a car?" "I own a book on physics therefore I understand physics?" I dont think so.

Yes, I owned stock in one. 90%. The other 10% was split between my wife and mother, since the law at the time required three stockholders.

I did not buy an investment. I conceived of, financed, incorporated, and physically ran a corporation. Sorry, but that is a little more involved than reading a book and drawing up a simple legal document.

I actually have nothing invested in the stock market at this time, and have advised my friends to divest from their portfolios (with a couple of specific exceptions). the market is too uncertain at this time for me to be able to justify the risks for the rewards.

Incidentally, you mentioned the other forms of business organization earlier... there are basically three: proprietorship, partnership, and corporation. A proprietorship relies on the resources of one owner to handle expenses; a partnership limits involvement to those who have serious financial ability. Only the corporate structure allows people of limited means to enter the business world. So I would assume by saying that corporations should be outlawed you are also saying business ventures between those with limited means should be outlawed as well?

How elitist of you...

There are lots of things not provided by the free market.

Yes, there are. that is why we have social services (public schools, police, fire departments, etc.) and public works (roads, libraries). None of these things produce a profit, yet they are all needed.

the problem comes into play when one tries to extend this line of thinking to those things that can be produced for a profit. For example, I drive a moderately-aged Buick. I know people who drive new Cadillacs. Should I demand a new Cadillac? I am just as much a citizen as anyone else! How dare they drive a new Caddy and I can't!

Simple logic says that I drive what I drive because I place less importance on obtaining that new car, meaning I am satisfied with the older one. Extended, that same logic says that everyone will have a personal preference for the different things which are available in life. Monetary rationing (which is what capitalism really is) is a way to allow those different priorities to exist. I may have less money than my neighbor, but perhaps I work less hard, or trained myself less, or just choose to take a couple months a year off (something I have done in my life). The result may not seem fair, but it is when all the different variables are considered.

If all services were public (communism), then this would be impossible. There would be no need for anyone to prioritize their wishes in life. Anything produced would have to be produced in sufficient numbers for everyone to have one; ergo, little would ever get produced.

All business forms that entail the creation of an artificial person designed to relieve the human persons of liability for the actions of that business form.

So you want every company owner to be personally liable for their company?

Sounds good on the surface but lets look a little deeper:

My C-corp was a drafting/design firm. One of my products was house plans. I incorporated primarily for the liability protection. The reason is obvious: I charged between 25 and 35 cents per square foot for the plans. Once the owner approved the plans, it is the responsibility of the contractor to build the house. Now let us suppose that I draw up a nice house that I get paid, maybe, $600 for. About $500 of that would actually be labor and profit. The house in question costs $50,000 to build. Now let's say that my customer hired a contractor who was incompetent, and who used low-grade lumber. A year later the house roof falls in. Two people are injured, and the reapair is going to be $25,000. the medical bills for the two injured parties is $100,000. The contractor has skipped town.

I could very easily be looking at a lawsuit for $150,000 when I made only $500. I could be financially ruined. under a corporate umbrella, the worst that could happen was that I could lose the business. Without that, I could lose my home, my car, my property, and have any future wages garnished for the rest of my life.

No thanks. Without that protection, I would either have charged ten ties as much so I could have an escrow put back, or I simply wouldn't go into business.

Your ideas only make sense when you dehumanize the other side. There is nothing 'fair' about your proposals.

The too big to fail argument?

Absolutely not! there is a huge difference between allowing a company to fail on it's own and putting them out of business by law.

How about "too big to make illegal"?

After all, we are not discussing a company doing anything financially unsound here; we are actually discussing one that refuses to operate under unsound financial practices...

Nice try with the sound byte though.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
A CEO's duty to a company is, indeed to maximize profit for the OWNERS of the company, the shareholders. Not maximize their own salaries at the expense of the owners. Which is what we see.

As the shareholders make more money, so does the CEO since he/she is one being credited with the increase in profit. It actually all works in sync.

I was paid by a percentage of gross profit [most get paid by net, I negotiated a better deal]. The more money the company made, the more money I made. I certainly made quite a bit more than the hourly workers, but at five o'clock they were long gone and I was still typing away. It's about choice. Many of those that wanted were promoted and more than tripled their salaries. Then, there were those that felt they were entitled to more since the company "made enough" to handle their raises. The problem? They did nothing to warrant more than their annual increase of 3%. Nothing. They felt they should have it because others were making more. That's entitlement and it's ridiculous.

I was then recruited to another company to produce the same results. The amount they offered me was even more.

Why shouldn't I be paid more?
Why shouldn't talent take top dollar?
Why should inequality be paid equally?

Not all employees are equal nor should they be paid equally.

Yes, a multi-million dollar pay-out seems ridiculous. But when yielding multi-billion dollar profits you are in charge of, not so much.

Why should companies make billions in profit and not pay their employees a generous share?

Do you really think that in absence of multi-million dollar paychecks the companies are going to reduce the cost of their goods? Or donate it to the less fortunate?

Nope. Not gonna happen.

Things in this world are only worth as much as people are willing to pay.

As soon as we stop paying ridiculous amounts, everything else will follow suit. Less profit = lesser paid CEOs. Minimum wage can't get any less, so those workers won't be affected as much.

People often say it would take an Alien invasion to unite the worlds people against a common enemy. What on Earth do you think corporations are but an alien "life" form, with an agenda hostile to the worlds people? What are we waiting for? Corporations to grow tentacles?

How is employing millions of people 'hostile'?

It's our fault. We buy their products and services. We support their bottom lines. We complain about the cost, but pay it anyway.

I can guarantee you this:

As soon as we stop paying, as soon as we stop buying -- you will see a difference in how business is conducted.

But it should be done by the will of the people, not by the will of the government.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by lpowell0627]

reply to post by TheRedneck


It's interesting how when one broaches the topic of morality and ethical responsibility, it can be brushed aside by claiming socialism, the destruction of countries, perhaps even the world! lol.

When I was in grad school, we did a study on the age at which children develop the cognitive skills and development to fully understand the concept of morality. They would understand little things, such as it's wrong to kick the cat, etc., but we gave them a more complicated scenario, and it turned out that morality is a fairly sophisticated concept to grasp, and isn't fully developed until one is in the early teens.

One of the little vignettes we gave them, you have probably heard before.

This story takes places decades ago. A man has a wife who is extremely ill. He takes her to the doctor who writes a prescription and gives it to the husband, and tells him his wife must have the medication, a tonic, in the next few hours, or she will die.

The man takes the prescription directly to the pharmacy, but arrives one minute after 5:00, and finds the pharmacist at the door, locking up for the evening.
The man explains his dilemma, and that his wife will die if not given the medication in the next few hours.

The pharmacist states he is terribly sorry, but his pharmacy closed at five o'clock, and he must now lock up, and go home, which he does.

The man waits nearby until the man is gone, then breakes into the pharmacy, finds the medication, takes it home to his wife, who consumes it, and is cured of this terrible affliction.

Following telling this story, the children were asked the question:

Should the man go to jail?

At the conclusion, and upon hearing the question, the twelve year olds and younger would inevitably respond, that Yes. He should go to jail.

Why? Because he broke the law. He broke into the pharmacy, and that is wrong. Cut and dried. Black and White.

Now the sixteen and seventeen year olds tended to have more complicated responses, even to include that the pharmacist himself should go to jail, for being such an irresponsible excuse of a pharmacist and being negligent in his professional responsibilities.

You cannot ethically make a parallel between the desire for an automobile, and an asthmatic child who requires a rescue inhaler to survive. Or at least I'm unaware of anyone over the age of sixteen, who could comfortably state it's the same thing.

In these circumstanes, it's not business as usual. It's not socialism.
It's situation ethics.

How quickly we jumped from Greece to include France and Canada and Ecuador! And how expediently we moved from 2% to 4% to 50%!

I see I was also credited with saying or otherwise implying that "everybody who enters the field of medicine should become a slave".
Do what?

As well as being credited with big pharmacy should be "throttled out of existence".

Did you read my post? Or did you respond only to the words you put in my mouth?

And NO. You cannot compare cars to life saving medications,
whether you like it or not.

ladyinwaiting

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by lpowell0627


Do these CEOs make too much money? The quick answer is yes. But that's more of a gut reaction that says: Look at how much more than me....

Actually for me, it is not a gut reaction based in envy. For me, it is based on an understanding of a CEO's role and duty to a company. A CEO's duty to a company is, indeed to maximize profit for the OWNERS of the company, the shareholders. Not maximize their own salaries at the expense of the owners. Which is what we see.

The justification for their salaries they offer is that they company is paying for quality. Which is crap. There are tons of people who would do just as good a job for a lot less, given the chance.

You thoroughly contradicted yourself. First you say the CEOs job is to maximize profits for shareholders, which I am assuming means they want bigger dividends. Yet the CEOs salary is not based on quality and there are people who would do the same job for less. Assuming that the shareholders want to make a profit, why would they continue to employ the CEO if someone else could do the same job for less, thereby maximizing profits so the shareholders can get bigger dividends?

CEO is a big job and comes with big bucks. They get paid to make decisions that the entire fate of the company and all the jobs of the people under them rely on. Often people are jealous or envious of the salary and perks CEOs get and so talk trash. But the fact of the matter is the future of the company and so your employment rests on their shoulders.

You may think its a little hard work with a life of luxury but three days in a CEOs shoes and I guarantee you won't want the job anymore. I know 100 people that will tell you they would not want any kind of senior executive job.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

That is a very interesting story... thank you for sharing it. I have found that my moral views also started out as simplistic 'parroting' of my early teachings, progressing as I matured into adulthood toward the more 'progressive' thinking, then easing back into a more conservative stance as I aged.

It's really too bad we can't continue your observations later into life. I am sure it would prove interesting.

Should the man go to jail?

For breaking in and taking the medicine? No. If he did excessive damage, possibly. The pharmacist was well within his rights to refuse to sell, but morally he was in the wrong and should have known that given the dire circumstances, his store would probably be burglarized. So he shares some of the blame for the break-in, even though he broke no law. That is called 'extenuating circumstances'.

Should he be arrested and tried? I say yes. He knew the consequences of his actions, and made a choice.

Should he be required to pay for any damage? Yes, although under the extenuating circumstances perhaps a portion instead of the entire damage.

Under no circumstances should the pharmacist go to jail.

Now you have my take on the matter.

It's situation ethics.

Exactly! If this story had a happy ending (i.e. the pharmaceutical company decided to extend unusual credit or donate medicine because of the circumstances) I would be overjoyed. However, just as in the situation you recanted, under no circumstances should the force of law be used to enforce morality. And that is exactly what is being called for by some posters: forced selling at a reduced price set by the purchaser.

Morality is not law; law is not morality. Morality is subjective, varying from individual to individual; law is fixed, written, unyielding. When one tries to combine law and morality, one gets laws that are so yielding as to be useless and morality that is rigid and imposed by force, which in itself violates my morality.

How quickly we jumped from Greece to include France and Canada and Ecuador! And how expediently we moved from 2% to 4% to 50%!

As someone who just posted a story about young children, I am sure you are familiar with the phrase "Did you bring enough for everyone?"

It's called a 'precedent'. You did so-and-so for Greece, and now the same situation applies to other countries as well. Ergo, you must do the same for them. Sure, Greece is the country under scrutiny today, but who will be in a similar situation tomorrow? Will they not also be entitled to the same treatment? If not, why? What makes Greece so special? The fact that it is in the news today?

Surely you can see the progression. Once a precedent is set, it is difficult to reverse.

As for the percentage, there was no jump to 4%... only an explanation that reducing profits translates to a larger reduction in payouts, percentage-wise. The 50%... OK, that was a jump. But was it excessive? Or a reasonable amount considering the insidious nature of precedents as mentioned above?

I see I was also credited with saying or otherwise implying that "everybody who enters the field of medicine should become a slave".

Since you apparently didn't read all of my posts on this subject, I will only ask a question of you then:

Do you propose that those in the pharmaceutical profession be required by law to accept lower-than-normal prices for their products/services without the ability to refuse?

If you answered yes, you just indicated that those in the pharmaceutical profession should give their time, their talent, and their product to someone else for a lesser amount than they feel it is worth. That is slavery.

As well as being credited with big pharmacy should be "throttled out of existence".

If you make conditions intolerable for those in a specific industry to operate in that industry, you cause people to leave that industry. Unless you intend to shackle them with chains to their workstation and whip them if they don't work hard enough... "Please, massah, don' whup me no mo'"

You stated earlier that $57 instead of $58 million was apparently something you would consider 'tolerable'. My question is, who are you to tell anyone else what they should or should not consider 'tolerable'? Would you be happy to say the same thing if it were your money?

I would expect not, despite the fact that I also expect you to answer "yes" to that last question.

And NO. You cannot compare cars to life saving medications,
whether you like it or not.

Now if only they could come with a medication for illogic...

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Medication for logic. Very funny.

We do of course agree for the most part on our thoughts of the little morality vignette.
I too, think the man should be responsible for paying for the medication, and damage to the door. He should not go to jail. If the pharmacist is licensed, he should receive a formal admonishment from his examiners, for unprofessional behavior. (My thoughts, if by some odd chance you have the slightest bit of curiosity).

And please don't ask a question, and then answer it for me.

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. Perhaps they need guidance. And a little push in comprehending and exercising it. Yep. Maybe I am a bit of a Robin Hood, after all.

Originally posted by dbloch7986

You thoroughly contradicted yourself. First you say the CEOs job is to maximize profits for shareholders, which I am assuming means they want bigger dividends. Yet the CEOs salary is not based on quality and there are people who would do the same job for less. Assuming that the shareholders want to make a profit, why would they continue to employ the CEO if someone else could do the same job for less, thereby maximizing profits so the shareholders can get bigger dividends?

Who controls the hiring, pay, etc., of the corporate officers, (CEOs CFOs, etc.) Do you know?

Read up on how all that works and get back to me.

You can justify executive pay all you want, but the truth is they make exorbitant salaries whether they increase profits or not, as evidenced by all the "bonuses" paid out by the morons who ran those big firms into the ground just recently.

Edit to add, and not all stocks pay dividends either. I like all the experts who dont have the foggiest notion at all what they are talking about.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Where do you get the idea that morality is not law and law is not morality?

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.

And corporations above all things have to have their morality codified for them. In living social creatures, morality arose via evolution over time. It is wired into us, (though admittedly it varies) and morality is NOT just whim and chance, there is a good reason why our foundational morals are all basically the same. Even lower social mammals share some of our moral rules.

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.

And there have been studies on reasoning, moral and other wise, in adults. And becoming rigid and even regressing to lower reasoning is not uncommon in adults, and not all adults ever become capable of reasoning at the highest levels at all. Moral or otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org...

In Kohlberg's empirical studies of individuals throughout their life Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality.[8] In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4½ or 4+, a transition from stage four to stage five, that shared characteristics of both.[8] In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong.[8] Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.[8][13]

Another study such as the one mentioned in this thread, with some dismaying results.

www.jdentaled.org...




[edit on 30-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]