OT Food for thought [Archive]

Scott Seidman

February 26th, 2004, 04:28 PM

Ken Fortenberry > wrote in news:jQo%
:

> I don't often find myself in agreement with Thomas Friedman and I'm
> not sure if I'll end up agreeing with this column, but it did cause
> me to think of outsourcing in a different way. This will be of little
> consolation to those whose jobs have disappeared, but it is food for
> thought.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
>
> Also in today's Times, (scary **** this ;-), a front page article
> on Max Cleland that could have been culled from the pages of roff,
> well, with a little bit of editing and a whole lot of cleaning up. ;-)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/politics/campaign/26CLEL.html
>

Ken--

I often find myself in agreement with Friedman (you might have noticed!),
but I think he's missing a little bit here.

His thoughts on US companies supporting international offices hold only
until Carrier and CocaCola move out of the US themselves, and of course
the issue of "net" jobs needs to be carefully calculated. If we're
losing high paid jobs to be replaced by a lesser number of blue collar
jobs, this isn't necessarily good.

I can agree with opinions widely expressed to the effect that
"something" will come along to replace those lost jobs. However, it
seems like when we're talking about something like people's ability to
feed their families, we should have a slightly better idea about what
that "something" is.

Maybe this wouldn't be a big issue if economies moved slowly, but today
technology is advancing things faster than economies can keep up. A
slightly protectionist attitude aimed towards slowing down labor shifts,
along with a steering-committee type plan regarding where our economy
should go, so long as there is a timetable for de-protection, might not
be the stupidest thing that the US could do.

Scott

George Adams

February 26th, 2004, 05:02 PM

>From: Scott Seidman

> However, it
>seems like when we're talking about something like people's ability to
>feed their families, we should have a slightly better idea about what
>that "something" is.

Yes, indeed.

>Maybe this wouldn't be a big issue if economies moved slowly, but today
>technology is advancing things faster than economies can keep up.

>A
>slightly protectionist attitude aimed towards slowing down labor shifts,
>along with a steering-committee type plan regarding where our economy
>should go, so long as there is a timetable for de-protection, might not
>be the stupidest thing that the US could do.

I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the
future. It took about ten years before outsourcing really had a major impact on
manufacturing jobs, but it only took a very short time to impact call centers,
etc.

Another thing that worries me: I contually hear people from all over the
political spectrum fret over our dependence on foriegn oil....how about our
dependence on foriegn manufacturing?

George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

February 26th, 2004, 05:05 PM

Thanks Ken

Interesting info........

Bill Kiene (in FL)

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> I don't often find myself in agreement with Thomas Friedman and I'm
> not sure if I'll end up agreeing with this column, but it did cause
> me to think of outsourcing in a different way. This will be of little
> consolation to those whose jobs have disappeared, but it is food for
> thought.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
>
> Also in today's Times, (scary **** this ;-), a front page article
> on Max Cleland that could have been culled from the pages of roff,
> well, with a little bit of editing and a whole lot of cleaning up. ;-)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/politics/campaign/26CLEL.html
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>
>

Cable Speed Test

February 26th, 2004, 09:28 PM

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...
> I don't often find myself in agreement with Thomas Friedman and I'm
> not sure if I'll end up agreeing with this column, but it did cause
> me to think of outsourcing in a different way. This will be of little
> consolation to those whose jobs have disappeared, but it is food for
> thought.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
>

> --
> Ken Fortenberry

Dateline 2012

In an expected move most large US corporations announced that they
were following the logical trend and outsourcing all of their
customers to Europe and Asia.

One source was quoted as saying:

"It's a dynamic new business model, since we offshored our jobs to
India and the Phillipines there aren't enough US consumers left that
can afford our products.

Fortunately, Europe protects their worker's jobs so they can still
purchase, and now that the incomes of the south and east Asians have
increased dramatically, due to Offshoring, we see tham as an exciting
new market."

Jonathan Cook

February 26th, 2004, 11:29 PM

(George Adams) wrote in message >...

> I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
> stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the

Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only
benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself
when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would
happen if everyone did it?".

Outsourcing assumes that those who produce the product cannot
afford to buy it. Or, put another way, it's goal is to pay wages
to build a product lower than it takes to make someone a consumer
of the product. If all jobs (i.e., wages) are outsourced to a
cheaper market, no one is left to buy the product. The whole thing
fails on the asymptote.

What's the alternative? Having goods produced in the market they
are intended for. Yes, that means everything would cost more. Some
things alot more. Yes, that means no KPOS 3wt (OBROFF). Yes, that
means we would all have to own less. But that wouldn't be a bad thing
for most of us...

I'm ready for flames. I understand the downsides of protectionism
and all that. All I'm saying (as I did for a different topic way
back when rw was touting a Linux stock) is we're in a Ponzi scheme.
We live at a standard that is unsustainable, as it is achieved through
unsustainable "optimizations". It _will_ fail eventually, the only
question is when. And I for one am starting to think sooner rather
than later...

Jon.

George Adams

February 27th, 2004, 12:04 AM

>Outsourcing assumes that those who produce the product cannot
>afford to buy it. Or, put another way, it's goal is to pay wages
>to build a product lower than it takes to make someone a consumer
>of the product.

There are two major reasons for the current outsourcing mania:

1. The "Wal-Mart" syndrome. As wages in the U.S. drop because the "real" jobs
are gone, prices of goods must be reduced so that the average consumer can
still afford to buy. This is accomplished by outsourcing and by economy of
scale. How much longer before Wal-Mart is the only store left.

2. Return on investments. The pressure is on corporate CEO's not only to show a
profit, but to maximize profits, basically to satisfy investors with short
attention spans who seek instant gratification from the stock market. Ever
notice how a stock climbs after a company announces a layoff?

Eventually this bubble, like the hi tech bubble is going to burst. When the
manufacturing jobs started going overseas, the word was that all was well, and
we would develop a "service economy". Now the service jobs are going too. The
momentum is such that it seems unlikely it can be stopped in the foreseeable
future, but it somehow has to be slowed down long enough to formulste a
strategy to keep work here, and that ain't gonna be easy. Try explaining to the
average consumer why the digital camera that used to cost $200 is now $600.

George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Skwala

February 27th, 2004, 12:35 AM

"Jonathan Cook" > wrote in message
m...
> (George Adams) wrote in message
>...
>
< a lot of sensible stuff snipped>

It _will_ fail eventually, the only
> question is when. And I for one am starting to think sooner rather
> than later...
>
> Jon.

I couldn't agree more.. When Teva sandles moved to Indonesia, Teva's
averaged around 60 bucks a pair, and production costs at their Portland
facility were something like $13,000 per hour**, a few years after the move,
production costs had dropped to a couple of thousand an hour, and a pair of
sandle put you back $79.95.

** its been a while since i actually looked at these numbers, so if I got it
wrong somewhere, mea culpa.

Tim J.

February 27th, 2004, 12:55 AM

"George Adams" wrote...
> >Outsourcing assumes that those who produce the product cannot
> >afford to buy it. Or, put another way, it's goal is to pay wages
> >to build a product lower than it takes to make someone a consumer
> >of the product.
>
> There are two major reasons for the current outsourcing mania:
>
> 1. The "Wal-Mart" syndrome. As wages in the U.S. drop because the "real" jobs
> are gone, prices of goods must be reduced so that the average consumer can
> still afford to buy. This is accomplished by outsourcing and by economy of
> scale. How much longer before Wal-Mart is the only store left.
>
> 2. Return on investments. The pressure is on corporate CEO's not only to show
a
> profit, but to maximize profits, basically to satisfy investors with short
> attention spans who seek instant gratification from the stock market. Ever
> notice how a stock climbs after a company announces a layoff?
>
> Eventually this bubble, like the hi tech bubble is going to burst. When the
> manufacturing jobs started going overseas, the word was that all was well, and
> we would develop a "service economy". Now the service jobs are going too. The
> momentum is such that it seems unlikely it can be stopped in the foreseeable
> future, but it somehow has to be slowed down long enough to formulste a
> strategy to keep work here, and that ain't gonna be easy. Try explaining to
the
> average consumer why the digital camera that used to cost $200 is now $600.

Just as a tangent, I just had an *awful* experience with obviously outsourced
support. The voice of the person on the other end (three separate phone calls)
was muffled, reverberated, and echo-chambered. Couple that with a heavy foreign
accent and I had to have the person repeat everything two or three times, then
they got mad at *me* for having to do that. If anyone is interested, the company
is TracFone.

My job revolves around giving quality support to our clients. If we, as
consumers, continue to put up with this low quality service we'll get what we
deserve - crap. I'd rather pay a bit more and get decent service than to pay a
little less for an outsourcer (new word?) to read me the same instructions three
times I just read on their website.

Two rants in one day. Do I win a prize?
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Peter Charles

February 27th, 2004, 01:13 AM

On 26 Feb 2004 15:29:27 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
wrote:

(George Adams) wrote in message >...
>
>> I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
>> stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the
>
>Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only
>benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself
>when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would
>happen if everyone did it?".
>
[snip]
>
>Jon.

Is it all bad? Well maybe yes, maybe no. The decline in trade
unionism is also mirroring a decline in well-paying blue collar
manufacturing jobs and seeing them replaced by non-union McJobs.
Employment standards are eroding in parallel with union decline as
these standards were dependent on the political clout of the unions to
to maintain them. In manufacturing it appears we are in a race to the
bottom. The Walmartification of both our economies is well under way.

But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it
isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England,
social institutions have never kept pace with technological
advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.
Capital is extrermely mobile, production is very mobile, but labour is
not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes
rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started
up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology.

When NAFTA was signed into law, Ross Perot predicted there would be a
huge sucking sound made by all of the jobs flowing south across the
border. He was right. Canada and especially Ontario, was shoved into
the throes of a vicious recession as huge numbers of manufacturing
jobs flowed out of high standards, high wage Ontario, into the low
standards, low wage states of the US. The manufacturing sector of
Ontario was gutted. Ontario was a miserable place to be in the early
1990s for our earning power fell steadily behind that of the US. At
the beginning of the decade, I might have had the earning power of my
equivalent in the US but by the end of the decade, it was around 60%
to 70% of that level. Had we enjoyed a free trade agreement in
labour, we would not have had this earning loss for our skilled
workers could have followed their jobs to the US. Those companies
that remained would have had to compete with US salaries to retain
those workers and our salaries would have kept up. But NAFTA did not
include a free trade in labour and the remnents of Ontario's
manufacturing sector started to enjoy the benefits of a captive,
passive, and insecure labour force.

Was it the end of the world? No. Modern economies are very resilient
and Ontario turned around so much so that, by the end of the decade,
it was roaring along, outpacing the US. We still have plenty of
problems, largely caused by declining tax revenue (as a percentage of
GDP), due in large part by our inability to make corporations pay
their fair share and have them stay in Canada. In teh 1960's, the
income tax take was split roughly 50-50 between personal and corporate
sources. Today, the corporate share is only about 7%. The tax burden
falls disproportionately on the middle class to support both the poor
and the corporate welfare bums. Consequently, much of our public
infrastructure is eroding. But, we're doing OK. We do have a growing
disparity in wages as the working poor contiue to decline, but a new
entrepreneur class, high tech industries, and other growth sectors are
leading to a resurgence in earning power.

So, the current trend in the US will balance out. The
Walmartification of the US economy will hurt, especially considering
the cost of the war and the fiscal ineptitude of the current
administration, yet it will turn around. I do know that protectionism
would be just about the worst thing you could do. Whatever job losses
you stem in those under-competitive, declining sectors, they will be
more than offset by job losses in other sectors in the economy,
directly caused by protectionism. Protectionism helps the declining
sectors of your economy and punishes the performing sectors. I always
laugh when I hear the righties wail about the need for protectionism
because it's such a lefty thing to do.

RDL's comments in a previous thread are symptomatic of the arrogant
blindness that prevents many Americans from understanding just how
dependent the maintenance of their well being depends on other
nations. Protectionism in the US has always been bolstered by the
notion that America can go it alone. America never has been able to
go it alone and it can't especially now. It's a nice little fantasy
but it has never been true. Hell, American males even need a foreign
contry to help them with their hard-ons. The next you take the little
blue pill to get a stiffy, remember to hum a few bars of, "Rule
Britannia" in gratitude.

Globalization is probably the grandest expermiment in human history.
So please do remember to fasten your seat belts as the ride will be a
little rough. Oh, and please do remember that the global trade rules
driving Globalization are maintained by the WTO and supported by other
international organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF, and
international trade agreements like NAFTA. Institutions and agrements
that were developed in American, by America, for the benefit of
America. This game is being played out according to your rules so it
still works out in your favour more often than not.

So, remember the little blue pill, the next to time you get the urge
to vote the protectionist line and do both your lady and your country
a favour.

(BTW,. if you're having trouble squaring this post with my last one, I
figure it's pointless to swim against the tide -- also a decent
metaphor for protectionism and globalization.)

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Tom Littleton

February 27th, 2004, 01:35 AM

Jon writes:
>I'm ready for flames. I understand the downsides of protectionism
>and all that. All I'm saying (as I did for a different topic way
>back when rw was touting a Linux stock) is we're in a Ponzi scheme.
>We live at a standard that is unsustainable, as it is achieved through
>unsustainable "optimizations"

What flames? It seems you have presented a perfectly logical explanation of the
current American economy. When I think of the level of personal debt
accumulating, I shudder at the crash. It will come, and sooner than most
imagine....
Oh, and it WILL be ugly.
Tom

Allen Epps

February 27th, 2004, 01:48 AM

In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:

> On 26 Feb 2004 15:29:27 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
> wrote:
>
> (George Adams) wrote in message
> >...
> >
> >> I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
> >> stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the
> >
> >Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only
> >benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself
> >when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would
> >happen if everyone did it?".
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >Jon.
>
>snipped
>
> But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it
> isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England,
> social institutions have never kept pace with technological
> advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.
> Capital is extrermely mobile, production is very mobile, but labour is
> not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes
> rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started
> up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology.
>
More Petah's pertinent stuff snipped

It's true, I understand the buggy whip and barrel stave making trades
are expecting large layoffs. ;)
Since we evolved into a mfg society it's been a case of continual
education and awareness of the viabiiity of ones trade to earn a living
and to ensure you have a job in the mid and long term. Not saying it's
the best way and not saying that formal or OJT education alone will
save you but it seems to be reality. The other thing I note is folks
seem to not want to move to find jobs. I was out hiking in the
Patapsco forest with the dog last fall and ran into an older guy
sitting on the bank tying a new leader. I stopped and exchanged
pleasantries and he mined me for a bit of information about my home
river (FF'ing content noted). He had just moved from Dallas and was in
the large building construction industry business. He said the
DC-Baltimore corridor was experiencing the highest rate of commercial
building construction in the country yet he couldn't get workers to
move here. I asked if it was a pay issue since this is a high cost of
living area and he said they were paying union wages plus a 30% cost of
living allowance and even still they were about 50% manned on the three
sites he was a foreman for. Maybe since I grew up in Chicago, moved to
Indianpolis in HS, Lived in Pensacola for flight school, then
Washington state and then Marlyland I've learned that each part of this
country (and our friends to the north Peter!) have something to offer
that's worth seeing so if the jobs worth doing or it's what has to be
done to earn a living I'd be willing to relocate.

Allen
Catonsville, MD (for now)

Mike Connor

February 27th, 2004, 04:03 AM

"Jonathan Cook" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
m...
<SNIP>
> Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only
> benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself
> when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would
> happen if everyone did it?".
>
<SNIP>

This apparently dangerous tendency is now rampant all over the Western
world.Unemployment is running ever higher, economies are slumping,
governments waste time and money trying to control things outside their
power, or lining thweir own pockets, and all the while, crime and other
problems are increasing rapidly. Trade unions are losing all their political
clout, and globalisation advances every day.

The world population is steadily increasing, and more and more resources are
getting close to the "bottom of the pot". The Western world is living far
above its means.

This however, has been the case since the beginning of the industrial
revolution, but the ball was not rolling quite so rapidly, or on such a
huge scale. Massive advances in communications technology, in which we are
at present taking part on this group, are also playing a major part in this.

There is really no telling where it will end. Best case would be a unified
world, with a controlled population, and equal opportunity.

Worst case? I have no idea. Global war maybe?

TL
MC

Joe McIntosh

February 27th, 2004, 01:42 PM

"Peter Charles" > > wrote:
>
> >
> But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it
> isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England,
> social institutions have never kept pace with technological
> advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.
> Capital is extremely mobile, production is very mobile, but labor is
> not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes
> rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started
> up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology.
>
>>
>
> RDL's comments in a previous thread are symptomatic of the arrogant
> blindness that prevents many Americans from understanding just how
> dependent the maintenance of their well being depends on other
> nations. Protectionism in the US has always been bolstered by the
> notion that America can go it alone. > Britannia" in gratitude.
>
> Globalization is probably the grandest experiment in human history.
> So please do remember to fasten your seat belts as the ride will be a
> little rough. >
> Peter
>
IJ offers----good stuff peter - I'm currently enjoying a course at our
local college on global economic history and have been amazed to learn
more about Britannia's end of empire in U.S., Africa, and India.
I think empire U.S. will more likely follow the example of the Ottoman
Empire--it just went bankrupt.

Jonathan Cook

February 27th, 2004, 01:44 PM

Peter Charles > wrote in message >...

> Is it all bad?

Of course not, for the top 10% or so (of which I am one, I guess).
We still need the 90% to serve us meals, fix our car, do our
yardwork, and be our ghillie on the river (OBROFF).

> Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.

That's nice and sanitized, but _people_ are having to live it.

> Modern economies are very resilient
> and Ontario turned around so much so that, by the end of the decade,
> it was roaring along

For the top 10% or for everyone?

>... Consequently, much of our public
> infrastructure is eroding. But, we're doing OK. We do have a growing
> disparity in wages as the working poor contiue to decline

Sounds like you're heading towards feudalization as fast as we are...

> laugh when I hear the righties wail about the need for protectionism
> because it's such a lefty thing to do.

IMO it's populist, not right or left.

> that were developed in American, by America, for the benefit of
> America. This game is being played out according to your rules so it
> still works out in your favour more often than not.

Oh, I know. It makes it easier to delude the 90% (of Americans) that
they're not heading towards serfdom because the effects aren't seen
by them as quickly.

Jon.

PS: Actually, I don't begrudge other countries wanting to provide
more and better jobs for their people -- 90% of the gradute students
who have worked with me are foreign, and are great people. But as
you say, the global trade rules don't really help them either -- just
treats them as more serfs. I understand the world that technology,
communication, transportation, and all that makes, and no, I don't
have any answers. I just think it's plain as day that the ROFFians
my age (quickly heading towards 40) and under better start thinking
about how they might plan for some _serious_ societal upheaval.

George Adams

February 27th, 2004, 02:11 PM

Peter Charles wrote in

> laugh when I hear the righties wail about >the need for protectionism
>because it's such a lefty thing to do.

Actually, the biggest hue and cry in the U.S. comes from the unions, who
tradtionally vote the liberal ticket.

George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

February 27th, 2004, 04:46 PM

In article >, Mike-
says...
> This apparently dangerous tendency is now rampant all over the Western
> world.Unemployment is running ever higher, economies are slumping,
> governments waste time and money trying to control things outside their
> power, or lining thweir own pockets, and all the while, crime and other
> problems are increasing rapidly. Trade unions are losing all their political
> clout, and globalisation advances every day.
>
> The world population is steadily increasing, and more and more resources are
> getting close to the "bottom of the pot". The Western world is living far
> above its means.

.....dogs and cats, living together....

Seriously, western world is definitely living above it's means, but much
of the rest is rather melodramatic. At least in the US, crime has been
dropping fast, population growth in the western world is slowing (some
areas of Europe are already worrying about their populations
decreasing).

- Ken

Scott Seidman

February 27th, 2004, 05:00 PM

George Adams

February 27th, 2004, 08:58 PM

>From: (Greg Pavlov)

>On 27 Feb 2004 14:11:20 GMT, (George Adams)
>wrote:

>>Actually, the biggest hue and cry in the U.S. comes from the unions, who
>>tradtionally vote the liberal ticket.

> ... like Ronald Reagan's and George Wallace's....
> If you're talking about the leadership, on the other
> hand, you are probably right.

What with elections coming up, both parties have been crying over the loss of
jobs to outsourcing, and giving lip service to some solution, but I doubt that
either one is sincere. Sincerity is a scarce commodity in an election year.

Some unions, especially law enforcement types, tend to vote Republican, but to
my knowledge, trade and labor unions usually vote the liberal ticket. Reagan?
After he busted the Air Traffic Controllers union he was on organized labor's
hate list.

George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Peter Charles

February 28th, 2004, 09:53 PM

On 27 Feb 2004 05:44:35 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in message >...
>
>> Is it all bad?
>
>Of course not, for the top 10% or so (of which I am one, I guess).
>We still need the 90% to serve us meals, fix our car, do our
>yardwork, and be our ghillie on the river (OBROFF).
>
>> Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.
>
>That's nice and sanitized, but _people_ are having to live it.
>
>> Modern economies are very resilient
>> and Ontario turned around so much so that, by the end of the decade,
>> it was roaring along
>
>For the top 10% or for everyone?
>
>>... Consequently, much of our public
>> infrastructure is eroding. But, we're doing OK. We do have a growing
>> disparity in wages as the working poor contiue to decline
>
>Sounds like you're heading towards feudalization as fast as we are...
>
>> laugh when I hear the righties wail about the need for protectionism
>> because it's such a lefty thing to do.
>
>IMO it's populist, not right or left.
>
>> that were developed in American, by America, for the benefit of
>> America. This game is being played out according to your rules so it
>> still works out in your favour more often than not.
>
>Oh, I know. It makes it easier to delude the 90% (of Americans) that
>they're not heading towards serfdom because the effects aren't seen
>by them as quickly.
>
>Jon.
>
>PS: Actually, I don't begrudge other countries wanting to provide
>more and better jobs for their people -- 90% of the gradute students
>who have worked with me are foreign, and are great people. But as
>you say, the global trade rules don't really help them either -- just
>treats them as more serfs. I understand the world that technology,
>communication, transportation, and all that makes, and no, I don't
>have any answers. I just think it's plain as day that the ROFFians
>my age (quickly heading towards 40) and under better start thinking
>about how they might plan for some _serious_ societal upheaval.

You mistake me for someone who believes the neo-con rational. I
don't. I believe in the power of the neo-con approach to globalize
the US economy and to produce enormous amounts of wealth. I have
absolutely no confidence that the neo-con approach is capoable of
distributing it in any sort of equitable fashion.

When I use the word "equitable", it will likely strike one of two
chords. The neo-con (BTW, can we use the proper term here --
"Neo-liberal"? The neo-con ideology is actually a return to classic
Liberalism.) considers "equitable" to be the accumulation of wealth by
anyone who "earns" it. The Socialist postion would consider
"equitable" to mean that the government redistributes the wealth to
the poor.

The Neo-liberal approach results in three classes, a super wealthy
class, a professional cadre who provide essential knowlege and skill
serives to the super wealthy, and a vast under class of desparately
poor. The Socialist approach, if talken to the extreme, results in
everyone being poor, but not to extent of the desparate state of the
Neo-liberal under-class.

The sucess of the liberal-deomcratic state, has been to balance these
two extremes into a reasonable third way. However, with the decline
of the relative power of the nation state vs. the corporate sector,
the balance has been shifted. To illustrate this point, 50 of the top
100 economies in the world are trans-national corporations. 350
corporations control 50% of the world's trade. As the US leads the
world in this regard, what passes for US policy influences the rest.
Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as
the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at
independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care
system is under such pressure.

Unless we can restore some balance, expect the drift toward the
Neo-liberal ideal to continue. And with that drift, expect more wars
and more Osama bin Ladens to emerge, for the under-class never wants
to go away quietly. Unfortunately, the redress of this balance can
only be achieved through serious US electoral finance reform and that
doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon anytime soon.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

ArnSaga

February 28th, 2004, 10:17 PM

<< Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as
the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at
independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care
system is under such pressure. >> 
<< Peter Charles >> 
Missed the connection on how that occurs. Not arguing, just trying to
understand the specific connection.
Thanks.

GKT

February 28th, 2004, 10:39 PM

ArnSaga wrote:
> << Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as
> the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at
> independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care
> system is under such pressure. >> 
> << Peter Charles >> 
> Missed the connection on how that occurs. Not arguing, just trying to
> understand the specific connection.
> Thanks.

Canadians have a tendency to blame all their problems on the US. This is
the first time, however, I've heard a Canadian blaming the looming
failure of their health care system on the US.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Peter Charles

February 28th, 2004, 11:00 PM

On 28 Feb 2004 22:17:14 GMT, (ArnSaga) wrote:

><< Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as
>the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at
>independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care
>system is under such pressure. >> 
><< Peter Charles >> 
>Missed the connection on how that occurs. Not arguing, just trying to
>understand the specific connection.
>Thanks.
>
>GKT

On health care?

It occurs at multiple levels. Without going into a great song and
dance -- here's the highlights:

Low US tax regimes and free trade prevent Canadian jurisdictions from
taxing corporations at a sufficient level that would ensure the
viability of the system. If we raise taxes, they leave.

The for-profit US medical system lobbies hard to open up the Canadian
market. There is a significant corporate interest in seeing our
health care system fail. With the increasing influence of the
corporate sector on government policy, it is only a matter of time
before their viewpoint prevails. This will be sold to the Canadian
public on the basis that we could no longer "afford universal health
care". How we will afford the more expensive for-profit version won't
be explained.

The best and the brightest are attracted to the US by the high
salaries of the for-profit system. As an example, US hospitals
regularly send teams to Toronto to hire away our nurses as they are
better trained than their US counterparts.

US right wing ideology influences Canadian right wing parties to adopt
free market solutions for social problems (e.g. Mike Harris style
approaches). The free markety ideologues first wreck the public
system by systematic underfunding and politically directed
bureaucratic interference, then introduce free market approaches to
"save" it. Standard tactics used on a wide range of public
institutions.

NAFTA provisions restrict Canadian governments in a variety of policy
areas, one of which being health care, so Canadian governments cannot
formulate a Canadian policy on the Canadian medical industry --
whatever it regulates must be subservient to NAFTA treaty provisions.

Candian governments have dificulty maintaining distinct policies
against heavy US pressure. The current drug pricing controversy being
the most recent example. In past years, the Canadian government caved
in to the US drug industry regarding patent protection.

Someone more versed in the industry than I can no doubt produce a
dozens more examples.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

February 28th, 2004, 11:04 PM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:39:28 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>ArnSaga wrote:
>> << Canada, for example, cannot forge an independent economic policy as
>> the immense economic power of the US overwhelms any attempt at
>> independence. This is the primary reason why the Canadian health care
>> system is under such pressure. >> 
>> << Peter Charles >> 
>> Missed the connection on how that occurs. Not arguing, just trying to
>> understand the specific connection.
>> Thanks.
>
>Canadians have a tendency to blame all their problems on the US. This is
>the first time, however, I've heard a Canadian blaming the looming
>failure of their health care system on the US.

Not true, we blame almost everything on ourselves. The Canadian
pysche tends to be neurotic and lacking in self-confidence. The US
example is usually trotted out as the saviour, not the cause. You
should read the Toronto Sun newspaper -- it loves everything US and
can't wait to replicate it in Canada.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Willi

February 28th, 2004, 11:04 PM

Greg Pavlov wrote:

> On 26 Feb 2004 15:29:27 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
> wrote:
>
>
>>We live at a standard that is unsustainable, as it is achieved through
>>unsustainable "optimizations". It _will_ fail eventually, the only
>>question is when. And I for one am starting to think sooner rather
>>than later...
>
>
> It will fail for the majority of our citizens, but
> several million will do quite well. With sufficient
> protection, they will enjoy their status. In other
> words, look at any country with a small or non-
> existent middle class and you will see a mirror of
> our future. And it will come about through the
> collapse of the value of the dollar: that will be
> the only way, at the rate we are going, that we
> will ever be able to repay our major debt holders
> overseas. There is some belief that Communist
> China, which is currently propping up this
> administration by buying up billions of dollars in
> US currency, is beginning to catch on to this
> possibility.
>

Both China and Japan are very heavily invested in the US dollar.

The Chinese are beginning to put moneys into currencies other than the
US dollar and there are rumblings about China freeing their yuan from
its ties to the US dollar. It is the consensus opinion that the yuan is
significantly under valued because of these ties.

Willi

Willi

February 28th, 2004, 11:05 PM

Peter Charles wrote:

> Unless we can restore some balance, expect the drift toward the
> Neo-liberal ideal to continue. And with that drift, expect more wars
> and more Osama bin Ladens to emerge, for the under-class never wants
> to go away quietly. Unfortunately, the redress of this balance can
> only be achieved through serious US electoral finance reform and that
> doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon anytime soon.

The "reform" that I think is likely to happen will occur when the US
loses its leading economic position, which is something I believe we'll
see within our life times. There are other countries in the World with
much more vibrant, stronger growing economies that will soon surpass
that of the US and I don't think the US is going to know how to be
"second rate."

Willi

Peter Charles

February 28th, 2004, 11:30 PM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:04:43 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>Greg Pavlov wrote:
>
>> On 26 Feb 2004 15:29:27 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We live at a standard that is unsustainable, as it is achieved through
>>>unsustainable "optimizations". It _will_ fail eventually, the only
>>>question is when. And I for one am starting to think sooner rather
>>>than later...
>>
>>
>> It will fail for the majority of our citizens, but
>> several million will do quite well. With sufficient
>> protection, they will enjoy their status. In other
>> words, look at any country with a small or non-
>> existent middle class and you will see a mirror of
>> our future. And it will come about through the
>> collapse of the value of the dollar: that will be
>> the only way, at the rate we are going, that we
>> will ever be able to repay our major debt holders
>> overseas. There is some belief that Communist
>> China, which is currently propping up this
>> administration by buying up billions of dollars in
>> US currency, is beginning to catch on to this
>> possibility.
>>
>
>Both China and Japan are very heavily invested in the US dollar.
>
>The Chinese are beginning to put moneys into currencies other than the
>US dollar and there are rumblings about China freeing their yuan from
>its ties to the US dollar. It is the consensus opinion that the yuan is
>significantly under valued because of these ties.
>
>Willi

>
>
Britain is still the biggest contributor of FDI to the US by a long
shot -- maybe that explains Blair's rational . . . . .

2001 numbers, Britain 217.7 billion USD. Japan is next at 160 billion.
This trend has been ongoing for years. Britain's contribution is
larger than all of Asia and the Pacific in 2001.

There is a second problem that isn't covered in these numbers and
that's the accumulation of US dollars in countries enjoying a current
account surplus with the US. Most of those countries are friendly
trading partners of the US and are not likely to cause any problems.
The last time this was a major problem, the oil crisis of 1974
conveniently redressed the balance.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 12:59 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:05:44 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>
>> Unless we can restore some balance, expect the drift toward the
>> Neo-liberal ideal to continue. And with that drift, expect more wars
>> and more Osama bin Ladens to emerge, for the under-class never wants
>> to go away quietly. Unfortunately, the redress of this balance can
>> only be achieved through serious US electoral finance reform and that
>> doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon anytime soon.
>
>The "reform" that I think is likely to happen will occur when the US
>loses its leading economic position, which is something I believe we'll
>see within our life times. There are other countries in the World with
>much more vibrant, stronger growing economies that will soon surpass
>that of the US and I don't think the US is going to know how to be
>"second rate."
>
>Willi

>

There's no doubt that the WalMartification of the US ecponomy is
causing some shifts and that the current adiminstration's policies are
making things worse, but I doubt the US is going to drop into second
place any time soon. The EU is a bigger economy than that of the US
but, unless the US bullies and scares it into greater unitly, its
members will continue to behave like squabbling hens. China still has
a very long way to go. Russia is only just emerging from basket case
status.

The biggest threat to the US primacy is still an internal one.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Tim Lysyk

February 29th, 2004, 01:14 AM

rw wrote:
> Canadians have a tendency to blame all their problems on the US. This is
> the first time, however, I've heard a Canadian blaming the looming
> failure of their health care system on the US.

Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
Canada. Canada was blamed for the attack against the WTC (the
accusations were made that the terrorists enetered the US from Canada,
whic was ludricous); the US blamed Canada for the power outage last
summer (it started in Ohio). The US has a rather large trade deficit
with Canada; Canada sends a lot more goods to the US than the US does to
Canada. As a result, the US usually drums up some bogus reason for
imposing imposing tarriffs on goods imported from Canada because you
cannot compete otherwise (softwood lumber, durum wheat....). The WTO
has ruled against the US 10 of the last 14 times the US has placed
tariffs on imports from Canada.

As far as our health care system....most Canadians are still satisifed
with it, and the only reason it is peril is because of the efforts of
corporate medical care companies to convince us otherwise. I get
excellent care, so does my mother who is institutionalized because of
Alzheimer's, so does my wife and kids. I pay $600 a year for complete
health care coverage. When I lived in the US, it cost us over $3,000 for
our child to be born. The differnece in care....Canada's was better.

Tim Lysyk

February 29th, 2004, 02:00 AM

Peter Charles wrote:

> You
> should read the Toronto Sun newspaper -- it loves everything US and
> can't wait to replicate it in Canada.

You missed your chance in the Revolution.

God knows, we tried. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Peter Charles wrote:

>
>
>
> There's no doubt that the WalMartification of the US ecponomy is
> causing some shifts and that the current adiminstration's policies are
> making things worse, but I doubt the US is going to drop into second
> place any time soon. The EU is a bigger economy than that of the US
> but, unless the US bullies and scares it into greater unitly, its
> members will continue to behave like squabbling hens. China still has
> a very long way to go. Russia is only just emerging from basket case
> status.
>
> The biggest threat to the US primacy is still an internal one.

In terms of standard of living, China does have a long way to go, but
that just gives them more room for economic growth. China's Gross
Domestic Product has averaged 10% growth over the last 25 years and is
currently at that rate. The US has averaged a little over 3% and is
presently at that rate. By my figures, China's GDP should surpass the
US's within 10 years. After that, I think the US gets left in the dust.
The cat is out of the bag in China and I see their present situation
similar to where the US was during the Industrial Revolution.

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 02:03 AM

Tim Lysyk wrote:
>
> Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
> Canada.

Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada is.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 02:03 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:03:11 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>Tim Lysyk wrote:
>>
>> Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
>> Canada.
>
>Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada is.

He is serious - have you forgotten mad cow? And they don't have to
know where Canada is, they just have to believe the talking head on
CNN.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 02:05 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:01:38 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> There's no doubt that the WalMartification of the US ecponomy is
>> causing some shifts and that the current adiminstration's policies are
>> making things worse, but I doubt the US is going to drop into second
>> place any time soon. The EU is a bigger economy than that of the US
>> but, unless the US bullies and scares it into greater unitly, its
>> members will continue to behave like squabbling hens. China still has
>> a very long way to go. Russia is only just emerging from basket case
>> status.
>>
>> The biggest threat to the US primacy is still an internal one.
>
>
>In terms of standard of living, China does have a long way to go, but
>that just gives them more room for economic growth. China's Gross
>Domestic Product has averaged 10% growth over the last 25 years and is
>currently at that rate. The US has averaged a little over 3% and is
>presently at that rate. By my figures, China's GDP should surpass the
>US's within 10 years. After that, I think the US gets left in the dust.
>The cat is out of the bag in China and I see their present situation
>similar to where the US was during the Industrial Revolution.
>
>Willi

Nothing goes straight up forever, especially in economics.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Tim Lysyk

February 29th, 2004, 02:11 AM

rw wrote:
> Tim Lysyk wrote:
>
>>
>> Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
>> Canada.
>
>
> Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada is.
>
I am quite serious. Since when did ignorance ever prevent someone from
doling out the blame or making accusations? Take yourself for example......

Tim Lysyk

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 02:17 AM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:08:56 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:30:05 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>
>>There is a second problem that isn't covered in these numbers and
>>that's the accumulation of US dollars in countries enjoying a current
>>account surplus with the US.
>
>
> That is what I was talking about. I believe China is
> holding betw $400 and $500 billion.

If Bush keeps running up the deficit, the money will be back in the US
and China will be holding the notes. I don't know which is worse.

Britain was humbled by war debt held by the US (the last WWII payment
was made in 2000) so there is a possibility that if the Bush
Administration keeps indulging in military adventures, the resulting
debt load could have the same effect.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 02:22 AM

Peter Charles wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:01:38 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>
>>
>>In terms of standard of living, China does have a long way to go, but
>>that just gives them more room for economic growth. China's Gross
>>Domestic Product has averaged 10% growth over the last 25 years and is
>>currently at that rate. The US has averaged a little over 3% and is
>>presently at that rate. By my figures, China's GDP should surpass the
>>US's within 10 years. After that, I think the US gets left in the dust.
>>The cat is out of the bag in China and I see their present situation
>>similar to where the US was during the Industrial Revolution.
>>
>>Willi

>
>
> Nothing goes straight up forever, especially in economics.

Actually that is part of my argument - but coming from a different point
than yours. China is in the first stages of becoming an industrialized
nation giving them the opportunity for growth in every facet of their
economy. The US's economy is mature with much less opportunity for
growth. Personally, I think it will take less than the 10 year figure I
used. I correspond through emails with a couple gentlemen in China.
Pretty exciting times there right now.

Willi

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 02:36 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:22:14 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:01:38 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In terms of standard of living, China does have a long way to go, but
>>>that just gives them more room for economic growth. China's Gross
>>>Domestic Product has averaged 10% growth over the last 25 years and is
>>>currently at that rate. The US has averaged a little over 3% and is
>>>presently at that rate. By my figures, China's GDP should surpass the
>>>US's within 10 years. After that, I think the US gets left in the dust.
>>>The cat is out of the bag in China and I see their present situation
>>>similar to where the US was during the Industrial Revolution.
>>>
>>>Willi

>>
>>
>> Nothing goes straight up forever, especially in economics.
>
>
>Actually that is part of my argument - but coming from a different point
>than yours. China is in the first stages of becoming an industrialized
>nation giving them the opportunity for growth in every facet of their
>economy. The US's economy is mature with much less opportunity for
>growth. Personally, I think it will take less than the 10 year figure I
>used. I correspond through emails with a couple gentlemen in China.
>Pretty exciting times there right now.
>
>Willi

It depends on how they are managing their growth (and I have no info
on this whatsoever). Inflation could bite their ass, debt perhaps,
social unrest. Who knows, but I don't think I'd want to bet against
them.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 02:36 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:38:40 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>> He is serious - have you forgotten mad cow?
>
>Bad example, Peter.

Why? Explain

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

February 29th, 2004, 02:38 AM

Peter Charles wrote:
>
> He is serious - have you forgotten mad cow?

Bad example, Peter.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

February 29th, 2004, 03:46 AM

Peter Charles wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:38:40 -0700, rw
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>>>He is serious - have you forgotten mad cow?
>>
>>Bad example, Peter.
>
>
> Why? Explain

It's my understanding that genetic tests and records revealed that the
BSE-infected cow that was found in the US came from Canada.

Is the Canadian media reporting something different? If so, I'd like to
hear about it. I'm serious. I know the Canadian government objected to
the initial report as "premature," but AFAIK they haven't been defending
that position.

When this news came out, there was no anti-Canada sentiment in the US
that I ever heard, and some of my friends are cattle ranchers. It was
just one of those things.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 03:54 AM

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:46:29 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:38:40 -0700, rw
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Peter Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>>He is serious - have you forgotten mad cow?
>>>
>>>Bad example, Peter.
>>
>>
>> Why? Explain
>
>It's my understanding that genetic tests and records revealed that the
>BSE-infected cow that was found in the US came from Canada.
>
>Is the Canadian media reporting something different? If so, I'd like to
>hear about it. I'm serious. I know the Canadian government objected to
>the initial report as "premature," but AFAIK they haven't been defending
>that position.
>
>When this news came out, there was no anti-Canada sentiment in the US
>that I ever heard, and some of my friends are cattle ranchers. It was
>just one of those things.

No, the Canadian media did not report anything differently. However,
almost every CNN, NBC, etc. newscast on the subject went on and on
about this being a Canadian cow with the strong implication that the
US cattle industry was not to blame. You have probably heard that
Canada has had a recent case of mad cow disease that predates this
case and that the US closed its borders to Canadian beef as a result.
Did you also know that this cow origniated from a US herd? I suppose
CNN etc. left out that detail. Contrary to the CNN etc. coverage of
the US case, the Canadian media did not blame the US for our mad cow
case.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Wolfgang

February 29th, 2004, 04:56 AM

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> Tim Lysyk wrote:
> >
> > Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
> > Canada.
>
> Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada is.

Funny how you can make a very important point and not have a clue what it
is.

Wolfgang

February 29th, 2004, 06:09 AM

Wolfgang wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Tim Lysyk wrote:
>>
>>>Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
>>>Canada.
>>
>>Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada is.
>
>
> Funny how you can make a very important point and not have a clue what it
> is.

I intended it to be self-deprecating (being an American), but maybe you
didn't get that.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Wolfgang

February 29th, 2004, 06:18 AM

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >>Tim Lysyk wrote:
> >>
> >>>Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
> >>>Canada.
> >>
> >>Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada
is.
> >
> >
> > Funny how you can make a very important point and not have a clue what
it
> > is.
>
> I intended it to be self-deprecating (being an American),

Well, of course you did. :)

> but maybe you didn't get that.

Get serious.

Wolfgang

February 29th, 2004, 07:06 AM

Peter Charles wrote:
>
> No, the Canadian media did not report anything differently. However,
> almost every CNN, NBC, etc. newscast on the subject went on and on
> about this being a Canadian cow with the strong implication that the
> US cattle industry was not to blame. You have probably heard that
> Canada has had a recent case of mad cow disease that predates this
> case and that the US closed its borders to Canadian beef as a result.
> Did you also know that this cow origniated from a US herd? I suppose
> CNN etc. left out that detail. Contrary to the CNN etc. coverage of
> the US case, the Canadian media did not blame the US for our mad cow
> case.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that what you see on CNN, NBC,
etc. proves an anti-Canadian bias in America. Is that accurate?

My take is that the country of origin was a very important angle in the
recent BSE incident. Should that information have been suppressed?

Maybe you should tune into CBC occasionally.

Please believe me about this, Peter. Americans, by and large, are not
anti-Canadian. You are well below the radar. I think that's the real
problem that some Canadians have with America.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tim Lysyk

February 29th, 2004, 02:57 PM

rw wrote:
> Please believe me about this, Peter. Americans, by and large, are not
> anti-Canadian. You are well below the radar. I think that's the real
> problem that some Canadians have with America.

With respect to mad-cow disease, the real issue is not country of
origin, but the length of the US embargo against Canadian beef. Beef
imports into the US from Canada have been a long-standing issue between
the US and Canada. Before BSE, Canada shipped billions of $$ worth of
cattle to the US. For years, the US accussed Canada of unfair trade
practices, and at one time, placed a tarrif on incoming beef from
Canada. This was eventually overturned, but the issue remained. When
Canada had its one case of BSE, the US was the first to ban Canadian
beef. Canada did everything, and more, to demonstrate that the case was
isolated. Thousands of animals were slaughtered, and no other case was
found. The US has refused to lift its embargo on Canadian beef, even
though all the surveillance requirements were satisfied. The US is on
record as saying it will not lift the embargo until Canada addresses the
other issues that the US considers as unfair trading practice. The issue
has moved from science and food safety to politics, olitics that reflect
the anti-Canadian bias of your government. As a result, the Canadian
beef industry is suffering greatly, and rural economy in my area of the
country is also suffering. All because of long-standing US bias against
Canada.

Beleive me Steve, there is a huge anti-Canadian bias in your country. IT
has existed for years, has directly affected trade in spite of all the
free-trade agreements in place, and has been at its nadir ever since
your country appointed its current leadership. You don't see it because
of bias in your media. I have to deal with it daily.

George Cleveland

February 29th, 2004, 03:01 PM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:14:33 GMT, Tim Lysyk
> wrote:

>rw wrote:
>> Canadians have a tendency to blame all their problems on the US. This is
>> the first time, however, I've heard a Canadian blaming the looming
>> failure of their health care system on the US.
>
>Quite the opposite. It is usually the US who blames their problems on
>Canada. Canada was blamed for the attack against the WTC (the
>accusations were made that the terrorists enetered the US from Canada,
>whic was ludricous); the US blamed Canada for the power outage last
>summer (it started in Ohio). The US has a rather large trade deficit
>with Canada; Canada sends a lot more goods to the US than the US does to
>Canada. As a result, the US usually drums up some bogus reason for
>imposing imposing tarriffs on goods imported from Canada because you
>cannot compete otherwise (softwood lumber, durum wheat....). The WTO
>has ruled against the US 10 of the last 14 times the US has placed
>tariffs on imports from Canada.
>
>As far as our health care system....most Canadians are still satisifed
>with it, and the only reason it is peril is because of the efforts of
>corporate medical care companies to convince us otherwise. I get
>excellent care, so does my mother who is institutionalized because of
>Alzheimer's, so does my wife and kids. I pay $600 a year for complete
>health care coverage. When I lived in the US, it cost us over $3,000 for
>our child to be born. The differnece in care....Canada's was better.
>
>Tim Lysyk

And of course don't forget all those "unsafe" Canadian prescription
drugs that the US FDA won't allow into the country.

g.c.

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 03:48 PM

Tim Lysyk wrote:

> rw wrote:
>
>> Please believe me about this, Peter. Americans, by and large, are not
>> anti-Canadian. You are well below the radar. I think that's the real
>> problem that some Canadians have with America.
>
>
> With respect to mad-cow disease, the real issue is not country of
> origin, but the length of the US embargo against Canadian beef. Beef
> imports into the US from Canada have been a long-standing issue between
> the US and Canada. Before BSE, Canada shipped billions of $$ worth of
> cattle to the US. For years, the US accussed Canada of unfair trade
> practices, and at one time, placed a tarrif on incoming beef from
> Canada. This was eventually overturned, but the issue remained. When
> Canada had its one case of BSE, the US was the first to ban Canadian
> beef. Canada did everything, and more, to demonstrate that the case was
> isolated. Thousands of animals were slaughtered, and no other case was
> found. The US has refused to lift its embargo on Canadian beef, even
> though all the surveillance requirements were satisfied. The US is on
> record as saying it will not lift the embargo until Canada addresses the
> other issues that the US considers as unfair trading practice. The issue
> has moved from science and food safety to politics, olitics that reflect
> the anti-Canadian bias of your government. As a result, the Canadian
> beef industry is suffering greatly, and rural economy in my area of the
> country is also suffering. All because of long-standing US bias against
> Canada.
>
> Beleive me Steve, there is a huge anti-Canadian bias in your country. IT
> has existed for years, has directly affected trade in spite of all the
> free-trade agreements in place, and has been at its nadir ever since
> your country appointed its current leadership. You don't see it because
> of bias in your media. I have to deal with it daily.

There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle. The Canadian government
also regulates the price paid for drugs. I don't think that either of
these practices are necessarily bad, however, they do provide an unfair
playing field for American businesses competing in these fields. What
you would see as fair treatment to your country would be putting
American businesses at an unfair disadvantage.

Willi

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 04:09 PM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
>example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
>bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
>subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle. The Canadian government
>also regulates the price paid for drugs. I don't think that either of
>these practices are necessarily bad, however, they do provide an unfair
>playing field for American businesses competing in these fields. What
>you would see as fair treatment to your country would be putting
>American businesses at an unfair disadvantage.
>
>Willi

I'm sorry Willi, but for you to complain about real or imagined
subsidies of agriculture by foreign countries is incredibly
hypocritical considering the vast array of US agricultural subsidies
that exist. Canada is on record demanding a reduction of US and EU
agricultural subsidies but instead, we get this sort of crap over BSE.

Too bad we don't have a government with some balls . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 04:31 PM

Peter Charles wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
>>example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
>>bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
>>subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle. The Canadian government
>>also regulates the price paid for drugs. I don't think that either of
>>these practices are necessarily bad, however, they do provide an unfair
>>playing field for American businesses competing in these fields. What
>>you would see as fair treatment to your country would be putting
>>American businesses at an unfair disadvantage.
>>
>>Willi

>
>
> I'm sorry Willi, but for you to complain about real or imagined
> subsidies of agriculture by foreign countries is incredibly
> hypocritical considering the vast array of US agricultural subsidies
> that exist.

I wasn't complaining about the subsidies and I'm aware of some of the
subsidies in this country. Overall, I'm not in favor of this type of
corporate welfare. I was merely commenting that I think that subsidies
do complicate free trade and that the US policies aren't "all because of
long-standing bias against Canada." "All" governments place their own
country's economic welfare above that of other nations.

Whenever, any country's government substantially subsidizes a given
industry and that industry exports into another country without the
subsidies, it has a very unfair advantage. This can have VERY serious,
even devastating effects on that industry in the country without the
subsidies. This type of scenario does, IMO, merit trade restrictions.
This applies to the US as well as Canada or any other country.

Willi

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 05:15 PM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:31:57 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>

>>
>> I'm sorry Willi, but for you to complain about real or imagined
>> subsidies of agriculture by foreign countries is incredibly
>> hypocritical considering the vast array of US agricultural subsidies
>> that exist.
>
>I wasn't complaining about the subsidies and I'm aware of some of the
>subsidies in this country. Overall, I'm not in favor of this type of
>corporate welfare. I was merely commenting that I think that subsidies
>do complicate free trade and that the US policies aren't "all because of
>long-standing bias against Canada." "All" governments place their own
>country's economic welfare above that of other nations.
>
You're right about a lot of this not being the result of an
anti-Canadian bias, rather it's the actions of a politically powerful
industry seeking to paint Canada as some nasty, commie, subsidizing
state. We all know that subsidies are the only way a foreign industry
can beat a US industry. Any time a foreign industry starts getting a
bit of market share, it must be because they're cheating.

>Whenever, any country's government substantially subsidizes a given
>industry and that industry exports into another country without the
>subsidies, it has a very unfair advantage. This can have VERY serious,
>even devastating effects on that industry in the country without the
>subsidies. This type of scenario does, IMO, merit trade restrictions.
>This applies to the US as well as Canada or any other country.
>
>Willi

Quite true, but that isn't the case here at all -- not even close.
There are a lot of fairy tales being told to justify trade actions.

I'm sorry if I'm getting a little ****ed off, but I put up with this
sort of bull**** every time I channel surf past CNN so I really don't
want to have put up with it on ROFF as well.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Peter Charles wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:31:57 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>
> You're right about a lot of this not being the result of an
> anti-Canadian bias, rather it's the actions of a politically powerful
> industry seeking to paint Canada as some nasty, commie, subsidizing
> state. We all know that subsidies are the only way a foreign industry
> can beat a US industry. Any time a foreign industry starts getting a
> bit of market share, it must be because they're cheating.

I'm sure not saying that. I own stock in a Canadian company.

>
>
> Quite true, but that isn't the case here at all -- not even close.
> There are a lot of fairy tales being told to justify trade actions.
>
> I'm sorry if I'm getting a little ****ed off, but I put up with this
> sort of bull**** every time I channel surf past CNN so I really don't
> want to have put up with it on ROFF as well.

Sorry to **** you off. That's not my intent. I'm not too sure where
you're coming from. Does "that isn't the case at all" mean that Canada
doesn't subsidize any industries? From what I understand both the US and
Canada (and most other countries) do subsidize certain industries. These
subsidies are major road blocks to free trade.

Willi

jack van volkenburgh

February 29th, 2004, 06:14 PM

rw wrote:

> Tim Lysyk wrote:
> >Get serious. Most Americans don't even have a clear idea where Canada is.
>
> --
> and you know we kind of like it that way

Jack

Peter Charles

February 29th, 2004, 06:28 PM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:34:44 -0700, Willi > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:31:57 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>>
>> You're right about a lot of this not being the result of an
>> anti-Canadian bias, rather it's the actions of a politically powerful
>> industry seeking to paint Canada as some nasty, commie, subsidizing
>> state. We all know that subsidies are the only way a foreign industry
>> can beat a US industry. Any time a foreign industry starts getting a
>> bit of market share, it must be because they're cheating.
>
>
>I'm sure not saying that. I own stock in a Canadian company.

I'm talking past you here, Willi and just venting in general . . .

>>
>> Quite true, but that isn't the case here at all -- not even close.
>> There are a lot of fairy tales being told to justify trade actions.
>>
>> I'm sorry if I'm getting a little ****ed off, but I put up with this
>> sort of bull**** every time I channel surf past CNN so I really don't
>> want to have put up with it on ROFF as well.
>
>
>Sorry to **** you off. That's not my intent. I'm not too sure where
>you're coming from. Does "that isn't the case at all" mean that Canada
>doesn't subsidize any industries? From what I understand both the US and
>Canada (and most other countries) do subsidize certain industries. These
>subsidies are major road blocks to free trade.
>
>Willi

No, Canada does have subsidies but they're only a fraction of what we
are accused of having . . . that is my point.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

February 29th, 2004, 06:40 PM

Peter Charles wrote:
>
> No, Canada does have subsidies but they're only a fraction of what we
> are accused of having . . . that is my point.

I often think most major economies (US, EU, Japan, maybe Canada) don't
really mind other countries' subsidies nearly as much as they publicly
pretend to. Their rivals' subsidies provide an excuse for much
bombast and finger-pointing that distract from serious examination of
their own.

JR

Tim Lysyk

February 29th, 2004, 06:44 PM

Willi wrote:

> There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
> example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
> bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
> subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle.

Interesting you should say that about subsidies to the beef industry.
Kind of shows your own bias, or someone's, as there are no subsidies to
the beef industry. The Canadian government does not subsidize feedlots
nor grain fed to cattle. There really are no Canadian government
subsidies for beef cattle production. The main trade irritant before
BSE was Canada's require for disease testing for cattle coming into
Canada. The long standing bias against Canada wis not just from
government from from American farmers and other involved in the
agriculture and natural resource industry.

You are right about one thing, the difference between a competive
advantage and unfair trading practice is..."when I do it, I am
exercising a competitive advantage, when you do it, it is an unfair
subsidy."

Tim Lysyk

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 07:59 PM

Tim Lysyk wrote:

> Willi wrote:
>
>> There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
>> example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
>> bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
>> subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle.
>
>
> Interesting you should say that about subsidies to the beef industry.
> Kind of shows your own bias, or someone's, as there are no subsidies to
> the beef industry. The Canadian government does not subsidize feedlots
> nor grain fed to cattle. There really are no Canadian government
> subsidies for beef cattle production.

You're right, from what I just read, that was some US cattlemen
association Bull****. Even an American study showed the Canadian beef
industry one of the least subsidized in the world.

But I still disagree with your statement of a long standing bias against
Canada. There's no doubt that the US government has self serving
policies, but I don't think that our self serving policies are
specifically directed at Canada. I think we apply our self serving
policies on more of an equal opportunity basis.

In reading about this I discovered how complex the the different systems
of subsidies, tariffs, taxes, etc. that are used by different countries
to protect their own interests and how these affect trade. It seems like
all countries use a variety of tactics to protect certain industries.
Very complicated stuff.

Willi

Tim Lysyk

February 29th, 2004, 08:05 PM

Willi wrote:

> But I still disagree with your statement of a long standing bias against
> Canada. There's no doubt that the US government has self serving
> policies, but I don't think that our self serving policies are
> specifically directed at Canada. I think we apply our self serving
> policies on more of an equal opportunity basis.

Well, I suppose we are going to disagree on that. I was just using trade
as one example. There are other examples of US bias against Canada; I
mentioned a few, as has Peter. And not just from the the government. I
agree that the US is biased against pretty much everyone, but since
Canada has a long border with the US, the bias does get directed
northward a lot.

Tim Lysyk

Willi

February 29th, 2004, 08:19 PM

Tim Lysyk wrote:
> Willi wrote:
>
>> But I still disagree with your statement of a long standing bias against
>> Canada. There's no doubt that the US government has self serving
>> policies, but I don't think that our self serving policies are
>> specifically directed at Canada. I think we apply our self serving
>> policies on more of an equal opportunity basis.
>
>
> Well, I suppose we are going to disagree on that. I was just using trade
> as one example. There are other examples of US bias against Canada; I
> mentioned a few, as has Peter. And not just from the the government. I
> agree that the US is biased against pretty much everyone, but since
> Canada has a long border with the US, the bias does get directed
> northward a lot.

I guess I'm partly basing that on a more personal basis. I've never
heard anyone say something like, he's just a ****in' Canuck (In fact I
can't even think of a derogatory term for a Canadian unless Canuck is
one) - but I have heard LOTS of similar statements made about people
from many other countries and even our own citizens who have a different
background.

Willi

Wolfgang

February 29th, 2004, 10:34 PM

"Tim Lysyk" > wrote in message
news:Aqq0c.35192$A12.19840@edtnps84...
> Willi wrote:
>
> > There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
> > example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
> > bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
> > subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle.
>
> Interesting you should say that about subsidies to the beef industry.
> Kind of shows your own bias, or someone's, as there are no subsidies to
> the beef industry. The Canadian government does not subsidize feedlots
> nor grain fed to cattle. There really are no Canadian government
> subsidies for beef cattle production. The main trade irritant before
> BSE was Canada's require for disease testing for cattle coming into
> Canada. The long standing bias against Canada wis not just from
> government from from American farmers and other involved in the
> agriculture and natural resource industry.

Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S. the
beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
Canada?

> You are right about one thing, the difference between a competive
> advantage and unfair trading practice is..."when I do it, I am
> exercising a competitive advantage, when you do it, it is an unfair
> subsidy."

Not only true, but obvious and inescapable. Even those defending their
competitive advantages while decrying other's unfair practices know it for
an absolute fact. So much for integrity.

Wolfgang

Tim Lysyk

February 29th, 2004, 11:05 PM

Wolfgang wrote:

> Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S. the
> beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
> allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
> their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
> Canada?
>
These types of uses are generally under the jurisdiction of the
province. Land can be leased from the crown for grazing, but is done on
a competitive bid basis and the applicant pays for the use of the land.
How much, I don't know, but the leases are awarded to the highest
bidder, so it is not free.

Tim Lysyk

Wolfgang

February 29th, 2004, 11:54 PM

"Tim Lysyk" > wrote in message
news:Heu0c.36315$A12.5951@edtnps84...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S.
the
> > beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
> > allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
> > their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
> > Canada?
> >
> These types of uses are generally under the jurisdiction of the
> province. Land can be leased from the crown for grazing, but is done on
> a competitive bid basis and the applicant pays for the use of the land.
> How much, I don't know, but the leases are awarded to the highest
> bidder, so it is not free.

But, of course, it doesn't have to be entirely free to be a subsidy.
Anything below fair market value (however that may be determined) will do.

Wolfgang

Peter Charles

March 1st, 2004, 12:00 AM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:54:51 -0600, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>"Tim Lysyk" > wrote in message
>news:Heu0c.36315$A12.5951@edtnps84...
>> Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>> > Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S.
>the
>> > beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
>> > allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
>> > their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
>> > Canada?
>> >
>> These types of uses are generally under the jurisdiction of the
>> province. Land can be leased from the crown for grazing, but is done on
>> a competitive bid basis and the applicant pays for the use of the land.
>> How much, I don't know, but the leases are awarded to the highest
>> bidder, so it is not free.
>
>But, of course, it doesn't have to be entirely free to be a subsidy.
>Anything below fair market value (however that may be determined) will do.
>
>Wolfgang
>

Provided the auction isn't rigged and there are enough bidders, an
auction is usually a good indicator of fair market value.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[email protected]

March 1st, 2004, 05:53 AM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi > wrote:

(snipped severely)

> The Canadian government
>also regulates the price paid for drugs.

And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
loss on the deal.

As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
reimportation of drugs. Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
substandard medications to Canadians?
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

B J Conner

March 1st, 2004, 06:33 AM

Thousands of products are market segimented for various reasons. The
ability ot pay is one reason. If you doubt it exist go to your local fly
shoop adn check out fly rods.
The drugs are the same. IF you sold them to Canadians for the same price
that you sell them in the US they would not buy as many and you would make
less money. As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
developement and research cost. Once a drug has been developed and tested
production cost is relativly nothing. If every drug company in the world
gave up research and developement all existing drugs could be produced very
cheaply.
IIf stopped all progess on everything we could by with 8086 compputers,
1982 model cars and bamboo fly rods.
> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>
> (snipped severely)
>
> > The Canadian government
> >also regulates the price paid for drugs.
>
> And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
> loss on the deal.
>
> As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
> reimportation of drugs. Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
> are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
> they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
> substandard medications to Canadians?
> --
>
> rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
> Often taunted by trout.
> Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely
on it.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Peter Charles

March 1st, 2004, 12:34 PM

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:33:23 GMT, "B J Conner"
> wrote:

>Thousands of products are market segimented for various reasons. The
>ability ot pay is one reason. If you doubt it exist go to your local fly
>shoop adn check out fly rods.
>The drugs are the same. IF you sold them to Canadians for the same price
>that you sell them in the US they would not buy as many and you would make
>less money. As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
>developement and research cost. Once a drug has been developed and tested
>production cost is relativly nothing. If every drug company in the world
>gave up research and developement all existing drugs could be produced very
>cheaply.
> IIf stopped all progess on everything we could by with 8086 compputers,
>1982 model cars and bamboo fly rods.
> wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>>
>> (snipped severely)
>>
>> > The Canadian government
>> >also regulates the price paid for drugs.
>>
>> And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
>> loss on the deal.
>>
>> As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
>> reimportation of drugs. Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
>> are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
>> they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
>> substandard medications to Canadians?
>> --
>>
>> rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
>> Often taunted by trout.
>> Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely
>on it.
>>
>> http://www.visi.com/~cyli
>
BJ

What if I told you that one of the major players in the American drug
prices war is a British company - Glaxo Smithkline PLC. Also that
American drug companies have oversea research labs -- for example,
Viagra was invented and developed in Sandwich, England at a Pfizer
lab. Canada has its own pharmaceutical research industry. So tell
me, why should the American consumer pay through the nose to support
research in other countries? Pay more for the same drugs than
consumers in those countries?

I have my own theory but I'd be interested to hear yours.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Jeff Miller

March 1st, 2004, 12:35 PM

Peter Charles wrote:

>
> Provided the auction isn't rigged and there are enough bidders, an
> auction is usually a good indicator of fair market value.
>

hmmm... i went to a coastal conservation association banquet. there was
an auction. 400 potential bidders present. $50 prints brought $400;
nothing sold anywhere the normal retail or even wholesale. in these
parts, auctions are considered opportunities to get things at bargain
prices...though, on occasions they seem to become soap boxes for
personal pride or wants, and bids unexplainably skyrocket out of the
range of reason. usually, an auction is a good method of getting
something sold...i'm not sure i would trust it as a method of
establishing fair market value.

btw...i went shad fishing this weekend. it was mcphee brought home.
others near me caught a few; i struck out (fortunately jim went founding
fishless too). yesterday, we pulled up at a spot in a backwoods creek
(same place we took indian joe last year). the hunting club had built a
small dock nearby. a fella was perched on it with a zebco-appearing
closed spinning reel. he was wearing his church-attending shirt, bermuda
shorts, shoes & socks. he claimed it was his first time ever shad
fishing. he caught more than 10 in our moments nearby. he looked at us
and grinned with each catch. i was close to committing a serious
criminal offense. neither jim nor i had even a bump from an angry shad.
of more than 50 shad fishermen...all in boats trying to find the best
shad lies <g>...this one fella was the only one we saw catch a fish. it
looks to be a very humiliating season of fishing.

Ken Fortenberry

March 1st, 2004, 12:58 PM

Jeff Miller wrote:
>
> Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>> Provided the auction isn't rigged and there are enough bidders, an
>> auction is usually a good indicator of fair market value.
>
> hmmm... i went to a coastal conservation association banquet. there was
> an auction. 400 potential bidders present. $50 prints brought $400;
> nothing sold anywhere the normal retail or even wholesale. in these
> parts, auctions are considered opportunities to get things at bargain
> prices...though, on occasions they seem to become soap boxes for
> personal pride or wants, and bids unexplainably skyrocket out of the
> range of reason. usually, an auction is a good method of getting
> something sold...i'm not sure i would trust it as a method of
> establishing fair market value.

Apples and oranges. There is a difference between a "vanity" auction
fundraising event where the proceeds go to charity and a hardnosed,
strictly business auction. In Illinois when you buy a property at
auction the value of that property for tax purposes is set to exactly
the auction price by law.

--
Ken Fortenberry

George Adams

March 1st, 2004, 01:21 PM

>From: "B J Conner"

>As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
>developement and research cost.

Not to mention the obscene cost of advertising on TV, and perks to the doctors.
Now there's a place where significant cuts can be made with no sacrifice to R&D
or quality.

Ever wonder why Viagara is so expensive? You can't watch TV for an hour without
seeing at least one ad for some sort of limp dick medication.

George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

March 1st, 2004, 02:47 PM

George Adams wrote:

>>From: "B J Conner"
>
>
>>As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
>>developement and research cost.
>
>
> Not to mention the obscene cost of advertising on TV, and perks to the doctors.
> Now there's a place where significant cuts can be made with no sacrifice to R&D
> or quality.

Don't forget political contributions, which are actually a drop in the
bucket. No other investment by drug companies gets more bang for the buck.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

vincent p. norris

March 1st, 2004, 02:48 PM

A couple of the previous responses are in the ball park, but the
notion that drug prices are high to pay for the expensive ads is
bass-ackwards. The money spent on advertising is what MAKES POSSIBLE
the high prices. In simple terms, a firm spends one buck on ads and
raises the price by two bucks.

It is Bayer's advertising that cons consumers into spending about five
times as much for Bayer aspirin as they would have to spend to buy
generic or private label aspirin which is identical.

What's going on with the prices of Canadian drugs is known to
economists as "pricing discrimination" but is popularly called
"dumping."

When US drug manufacturers sell drugs in Canada at prices lower than
in the US, it is essentially the same in principle as renting hotel
rooms in Miami at lower rates in July than in January, or letting kids
into movie theaters at lower prices than adults, or letting tourists
(who can plan head and buy tickets early) on the airplane for less
than businessmen (who need to go NOW) are charged.

It has to do with what economists call "elasticity of demand."
Businessmen MUST get to Tokyo tomorrow to close a million-dollar deal;
they will pay what it costs. Their demand is INelastic. Kids have
less money than adults (at least when I was a kid); their demand for
movie tickets is ELASTIC.

Production costs are minimized when the firm produces at "capacity,"
which is not the maximum amount that can be produced, regardless of
cost, but that level of output at which unit costs is minimized. (That
is usually less than the greatest amount that can be produced.)

That quantity cannot be sold at the price that maximizes profit. So
rather than sell at a lower prices, which would increase quantity sold
but reduce profits, the remainder is sold in other countries. The
price in each country is set to maximize profit on sales there.
Personal income levels in each country are an important factor in
estimating that price. In simple terms, the richer the country, the
higher the price.

So US drug firms are not losing money by selling drugs in Canada at
reduced prices, they are INCREASING their profits.

Most of the private label products you see in the supermarket and
other stores are made by the same firms that make the higher-priced
"national brands." Sometimes, both the private labels and the
national brands are made by some small firm you never heard of.

For example, Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Barr Labs make drugs for
various "big name" firms.

This information is available if you know where to look. I have a
copy of the *Pennsylvania Formulary*, which lists all prescription
drugs licensed for sale in PA, along with the name of the
manufacturer.

Of some 85 brands of erythromycin stearate listed, under many
nationally advertised names and some as generic, all but a handful are
made by Mylan and Barr. All 27 brands of brompheniramine maleate are
made by one firm--National Pharmaceuticals.

The reason is that it makes economic sense for one or a few firms to
set up to manufacture a drug in large quantities and sell it to the
others, whereas it's inefficient and costly for each firm to set up to
manufacture a small amount.

It's the advertising that causes consumers, and physicians, to think
there are differences and that some are supeior to others.

(The gullibilty of MDs to drug company promotions is so scary I won't
take time to mention it here.)

I hope this is clear enough. It takes several class periods to teach
this to economics majors, so this is pretty sketchy.

>And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
>loss on the deal.

I hope I've shown they do not. But they would PREFER you pay the
higher US price.

> This implies that the drugs are made here, sold to Canada,
>and then come back here.

Exactly.

> So why should they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
>substandard medications to Canadians?

No. It's cheaper to make the same drug for everyone than to make a
"different" drug for Canadians.

There MAY BE, however, some risk of buying from a fly-by-night
internet firm that is selling counterfeit drugs. You run the same
risk buying from US internet sellers, too.

Drugs from Canada are no more "dangerous" than drugs from a US firm.
But the FDA is "friendly" to US drug manufacturers and so it puts out
that propaganda.

If you want to know more, read _Pills, Profits and Politics_, by
Milton Silverman and Phillip Lee. They are professors of medicine and
pharmacology who both have long experience with the regulation of the
drug industry.

Another good source is _200,000,000 Guinea Pigs_, by John G. Fuller.

Hope this helps.

vince

George Adams

March 1st, 2004, 03:02 PM

>From: rw

>George Adams wrote:
>
>>>From: "B J Conner"
>>
>>
>>>As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
>>>developement and research cost.
>>

> Not to mention the obscene cost of advertising on TV, and perks to the
>doctors.
>> Now there's a place where significant cuts can be made with no sacrifice to
>R&D
>> or quality.

>Don't forget political contributions, which are actually a drop in the
>bucket. No other investment by drug companies gets more bang for the buck.

Actually that can be said for nearly all industries, and the contributions
feather the nests of right, left, and middle.

George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Ken Fortenberry

March 1st, 2004, 03:31 PM

George Adams wrote:
>>From: rw
>
>>Don't forget political contributions, which are actually a drop in the
>>bucket. No other investment by drug companies gets more bang for the buck.
>
> Actually that can be said for nearly all industries, and the contributions
> feather the nests of right, left, and middle.

The political contributions of industry feather the nests of most
*politicians* of the left, right or middle, but the quid pro quo
has a tendency to flow rather more substantially to the right.

The right is crookeder than the left, that's why they're rich.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Kevin Vang

March 1st, 2004, 04:27 PM

In article >,
says...
> Aren't the Canadian and US beef industries very
> interrelated ?

Cattle have been moved back and forth across the Canadian
border since the old west days, so trying to distinguish
between "Canadian cattle" and "American cattle" is specious
at best.

Kevin

Joe McIntosh

March 1st, 2004, 06:41 PM

"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:M7G0c.19765$TT5.18521@lakeread06...
>
>
> Peter Charles wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Provided the auction isn't rigged and there are enough bidders, an
> > auction is usually a good indicator of fair market value.
> >
>
Indian Joe remembers---don't know whether you would called "rigged" or not
but better not attend any Duck's Unlimited banquets if you are looking for
fair market value. You have a few drinks--you eat and drink a little more--
then the auction starts and the cute little wives bring you drinks and
encourage you to bid--" oh Joe you are not going to let harry have that
print are you?"
Next morning you wake up with a sorry print of 12 flying ducks for which
you paid$82 dollars each.
Two years later at divorce hearing she says part of your half of estate is
a $984 dollar art work--and she has tax deductible receipt from Ducks
Unlimited to prove that value.

Peter Charles

March 1st, 2004, 09:36 PM

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:30:55 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:05:50 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Nothing goes straight up forever, especially in economics.
>
>
> True, but on a per-person basis China does not
> have to go anywhere near as far to become a larger
> economy.
>
> One of the fundamentals propping up the US economy
> is the sense that it is a safe place to invest
> money. Once that is questioned, and I think we're
> getting close to that point, the US will be in very
> serious trouvle economically.

I'm mostly thinking that they might get themselves into some serious
inflation problems, requiring tight money policies that will choke off
their growth. On the flip side, their large population means that
with reasonable fiscal management, they won't reach full capacity for
a long, long time internally. We're already seeing our steel
companies hitting their customers with a $95.00 CAD per ton surcharge
due to scrap metal shortages thanks to China's demand for scrap. If
this becomnes typical in commodities markets in general, then
inflation is likely to rise globally and especially in China.

What are they at now, 1.2 billion? The planet cannot produce enough
resources to service that many consumers at anything approaching
Western levels. This growth will top out. Whether through internal
fiscal mismangement or by reaching the limit of the carrying capacity
of the planet, it will come to an end.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Jeff Miller

March 1st, 2004, 11:44 PM

not sure peter qualified his auction contention, other than to say it
shouldn't be "rigged" and there should be enough bidders. reputable
real estate appraisers in this area don't use auction sales as a guide
or comparable sale in determining fair market value. typically, real
estate auctions here are forced events... foreclosures & liquidations.
purchasers are motivated to attend and to bid by the "get it cheap"
mindset. frequently, banks buy at auction for amount owed on the
mortgage payoff, not the fmv if listed on the open market. the ad
valorem property tax base here would go to hell in a handbasket if the
auction bids determined real estate values. no responsible government
would allow that to happen. <g>

jeff

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Apples and oranges. There is a difference between a "vanity" auction
> fundraising event where the proceeds go to charity and a hardnosed,
> strictly business auction. In Illinois when you buy a property at
> auction the value of that property for tax purposes is set to exactly
> the auction price by law.
>

Peter Charles

March 2nd, 2004, 12:00 AM

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:44:57 -0500, Jeff Miller
> wrote:

>not sure peter qualified his auction contention, other than to say it
>shouldn't be "rigged" and there should be enough bidders. reputable
>real estate appraisers in this area don't use auction sales as a guide
>or comparable sale in determining fair market value. typically, real
>estate auctions here are forced events... foreclosures & liquidations.
>purchasers are motivated to attend and to bid by the "get it cheap"
>mindset. frequently, banks buy at auction for amount owed on the
>mortgage payoff, not the fmv if listed on the open market. the ad
>valorem property tax base here would go to hell in a handbasket if the
>auction bids determined real estate values. no responsible government
>would allow that to happen. <g>
>
>jeff
>
Consider the nature of the bidders -- cattlemen with 1,000s of head of
cattle and in need of a place to graze them. That's way different
than a charity or liquidation auction. If he has no place for his
cattle, he is out of business.

Keep in mind that when I mayde that comment, I'm an ex-banker with
plenty of expereince in liquidating assets and I spend plenty of time
on ebay so I do have some idea about these things.

Y'know, it's just possible that the Canadian beef industry isn't
subsidized. Funnier things have been known to happen.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

March 2nd, 2004, 12:12 AM

Jeff Miller wrote:
> not sure peter qualified his auction contention, other than to say it
> shouldn't be "rigged" and there should be enough bidders. reputable
> real estate appraisers in this area don't use auction sales as a guide
> or comparable sale in determining fair market value. typically, real
> estate auctions here are forced events... foreclosures & liquidations.
> purchasers are motivated to attend and to bid by the "get it cheap"
> mindset. frequently, banks buy at auction for amount owed on the
> mortgage payoff, not the fmv if listed on the open market. the ad
> valorem property tax base here would go to hell in a handbasket if the
> auction bids determined real estate values. no responsible government
> would allow that to happen. <g>

I can't say whether the grazing auctions in Canada are fair, but I'm
damn sure they're more fair than our system in the US. The BLM awards
grazing leases for a fixed per/acre fee, regardless of quality. The fee
is absurdly low compared to fees for leasing private grazing rights. The
rancher, or more typically the huge agribusiness corporation, who holds
the lease keeps the lease, year-to-year. No auction.

If the lease holder is breaking the law -- for example, by allowing his
cattle to graze in critical salmon habitat, breaking down the stream
banks -- he can expect the government to buy him out. It happened here.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

B J Conner

March 2nd, 2004, 03:12 AM

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:33:23 GMT, "B J Conner"
> > wrote:
>
> >Thousands of products are market segimented for various reasons. The
> >ability ot pay is one reason. If you doubt it exist go to your local fly
> >shoop adn check out fly rods.
> >The drugs are the same. IF you sold them to Canadians for the same price
> >that you sell them in the US they would not buy as many and you would
make
> >less money. As a US comsumer of drugs you get to pay more of the
> >developement and research cost. Once a drug has been developed and tested
> >production cost is relativly nothing. If every drug company in the world
> >gave up research and developement all existing drugs could be produced
very
> >cheaply.
> > IIf stopped all progess on everything we could by with 8086
compputers,
> >1982 model cars and bamboo fly rods.
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi > wrote:
> >>
> >> (snipped severely)
> >>
> >> > The Canadian government
> >> >also regulates the price paid for drugs.
> >>
> >> And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
> >> loss on the deal.
> >>
> >> As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
> >> reimportation of drugs. Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
> >> are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
> >> they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that sell
> >> substandard medications to Canadians?
> >> --
> >>
> >> rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
> >> Often taunted by trout.
> >> Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would
rely
> >on it.
> >>
> >> http://www.visi.com/~cyli
> >
> BJ
>
> What if I told you that one of the major players in the American drug
> prices war is a British company - Glaxo Smithkline PLC. Also that
> American drug companies have oversea research labs -- for example,
> Viagra was invented and developed in Sandwich, England at a Pfizer
> lab. Canada has its own pharmaceutical research industry. So tell
> me, why should the American consumer pay through the nose to support
> research in other countries? Pay more for the same drugs than
> consumers in those countries?
>
> I have my own theory but I'd be interested to hear yours.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>
> Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Drug companies have enough lawyers and accountants to get away with
differential pricing. Viagra, which made more than a few of us money, was a
serendipitous event that came about because Phizer had the people to
recognize and develope what they found. What would happed if it were
discovered in a government lab in Canada? It's got a lot of old fat guys
paying for basic of research.
And then if you want to see where a lot of the money goes got to
http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ and select health care. The
salary of the CEOs of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies probably took home
the equivalent of the Canadian research budget.

Wolfgang

March 2nd, 2004, 03:38 AM

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> A couple of the previous responses are in the ball park, but the
> notion that drug prices are high to pay for the expensive ads is
> bass-ackwards. The money spent on advertising is what MAKES POSSIBLE
> the high prices. In simple terms, a firm spends one buck on ads and
> raises the price by two bucks.
>
> It is Bayer's advertising that cons consumers into spending about five
> times as much for Bayer aspirin as they would have to spend to buy
> generic or private label aspirin which is identical.
>
> What's going on with the prices of Canadian drugs is known to
> economists as "pricing discrimination" but is popularly called
> "dumping."
>
> When US drug manufacturers sell drugs in Canada at prices lower than
> in the US, it is essentially the same in principle as renting hotel
> rooms in Miami at lower rates in July than in January, or letting kids
> into movie theaters at lower prices than adults, or letting tourists
> (who can plan head and buy tickets early) on the airplane for less
> than businessmen (who need to go NOW) are charged.
>
> It has to do with what economists call "elasticity of demand."
> Businessmen MUST get to Tokyo tomorrow to close a million-dollar deal;
> they will pay what it costs. Their demand is INelastic. Kids have
> less money than adults (at least when I was a kid); their demand for
> movie tickets is ELASTIC.
>
> Production costs are minimized when the firm produces at "capacity,"
> which is not the maximum amount that can be produced, regardless of
> cost, but that level of output at which unit costs is minimized. (That
> is usually less than the greatest amount that can be produced.)
>
> That quantity cannot be sold at the price that maximizes profit. So
> rather than sell at a lower prices, which would increase quantity sold
> but reduce profits, the remainder is sold in other countries. The
> price in each country is set to maximize profit on sales there.
> Personal income levels in each country are an important factor in
> estimating that price. In simple terms, the richer the country, the
> higher the price.
>
> So US drug firms are not losing money by selling drugs in Canada at
> reduced prices, they are INCREASING their profits.
>
> Most of the private label products you see in the supermarket and
> other stores are made by the same firms that make the higher-priced
> "national brands." Sometimes, both the private labels and the
> national brands are made by some small firm you never heard of.
>
> For example, Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Barr Labs make drugs for
> various "big name" firms.
>
> This information is available if you know where to look. I have a
> copy of the *Pennsylvania Formulary*, which lists all prescription
> drugs licensed for sale in PA, along with the name of the
> manufacturer.
>
> Of some 85 brands of erythromycin stearate listed, under many
> nationally advertised names and some as generic, all but a handful are
> made by Mylan and Barr. All 27 brands of brompheniramine maleate are
> made by one firm--National Pharmaceuticals.
>
> The reason is that it makes economic sense for one or a few firms to
> set up to manufacture a drug in large quantities and sell it to the
> others, whereas it's inefficient and costly for each firm to set up to
> manufacture a small amount.
>
> It's the advertising that causes consumers, and physicians, to think
> there are differences and that some are supeior to others.
>
> (The gullibilty of MDs to drug company promotions is so scary I won't
> take time to mention it here.)
>
> I hope this is clear enough. It takes several class periods to teach
> this to economics majors, so this is pretty sketchy.
>
> >And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
> >loss on the deal.
>
> I hope I've shown they do not. But they would PREFER you pay the
> higher US price.
>
> > This implies that the drugs are made here, sold to Canada,
> >and then come back here.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > So why should they be dangerous? Do they have special factories that
sell
> >substandard medications to Canadians?
>
> No. It's cheaper to make the same drug for everyone than to make a
> "different" drug for Canadians.
>
> There MAY BE, however, some risk of buying from a fly-by-night
> internet firm that is selling counterfeit drugs. You run the same
> risk buying from US internet sellers, too.
>
> Drugs from Canada are no more "dangerous" than drugs from a US firm.
> But the FDA is "friendly" to US drug manufacturers and so it puts out
> that propaganda.
>
> If you want to know more, read _Pills, Profits and Politics_, by
> Milton Silverman and Phillip Lee. They are professors of medicine and
> pharmacology who both have long experience with the regulation of the
> drug industry.
>
> Another good source is _200,000,000 Guinea Pigs_, by John G. Fuller.
>
> Hope this helps.

And, of course, it is good to keep in mind that most of this also applies to
myriad other products........like canned tomatoes......or the copper alloy
tubing we used to make at the American Brass Company's tube mill in Kenosha,
some of which (so I was told) was used to manufacture fishing rod tubes and
sold under various brand names......and in a variety of sizes.

Wolfgang
the specs on that stuff weren't real tight......weights could vary
considerably (relatively speaking) per unit length. :)

Peter Charles

March 2nd, 2004, 03:45 AM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:53:48 -0600, wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:48:19 -0700, Willi > wrote:
>
>(snipped severely)
>
>> The Canadian government
>>also regulates the price paid for drugs.

Not really -- Canadian patent laws did not give the drug companies the
protection they wanted and generics were making serious inroads into
their profits. They successfully lobbied the Canadian government and
made a successful WTO challenge to extend their patent protection,
especially through "evergreening" -- the endlessly renewing patents.
In return, the drug companies agreed to reduced prices. They make
much more money under this regime than if they had to battle the
generics head-to-head.
>
>And the drug companies keep selling to them. I doubt they're taking a
>loss on the deal.

See above -- they're raking it in.
>
>As an aside, the FDA keeps yammering about the possible dangers of
>reimportation of drugs.

Pure bull****. Do you really think that all of the drugs currently
sold in America were invented, developed, and made in America? Ever
take Allegra? Developed and made by Aventis S.A. -- a French/German
company.

Check out this website that lists the R&D pharmaceutical companies in
Canada.

http://www.canadapharma.org/Members/

Canada also has a very healthy generic drug manufacturing sector.

http://www.cdma-acfpp.org/en/about.html

> Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
>are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
>they be dangerous?

They aren't. You're being lied to.

>Do they have special factories that sell
>substandard medications to Canadians?

You aren't serious, are you? You might have already stuff I've
written here about national myths. By perpetuating myths, statements
like yours are made possible. The next time you're listening to Tom
Brokaw say, "Scientists today, have made a new advance in . . . ." ask
yourself the question, "Why didn't Tom mention where these scientists
are or who they are?" There is a reason why, they aren't American,
however, you believe they are. You have no reason to believe
otherwise. This leads you to naturally assume that all high tech,
high quality drugs, and highly advanced research only occurs in the
US. From this, you then accept that high drug prices are the price
Americans have to pay to enjoy the benefits from all this "American"
R&D. By creating and maintaining this myth, you get ripped off. Is
Tom part of a conspiracy? No, just a convergence of corporate
interests and a dose of nationalistic self-censorship.

If you go through that list of Canada's R&D companies you'll find
French, German, Swiss, Danish, US, British, and yes, Canadian
companies listed. Take a trip through the various product listings
and be prepared to find a few surprises.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

March 2nd, 2004, 03:53 AM

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:12:20 GMT, "B J Conner"
> wrote:

>
>Drug companies have enough lawyers and accountants to get away with
>differential pricing. Viagra, which made more than a few of us money, was a
>serendipitous event that came about because Phizer had the people to
>recognize and develope what they found. What would happed if it were
>discovered in a government lab in Canada? It's got a lot of old fat guys
>paying for basic of research.
>And then if you want to see where a lot of the money goes got to
>http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ and select health care. The
>salary of the CEOs of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies probably took home
>the equivalent of the Canadian research budget.
>
>
Since we're into websites, check this one out.

http://www.canadapharma.org/Members/

Well, just to pick two that I can find numbers on, Glaxo and Aventis
spend 150 million a year on R&D in Canada.

See my comments to Cyli

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

March 2nd, 2004, 03:59 AM

B J Conner wrote:
>
> Drug companies have enough lawyers and accountants to get away with
> differential pricing. Viagra, which made more than a few of us money, was a
> serendipitous event that came about because Phizer had the people to
> recognize and develope what they found. What would happed if it were
> discovered in a government lab in Canada? It's got a lot of old fat guys
> paying for basic of research.

I thought old fat guys were the target market. :-)

I can just imagine those old fat Canadian bureaucrats, bull****ting over
their cubicle walls: "Hey, look here, guys. This drug doesn't cure
cancer, but it has this side effect ..."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Wolfgang

March 2nd, 2004, 04:06 AM

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...

> ....If you go through that list of Canada's R&D companies you'll find
> French, German, Swiss, Danish, US, British, and yes, Canadian
> companies listed. Take a trip through the various product listings
> and be prepared to find a few surprises.

And it gets even more byzantine. Some of those good old All American drugs
are not only developed in other countries, but also tested there,
manufactured there, used there successfully for years and then, eventually,
find their way to the U.S. market (after successful completion of redundant
phase I, phase II, and phase III trials and leaping through sundry other
hoops) direct from their original overseas manufacturers. All that's
happened is that an "American" drug company (a quaint antediluvian
appellation) has entered into a marketing agreement to sell the drug here,
whether under the same name used in Europe (for instance) or, as is often
the case under a new name that helps to foster the notion that this is a
new, safe, effective American drug, free of the dangers one should always
associate with the slipshod **** they make over there.

Wolfgang

B J Conner

March 2nd, 2004, 06:03 AM

You seem to think I'm picking on Canada I'm not. the pharmacutical bussiness
has been global for a long time, Drug companies go where the smart people
are. Canada has an excellant education system and a lot of smart people and
it's now supprize the world drug companies are there. Manyo of the
companies on that website are foreigned owned or really international
companies. A lot of that money spent on R&D in Canada shows up on the
books in other countries as an expense. I don't believe everything was
invented here, In fact our most creative days may be over. People use to
create and develope things to make money, now there is a lot of "wealth"
created that has no tangable reason to exist. Like I said you need lawyers
and accounts as well as smart people. Discussion and study can go on for
ever and take thousands of case studies at MBA schools.
The system may be messed up but we need to be carefull in trying to fix
it. I know two people very dear to me who would be dead if not for some
brilliant researcher in Indianapolis or Quebec ( by the way how did all
those places wind up in Quebec?). We need to make sure the goose keeps
laying golden eggs while we put in the coop.
"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 03:12:20 GMT, "B J Conner"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Drug companies have enough lawyers and accountants to get away with
> >differential pricing. Viagra, which made more than a few of us money, was
a
> >serendipitous event that came about because Phizer had the people to
> >recognize and develope what they found. What would happed if it were
> >discovered in a government lab in Canada? It's got a lot of old fat guys
> >paying for basic of research.
> >And then if you want to see where a lot of the money goes got to
> >http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ and select health care.
The
> >salary of the CEOs of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies probably took
home
> >the equivalent of the Canadian research budget.
> >
> >
> Since we're into websites, check this one out.
>
> http://www.canadapharma.org/Members/
>
> Well, just to pick two that I can find numbers on, Glaxo and Aventis
> spend 150 million a year on R&D in Canada.
>
> See my comments to Cyli
>
> Peter
>
> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>
> Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

troutbum_mt

March 2nd, 2004, 07:05 AM

says...
> With respect to mad-cow disease, the real issue is not country of
> origin, but the length of the US embargo against Canadian beef. Beef
> imports into the US from Canada have been a long-standing issue between
> the US and Canada. Before BSE, Canada shipped billions of $$ worth of
> cattle to the US. For years, the US accussed Canada of unfair trade
> practices, and at one time, placed a tarrif on incoming beef from
> Canada. This was eventually overturned, but the issue remained. When
> Canada had its one case of BSE, the US was the first to ban Canadian
> beef. Canada did everything, and more, to demonstrate that the case was
> isolated. Thousands of animals were slaughtered, and no other case was
> found. The US has refused to lift its embargo on Canadian beef, even
> though all the surveillance requirements were satisfied. The US is on
> record as saying it will not lift the embargo until Canada addresses the
> other issues that the US considers as unfair trading practice. The issue
> has moved from science and food safety to politics, olitics that reflect
> the anti-Canadian bias of your government. As a result, the Canadian
> beef industry is suffering greatly, and rural economy in my area of the
> country is also suffering. All because of long-standing US bias against
> Canada.

There are a few factual flaws in the above:
# of cases of BSE:
http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esbmonde.htm

Current bans:
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/reg/appro/2004/20109ria_e.shtml
*notice that this is a CANADIAN site*

Which is actually kinda funny in a way when you consider:
http://www.bseinfo.org/
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W29265B57
if the first one is a little too "biased" for....

Hmmmm, I think your argument is a little off. Okay, WAY off.... The
only bad thing I can think of about Canada or Canadians is that they
whine far too much about the US. ;-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

troutbum_mt

March 2nd, 2004, 07:25 AM

says...
> Y'know, it's just possible that the Canadian beef industry isn't
> subsidized. Funnier things have been known to happen.

Wrong.....
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B56F12497
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

Jonathan Cook

March 2nd, 2004, 01:47 PM

Peter Charles > wrote in message >...

> What are they at now, 1.2 billion? The planet cannot produce enough
> resources to service that many consumers at anything approaching
> Western levels. This growth will top out. Whether through internal
> fiscal mismangement or by reaching the limit of the carrying capacity
> of the planet, it will come to an end.

Very good point. China's population size works against them
economically, not for them. It may only take "a little bit"
of per capita growth to have a large world impact, but supplying
the needs of the population is a net drag, not a net gain. A
large part of the reason the US prospered is that its population
was small compared to the resources it had. (In Europe's heyday
it went out and found those resources around the world. There's
nothing left to find today (a slight overstatement)).

Jon.

March 2nd, 2004, 02:45 PM

Greg Pavlov wrote:

> Sure, our big SUV/cathedral ceiling/one hour commute "American
> Way of Life" is untenable, and as others use more, most of us
> will be forced to use less. China will top out somewhere, but
> if the average Chinese wastes 1/5 of what the average person here
> wastes (me included), they'll be on par with us, and that means
> we will have to reduce because most won't be able to afford
> the much higher costs that will result from the competition.

The post WWII American Way of Life is a bubble. Lots of particulars one
can point to and blame, but kicking against the pricks of this
particular or that is in the long run pointless. Policy changes might
at best slow a bit the decline in natural resources per capita or the
rate of globalization brought about by technological advances in
transport and communications. The bubble might, if we're lucky, deflate
rather than burst. In any event, Americans have less to lose in real
terms from a gradual leveling of the playing field than most other
national economies have from the current runaway rate of globalization
or from a sudden contraction.

JR

Tim Lysyk

March 2nd, 2004, 02:49 PM

troutbum_mt wrote:
> says...
>
>>Y'know, it's just possible that the Canadian beef industry isn't
>>subsidized. Funnier things have been known to happen.
>
>
> Wrong.....
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B56F12497
Warren...the linked document says that "The subsidy investigation
confirmed that the Canadian cattle industry did not receive subsidies
from federal and provincial governments sufficient to justify imposition
of countervailing duties." IOW, the US imposed countervailing tarriff
was not justified.

Tim Lysyk

Tim Lysyk

March 2nd, 2004, 03:06 PM

troutbum_mt wrote:
> There are a few factual flaws in the above:
> # of cases of BSE:
> http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esbmonde.htm
The 1993 case of BSE was in an animal imported from Britain. When I said
1, was referrring to the recent outbreak that resulted in the ban.

> Current bans:
> http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/reg/appro/2004/20109ria_e.shtml
> *notice that this is a CANADIAN site*

I am not sure what your point is here. The canadian ban is less
restrictive than the US ban, as it excludes "exempted products include
animals imported for zoos or for scientific research, embryos, cattle
imported for immediate slaughter, boneless beef from cattle under 30
months of age" Cattle for immediate slaughter can still enter Canada
from teh US, Canadian cattle cannot enter the US.

> Which is actually kinda funny in a way when you consider:
> http://www.bseinfo.org/

Not sure what you want me to look at here?

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W29265B57

All I see there is that the US couldn't trace the animals the BSE case
came in contact with. They slaughtered 255, In Canada, several thousand
animals were slaughtered. They were much more easily traced as having
been in contact with the infected animal as Canada has a national cattle
id system. Also, the article says there are likely more cases of BSE in
the US. You want to blame that on Canada too?

> Hmmmm, I think your argument is a little off. Okay, WAY off.... The
> only bad thing I can think of about Canada or Canadians is that they
> whine far too much about the US. ;-)

I think you are proving the original point.

Tim Lysyk

vincent p. norris

March 2nd, 2004, 03:37 PM

>And, of course, it is good to keep in mind that most of this also applies to
>myriad other products.......

Oh, absolutely! My son in law worked in a plant that made frozen
deep fried onion rings. At the end of the production line, he showed
me about eight huge rolls (like gigantic paper towels) of plastic
bags, pre-printed with the names of various brands. They included
Kroger, A&P, Safeway, Giant, and other big supermarket chains. The
same stuff went into all the bags, which sold at retail at very
different prices.

A friend of mine worked in a net factory. They made fishing nets, and
tennis nets for Wilson, Sears Roebuck, etc. He said the nly difference
among the Sears, Wilson, and other nets was the labels that were sewn
on them.

A member of the Uhlein family (they owned Schlitz, years ago), who was
an MD at the Mayo Clinic, told a colleague I happened to know, that
the only difference between Schlitz and Old Miwaukee was the price.
(And, of course, the advertising.)

A student of mine who was working at the local Goodyear store brought
me a sheet of paper listing which tire manufacturers made the various
brands of tires.

I have a two-burner Coleman camp stove. A friend has a Ted Williams
stove he bought at Sears. Mine is red, his is blue. There is no other
difference; all the parts are interchangeable.

A local packing plant (only a few miles west of Spring Mills, for you
Penns Clavers), owned by Hanover Foods, packs frozen foods, baby foods
and soups for Campbells, Heinz, Beech-Nut, A&P, Weis Markets, and
others.

These are just a few anecdotes, but the practice is almost universal,
because the reduction in costs and huge increase in profits when this
is done.

There are probably only a few exceptions to the statement that all the
private labels and generics you see in supermarkets, drugstores, and
other places are made in the same plant, from the same materials, as
the highly advertised brands that have much higher prices.

U.S. firms are not the only ones doing this. I wrote about them
because that's what Cyli asked about. But it's a world-wide practice,
as Peter points out, and innovations do not always originate in the
U.S.

It seems that every few years, I read in the papers that US steel
firms are accusing European and Asian firms of dumping steel in the
US at prices lower than the same steel is sold at in the country of
origin.

vince

March 2nd, 2004, 03:37 PM

Greg Pavlov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:45:24 +0100, JR > wrote:
>
> >The bubble might, if we're lucky, deflate
> >rather than burst.
>
> That could be. But we have organized ourselves
> for maximum consumption, so deflation is still
> likely to cause major dislocations. For instance,
> how many people with large houses & long commutes
> & maximized spending could tolerate a permanent
> tripling of energy costs ?

I agree. It's going to be painful either way. Writing's been on the
wall for a while now, though, so though it might sound cold, I doubt my
heart will break over the fuel and heating woes of 4-person families
with 15-room McMansions, 3 luxury cars in the garage, an RV, etc.,
credit cards maxed, and no savings.

OBROFF: Who knows, a lotta guys who fish for almost the entire range of
freshwater fish and some light salt could just find they do very well
with one 5-wt and one 8-wt. Civilization might survive.

JR

vincent p. norris

March 2nd, 2004, 03:52 PM

>Well, just to pick two that I can find numbers on, Glaxo and Aventis
>spend 150 million a year on R&D in Canada.
>
Although the drug companies boast about the gigantic sums they spend
on research, the fact is, they spend only a trickle compared to their
incomes.

Data uncovered by a US Senate investigation of the drug industry some
years ago revealed that the eleven biggest firms spent only six
percent of sales revenues on research, but they spent 24% on
advertising and promotion. Four times as much.

So you can see where they place their emphasis.

And beyond that, much of the "research" is just to find some way to
tweak an existing drug whose patent is running out, so it can be
renewed. The "new" drug is usually not any better than the previous
version, but it will sell for a higher price.

vince

slenon

March 2nd, 2004, 03:55 PM

> All that's happened is that an "American" drug company (a quaint
antediluvian
>appellation) has entered into a marketing agreement to sell the drug here,
>whether under the same name used in Europe (for instance) or, as is often
>the case under a new name that helps to foster the notion that this is a
>new, safe, effective American drug, free of the dangers one should always
>associate with the slipshod **** they make over there.
>Wolfgang

Quite true. However, I'm surprised that you failed to mention another
danger to such practices. In the case of antibiotics, successful use in
Europe will all too often lead to successful overuse in the United States.
And with it, the increasing patterns of antibiotic resistance that emerges
with each new generation of antibiotic being marketed, as the drug companies
push the new products as panaceas.

Physicians seem to gobble this **** up and routinely use these drugs as
first line antibiotics rather than using the older, and often equally
effective, decidedly cheaper, generation products that are less prone to
lead broad spectrum resistance patterns.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

Wolfgang

March 2nd, 2004, 04:15 PM

"slenon" > wrote in message
. com...
> > All that's happened is that an "American" drug company (a quaint
> antediluvian
> >appellation) has entered into a marketing agreement to sell the
drug here,
> >whether under the same name used in Europe (for instance) or, as is
often
> >the case under a new name that helps to foster the notion that this
is a
> >new, safe, effective American drug, free of the dangers one should
always
> >associate with the slipshod **** they make over there.
> >Wolfgang
>
> Quite true. However, I'm surprised that you failed to mention
another
> danger to such practices. In the case of antibiotics, successful
use in
> Europe will all too often lead to successful overuse in the United
States.
> And with it, the increasing patterns of antibiotic resistance that
emerges
> with each new generation of antibiotic being marketed, as the drug
companies
> push the new products as panaceas.
>
> Physicians seem to gobble this **** up and routinely use these drugs
as
> first line antibiotics rather than using the older, and often
equally
> effective, decidedly cheaper, generation products that are less
prone to
> lead broad spectrum resistance patterns.

All of that is also true. But, I'm not sure why you're surprised that
I didn't mention it, as it is an entirely different issue.

Wolfgang

Wayne Knight

March 2nd, 2004, 04:16 PM

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Who knows, a lotta guys who fish for almost the entire range of
> freshwater fish and some light salt could just find they do very well
> with one 5-wt and one 8-wt. Civilization might survive.
>

Never, one can never get by with just one five weight. Heresy pure heresy!

slenon

March 2nd, 2004, 10:12 PM

>All of that is also true. But, I'm not sure why you're surprised that
>I didn't mention it, as it is an entirely different issue.
>Wolfgang

It is related with respect to that long laborious FDA approval you
mentioned. The good side of that approval process, from my vantage point,
is that it kept many antibiotics off the market in this country for years
longer than the manufacturers would have liked. That delay alone kept those
drugs effective longer than they would have been without the FDA's delay.
While antibiotics are only a small portion of the overall drug market, they,
like all other drugs are also multi-tiered in marketing and pricing.

Greg notes:
>Then there's the practice of prescribing
> antibiotics for people with the flu ...

Also a major part of the problem. While patients would likely recover
equally well with placebos in the case of viral infections, I can't imagine
any physician today prescribing them.

And both are related to the massive amount of advertising money pumped into
what amounts to pimping these drugs to physicians.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

troutbum_mt

March 3rd, 2004, 03:05 AM

says...
> The 1993 case of BSE was in an animal imported from Britain. When I said
> 1, was referrring to the recent outbreak that resulted in the ban.

So what you are saying is that it was Britain's fault? If so, then
wouldn't the animal that was received in the US *from* Canada be
Canada's fault? Realistically, I am sure that Canada did whatever it
took to keep it to just one animal, much as the US is currently trying
to do. Do you not think that Canada banned importing British beef until
it was safe to do so? We are dealing with a disease and "fair" doesn't
always apply. There is also a political angle to this. If Canada
raised a big stink about US beef, wouldn't that in effect be condemning
their own industry? Hell, they even state that "The Canadian approach
to the recent detection of an infected animal in the United States is
similar in thoroughness to our previous efforts. As we learned through
our own experience, the appropriate response to a case of BSE involves a
thorough, exhaustive and scientifically validated investigation."

Nowhere do they say that the US is being unfair or even suggest the
notion. To stop the spread of a disease, quarantines are sometimes
used. That is basically all that is happening right now. The two
countries are merely trying to keep their herds separated so that they
can ensure that they are BSE free. To people outside the loop in Canada
who seem to be paranoid about all that is American, yeah, it seems
unfair if you only look at one side of the story.

> I am not sure what your point is here. The canadian ban is less
> restrictive than the US ban, as it excludes "exempted products include
> animals imported for zoos or for scientific research, embryos, cattle
> imported for immediate slaughter, boneless beef from cattle under 30
> months of age" Cattle for immediate slaughter can still enter Canada
> from teh US, Canadian cattle cannot enter the US.

I didn't see any evidence of Canada's restrictions being "less
restrictive" when I read:

"The following animals and animal by-products are prohibited:
I) Live animals of the family Bovidae which includes cattle, bison and
water buffalo, sheep and goats
ii) meat or meat products from the animals of the family Bovidae where
the and things containing such meat or meat products
iii) animal food containing ingredients derived from animals of the
family Bovidae
iv) fertilizer, excluding manure containing ingredients from animals of
the family Bovidae
v) specified risk material"

How do you get more restrictive than that? By banning turkeys when the
disease is limited to bovine?

> > Which is actually kinda funny in a way when you consider:
> > http://www.bseinfo.org/
>
> Not sure what you want me to look at here?

You obviously never made it to the second sentence which was "This site
includes information about the single BSE case found in a Washington
State dairy cow ******imported from Canada******** as well as background
information about the beef industry and about BSE." (emphasis added)

> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?W29265B57
>
> All I see there is that the US couldn't trace the animals the BSE case
> came in contact with. They slaughtered 255, In Canada, several thousand
> animals were slaughtered. They were much more easily traced as having
> been in contact with the infected animal as Canada has a national cattle
> id system. Also, the article says there are likely more cases of BSE in
> the US. You want to blame that on Canada too?

Hmmmmmm, you seem to skip over parts..... You must have missed:

"A total of 255 animals of interest were identified" by USDA
investigators as possibly linked to *******the infected dairy cow's
birth herd in Alberta, Canada*********, DeHaven said. (again, emphasis
added)

Here is another that you must have missed:
"The infected Holstein cow was ******born on a dairy farm in Alberta on
April 9, 1997,******** and shipped to the United States in September
2001." (emphasis added again)

> > Hmmmm, I think your argument is a little off. Okay, WAY off.... The
> > only bad thing I can think of about Canada or Canadians is that they
> > whine far too much about the US. ;-)
>
> I think you are proving the original point.

Yes, I think I proved RW's point rather well: Canadians do whine and
seem to be paranoid about US conspiracies when in fact we really don't
think of Canada much at all. Or are you talking about my original point
that your argument was way off from a factual basis? Yeah, I agree with
that conclusion too.

Or are you talking about what is becoming painfully obvious; that
Canadians read selectively or not at all? *****<BSEG>******
(emphasis added) <g>

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the policies that both
countries are currently using. The risk of infecting each other's
industries is highly likely if we swept it under the rug and just kept
on going as business as usual. Canada isn't ready to jeopardize their
industry because there is a lot of money involved. The US isn't willing
to jeopardize their industry because there are several times the amount
of money involved as in Canada. To be honest with you, until your
recent "paranoid delusion?", I never thought of Canada's cattle any
differently than cattle from Idaho or Texas; probably because the state
of Montana is linked pretty closely to the Canadian industry. I never
questioned Canada's motives but I am now seeing maple leaves behind
every brand! Those ****ing Canuckistanis are around here somewhere
dammit! <bseg> In all seriousness, I don't see this issue as anything
other than damn good judgement on both sides of the border. But what
the **** do I know? I just majored in Livestock Management......
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

troutbum_mt

March 3rd, 2004, 03:08 AM

says...
> troutbum_mt wrote:
> > says...
> >
> >>Y'know, it's just possible that the Canadian beef industry isn't
> >>subsidized. Funnier things have been known to happen.
> >
> >
> > Wrong.....
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?B56F12497
> Warren...the linked document says that "The subsidy investigation
> confirmed that the Canadian cattle industry did not receive subsidies
> from federal and provincial governments sufficient to justify imposition
> of countervailing duties." IOW, the US imposed countervailing tarriff
> was not justified.

Tim, keyword was "sufficient." That means that Canada DOES subsidize
the cattle industry, thus proving that Peter's thought that perhaps
there are *none* is WRONG.

HTH.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

George Adams

March 3rd, 2004, 04:09 AM

>From: vincent p. norris

>And beyond that, much of the "research" is just to find some way to
>tweak an existing drug whose patent is running out, so it can be
>renewed. The "new" drug is usually not any better than the previous
>version, but it will sell for a higher price.

You mean like Claritin and and Clarinex? {;-)

George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

[email protected]

March 3rd, 2004, 04:14 AM

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:45:44 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:

(snipped)

>> Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
>>are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
>>they be dangerous?
>
>They aren't. You're being lied to.

Figured that.

>>Do they have special factories that sell
>>substandard medications to Canadians?
>
>You aren't serious, are you?

No. I was being bitter and sarcastic and cynical.

Perhaps I _do_ come over as too sweet and innocent.

A few of the medications I'm on are expensive. Sometimes I buy on
the 'Net from Canada. If I could take the entire management of Glaxo
Kline Smith fishing, I'd not dare, because I'd drown the *******s for,
if nothing else (and I suspect there's else) two of their latest
ploys that I've heard of where they intend to refuse to supply
Canadian firms with meds if those firms sell to people in the U.S. and
the second one their attempts to get the FDA to keep Wellbutrin as a
protected med, not to let it go generic. They lost on the second one,
so those of us who smoke can try to quit a little more cheaply.

Wellbutrin was an early entry into the anti-depressant field. It sort
of worked, but too many people had side effects (seizures) and other,
presumably better meds came along. However, some researchers had
noted that many of the patients on Wellbutrin had simply quit smoking.
Most not even having had that intention. Wellbutrin languished for
several years and then the second part, about smoking, became
interesting to the world in general. However, they only had a few
years to really push it at protected prices, and their slight tendency
(sarcasm again) to greed got them to want to keep it and all the
possible profits.

And as far as the first one goes, they make a profit selling in Canada
even at reduced prices or they'd not be doing it. The drug companies
are not generous and giving (except those free samples of the
(dangerous?) Viagra they're giving doctors to let patients try out),
as can be proven by what any and all of them are doing for AIDS in
Africa.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

vincent p. norris

March 3rd, 2004, 12:49 PM

>>From: vincent p. norris
>
>>And beyond that, much of the "research" is just to find some way to
>>tweak an existing drug whose patent is running out, so it can be
>>renewed. The "new" drug is usually not any better than the previous
>>version, but it will sell for a higher price.
>
>You mean like Claritin and and Clarinex? {;-)
>
>George Adams

Yes, I think so, although those came after my retirement, when I began
paying less attention to the sins of the drug companies and more to
fishing.

vince

vincent p. norris

March 3rd, 2004, 01:34 PM

> I noticed that over the past few years, GSK is gradually morphing into an "American" company.
>Changes to their website that de-emphasize their UK roots provide some
>clues. Their current website, though it still has references to the
>UK, is far more Americanized than previous versions. The keeping of
>the SmithKline name after the mergers with SmithKline(US), Wellcome
>and Beecham (two other UK companies), indicates their desire to put an
>American face on their company. It's just another part of the myth
>building process.

Years ago, Anthony Sampson wrote a book called _The Sovereign State of
ITT_. In it he said (I'm doing this from memory, but it's close),
"ITT portrays itself as American in America, British in Britain,
German in Germany, and so forth. But owes allegiance to none of them
and views itself as superior to all national governments."

That is every bit as true of multinational drug companies, and
probably all other multinationals as well. So it really is misleading
to think of any of them as American, or British, or Canadian.....

>What I find the most galling, GlaxoSmithKline is a British company.
>So you have a foreign company leading the charge to maintain higher
>drug prices in the USA than they charge in their home country or
>elsewhere.

I suppose you could argue that it's even worse for an "American" firm
to charge fellow Americans a higher price than is charged to dang
furriners such as Argentinians. But it is common practice.

As I said yesterday, the price in each country is set to maximize
profits. It is an estimate, of course, but it is made by a staff of
trained economiists with a wealth of data, statistical methods, and
computers at their disposal.

>If that doesn't prove that the US population is being lead
>down the garden path, I don't know what will.

But no more than by other firms. The function of most national
advertising (as distinguished from retail advertising) is to induce
consumers to perceive differences among brands where they do not
exist. This is not my personal opinion, it is what any economist who
studies advertising, and any advertising person who is willing to
level (as a surprising number are) will tell you.

>BTW, Wellbutrin (Zyban) is a UK drug (Wellbutrin - developed by
>Burroughs-Wellcome (UK) which became Glaxo-Wellcome (UK) and finally
>Galxo SmithKline). So, it's interesting how the justification can be
>made for higher prices in the US to support R&D for a UK drug sold by
>a UK company.

Drug companies (actually, their ad agencies) will invent whatever
"justification" they think will fool the public. But there can be no
*valid* justification for the high prices. They do not "support R&D."
They support high profits. The relatively small amount of money spent
on R&D could be amply covered by much lower prices.

Profit, as any economics text will explain, is necessary if a firm is
to survive. But economists distinguish between "normal" profit, the
amount necessary to survive, and "pure" or "monopoy" profit, the
amount in excess of that.

I havent looked at the data for a few years, but before I retired, the
Commerce Department data showed that year after year, the drug
companies were either first or second in profitability.

> If the US public knew how many drugs they take are of foreign origin,
>support for the pharmaceuticals' pricing policies would totally collapse.
>Only the myth, that all of these drugs are American, keeps this afloat.

I think you're mistaken about that, Peter. The great majority of
consumers don't give a damn where the drugs come from. They just want
to be "cured."

Americans have shown no reluctance to buy cars from a variety of
foreign countries, cameras from Japan, and as I suspect you approve,
even alcoholic beverages from Scotland!

vince

Peter Charles

March 3rd, 2004, 02:47 PM

>
>
> >>Do they have special factories that sell
> >>substandard medications to Canadians?
> >
> >You aren't serious, are you?
>
> No. I was being bitter and sarcastic and cynical.

Well, it did seem to be out of character for you. :)

>
> A few of the medications I'm on are expensive. Sometimes I buy on
> the 'Net from Canada. If I could take the entire management of Glaxo
> Kline Smith fishing, I'd not dare, because I'd drown the *******s for,
> if nothing else (and I suspect there's else) two of their latest
> ploys that I've heard of where they intend to refuse to supply
> Canadian firms with meds if those firms sell to people in the U.S. and
> the second one their attempts to get the FDA to keep Wellbutrin as a
> protected med, not to let it go generic. They lost on the second one,
> so those of us who smoke can try to quit a little more cheaply.
>

What I find the most galling, GlaxoSmithKline is a British company.
So you have a foreign company leading the charge to maintain higher
drug prices in the USA than they charge in their home country or
elsewhere. If that doesn't prove that the US population is being lead
down the garden path, I don't know what will. I noticed that over the
past few years, GSK is gradually morphing into an "American" company.
Changes to their website that de-emphasize their UK roots provide some
clues. Their current website, though it still has references to the
UK, is far more Americanized than previous versions. The keeping of
the SmithKline name after the mergers with SmithKline(US), Wellcome
and Beecham (two other UK companies), indicates their desire to put an
American face on their company. It's just another part of the myth
building process.

BTW, before posting this I made a phone call to check on the price of
Wellbutrin here -- $18.00 CAD for 30 pills plus the dispensing fee.

Peter

Peter Charles

March 3rd, 2004, 03:22 PM

BTW, Wellbutrin (Zyban) is a UK drug (Wellbutrin - developed by
Burroughs-Wellcome (UK) which became Glaxo-Wellcome (UK) and finally
Galxo SmithKline). So, it's interesting how the justification can be
made for higher prices in the US to support R&D for a UK drug sold by
a UK company. (AZT and Zantac are two other well-known Wellcome
products). More fodder for the myth building. If the US public knew
how many drugs they take are of foreign origin, support for the
pharmaceuticals' pricing policies would totally collapse. Only the
myth, that all of these drugs are American, keeps this afloat.

Wolfgang

March 4th, 2004, 01:39 AM

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...

> ...my retirement, when I began
> paying less attention to the sins of the drug companies and more to
> fishing.

Hm.....not a bad endorsement for retirement......I may just have to try that
some day.

Wolfgang
how does one do that?

Wolfgang

March 4th, 2004, 02:22 AM

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> > I noticed that over the past few years, GSK is gradually morphing into
an "American" company.
> >Changes to their website that de-emphasize their UK roots provide some
> >clues. Their current website, though it still has references to the
> >UK, is far more Americanized than previous versions. The keeping of
> >the SmithKline name after the mergers with SmithKline(US), Wellcome
> >and Beecham (two other UK companies), indicates their desire to put an
> >American face on their company. It's just another part of the myth
> >building process.
>
> Years ago, Anthony Sampson wrote a book called _The Sovereign State of
> ITT_. In it he said (I'm doing this from memory, but it's close),
> "ITT portrays itself as American in America, British in Britain,
> German in Germany, and so forth. But owes allegiance to none of them
> and views itself as superior to all national governments."
>
> That is every bit as true of multinational drug companies, and
> probably all other multinationals as well. So it really is misleading
> to think of any of them as American, or British, or Canadian.....
>
> >What I find the most galling, GlaxoSmithKline is a British company.
> >So you have a foreign company leading the charge to maintain higher
> >drug prices in the USA than they charge in their home country or
> >elsewhere.
>
> I suppose you could argue that it's even worse for an "American" firm
> to charge fellow Americans a higher price than is charged to dang
> furriners such as Argentinians. But it is common practice.
>
> As I said yesterday, the price in each country is set to maximize
> profits. It is an estimate, of course, but it is made by a staff of
> trained economiists with a wealth of data, statistical methods, and
> computers at their disposal.
>
> >If that doesn't prove that the US population is being lead
> >down the garden path, I don't know what will.
>
> But no more than by other firms. The function of most national
> advertising (as distinguished from retail advertising) is to induce
> consumers to perceive differences among brands where they do not
> exist. This is not my personal opinion, it is what any economist who
> studies advertising, and any advertising person who is willing to
> level (as a surprising number are) will tell you.
>
> >BTW, Wellbutrin (Zyban) is a UK drug (Wellbutrin - developed by
> >Burroughs-Wellcome (UK) which became Glaxo-Wellcome (UK) and finally
> >Galxo SmithKline). So, it's interesting how the justification can be
> >made for higher prices in the US to support R&D for a UK drug sold by
> >a UK company.
>
> Drug companies (actually, their ad agencies) will invent whatever
> "justification" they think will fool the public. But there can be no
> *valid* justification for the high prices. They do not "support R&D."
> They support high profits. The relatively small amount of money spent
> on R&D could be amply covered by much lower prices.
>
> Profit, as any economics text will explain, is necessary if a firm is
> to survive. But economists distinguish between "normal" profit, the
> amount necessary to survive, and "pure" or "monopoy" profit, the
> amount in excess of that.
>
> I havent looked at the data for a few years, but before I retired, the
> Commerce Department data showed that year after year, the drug
> companies were either first or second in profitability.
>
> > If the US public knew how many drugs they take are of foreign origin,
> >support for the pharmaceuticals' pricing policies would totally collapse.
> >Only the myth, that all of these drugs are American, keeps this afloat.
>
> I think you're mistaken about that, Peter. The great majority of
> consumers don't give a damn where the drugs come from. They just want
> to be "cured."
>
> Americans have shown no reluctance to buy cars from a variety of
> foreign countries, cameras from Japan, and as I suspect you approve,
> even alcoholic beverages from Scotland!
>
> vince

Some time in the late 70s (if memory serves) Irving Wallace had published
the first edition of the first volume of "The People's Almanac", a
delightful work that has proved to be prescient in at least one important
regard. Nestled among all the other goodies (including a marvelous
collection of outré epitaphs--"Here lies Lester Moore, four slugs from a
..44.....no less, no more") was a gazetteer with entries on all of the
world's countries at the time. Each entry included an interesting mix of
statistics and other more or less standard encyclopedia style information.
Each also included a breakdown of "who rules" as well as one of "who REALLY
rules", with the distinction being made plain. O.k., so, included in this
roster of the nations of the world (all in alphabetical order) were the ten
largest corporations (at that time) in the world, and they were treated
exactly the same as any other sovereign nation........companies like Exxon
and GM.....Walmart was at that time (perhaps) a gleam in it's daddy's eye,
and Microsoft weren't. ANYway.......the point is that even in the late 70s
transnational corporations (as Irving saw quite clearly) were already above
and outside the reach of the puny laws of any single nation, and already did
business as sovereign nations in their own right. What we see going on
today is nothing more than the logical extension of an already long
entrenched pattern. In other words, and in short, the notion of a major
"American" corporation is fast approaching (if it has not already arrived
at) just plain stupid.

Wolfgang
who, in all honesty, doesn't much care whether or not this helps. :)

[email protected]

March 4th, 2004, 02:48 AM

On 3 Mar 2004 07:22:44 -0800, (Peter Charles)
wrote:

>BTW, Wellbutrin (Zyban) is a UK drug (Wellbutrin - developed by
>Burroughs-Wellcome (UK) which became Glaxo-Wellcome (UK) and finally
>Galxo SmithKline).

I'd never looked them up, but for some reason had assumed they were a
company of German origin.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Wolfgang

March 4th, 2004, 03:19 AM

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > who, in all honesty, doesn't much care whether or not this helps.
:)
>
> It doesn't. I don't think I've ever seen a more clear, lucid,
> to-the-point post followed by a more rambling, incoherent one.

Ask BJ......he'll explain it to you in terms you can grasp.

Wolfgang

March 4th, 2004, 03:20 AM

Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Wolfgang
> who, in all honesty, doesn't much care whether or not this helps. :)

It doesn't. I don't think I've ever seen a more clear, lucid,
to-the-point post followed by a more rambling, incoherent one.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

B J Conner

March 4th, 2004, 04:31 AM

It was clear- in his own mind.
"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > who, in all honesty, doesn't much care whether or not this helps.
:)
>
> It doesn't. I don't think I've ever seen a more clear, lucid,
> to-the-point post followed by a more rambling, incoherent one.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Peter Charles

March 4th, 2004, 08:13 PM

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:34:19 -0500, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

[snip]

In general, I agree that a multi-national behaves as the name implies.
However, if the HQ is in the US and the senior executives are
American, then they will tend to favour national policies. Given the
extyremely close ties between the White House and Congress, on the one
hand, and major corporations, on the other, there is a symmetry
between the general policies of American multi-nationals and the US
government. This isn't quite the same condition for multi-nationals
of other countries. As the US is the dominat market in the world, the
multi-nationals tend to align themselves more with the US than with
their home countries, becoming more "multi" than their US
counterparts.

This issue shows well in Canada. US corps in Canada make no effort to
hide their US origins, they flaunt them. OTOH, Canadian corps in the
US have to change their name, buy a US subsidiary, or otherwise
camoflage their national origin in order to be successful. It's a
fact of life when the US market is the dominant national market in the
world. The EU is actually bigger but it doesn't function as a
national market. This produces one set of operating conditions for US
multis and another set for the rest.

>
>Drug companies (actually, their ad agencies) will invent whatever
>"justification" they think will fool the public. But there can be no
>*valid* justification for the high prices. They do not "support R&D."
>They support high profits. The relatively small amount of money spent
>on R&D could be amply covered by much lower prices.
>
>Profit, as any economics text will explain, is necessary if a firm is
>to survive. But economists distinguish between "normal" profit, the
>amount necessary to survive, and "pure" or "monopoy" profit, the
>amount in excess of that.
>
>I havent looked at the data for a few years, but before I retired, the
>Commerce Department data showed that year after year, the drug
>companies were either first or second in profitability.
>
>> If the US public knew how many drugs they take are of foreign origin,
>>support for the pharmaceuticals' pricing policies would totally collapse.
>>Only the myth, that all of these drugs are American, keeps this afloat.
>
>I think you're mistaken about that, Peter. The great majority of
>consumers don't give a damn where the drugs come from. They just want
>to be "cured."
>
>Americans have shown no reluctance to buy cars from a variety of
>foreign countries, cameras from Japan, and as I suspect you approve,
>even alcoholic beverages from Scotland!
>

I can't do the brogue like Robbie Burns, but doesn't one his poems
contains the lines (translated), "God give us the grace to see
ourselves as others see us." It's not whether the US consumer cares
or not, it's the ability to maintain the myth "high American prices
for American R&D = superior American drugs." This sells if 99.999% of
Americans believe (or don't care to know differently) that all high
quality, high tech drugs are American. Blow the myth away and the
support will erode.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

March 5th, 2004, 02:42 AM

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:33:57 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:13:03 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>It's not whether the US consumer cares
>>or not, it's the ability to maintain the myth "high American prices
>>for American R&D = superior American drugs." This sells if 99.999% of
>>Americans believe (or don't care to know differently) that all high
>>quality, high tech drugs are American. Blow the myth away and the
>>support will erode. ....
>>
>
> I don't know, Peter, I don't hear that pov. The
> overwhelming sentiment is "Drug prices are too high."

That realization has probably only sunk in the last few years due to
the slow but steady increase in the "cheap Canadian drugs" news
stories. As I understand it, this wasn't a big deal until the
disparity became known. Drugs were acknowledged to be expensive but
there wasn't a lot of talk (on TV news anyway) that there was anything
inappropriate about this.

I doubt that it's verbalized very much. I would see is at as a basic,
unchallenged assumption. As an example I'm sure that the FDA and
drug company claims that "Canadian drugs are dangerous" wouldn't play
very well if this assumption wasn't present. It does resonate with
some, perhaps the majority, so it's a claim that carries weight.
They're playing on the natural concern that foreign stuff is inferior
simply because it's foreign. This is the basic assumption for every
imported good when it first arrives. Each type of import has to earn
the trust of the public.

I realize that imported goods are a way of life in the US but I'm sure
the US feels (justifiably) that it still is the world leader in all
sorts of high tech endeavors. The US is the world leader in
pharmaceuticals. Its national market represents about 50% of the
world's pharmaceutical trade. Its drug companies are all world
leaders. Its advanced R&D accounts for a significant proportion of
the new discoveries every year. So it's not a very long stretch to
move this from "we're the best" (plenty of evidence to support it) to
"we're the best and everyone else is crap".

When the stories of seniors takning bus rides across the border to buy
drugs hit the NBC airwaves, the context of the story was always
cautionary and negative. These seniors were risking their lives
buying substandard Canadian drugs -- that was the message. Now why
would they immediately leap to that conclusion? What drove that
assumption? Now the story is slowly changing to buying bad drugs on
the net, but it was all Canadian drugs when it started.

As a Canadian, I'm totally immersed in the American pov, it's a fact
of life for all Canadians. As such. American myths are very evident
to me. But as I sit here, I can't think of any comparable Canadian
myths. It's not that they don't exist, rather it's that they are not
evident to me. If an American was to immerse him or herself in the
Canadian pov, I'm sure these myths would be very evident to that
person. It's hard to see our own national myths as they form part of
the basic enculturation process that begins at birth. It's only when
something very visible and hard to ignore comes along and starts
poking holes in it, do we begin to realize that maybe what we believed
all along, is fundamentally flawed in ways we never considered. We
may not have been aware that it formed part of our belief system until
it is challenged.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

March 5th, 2004, 12:15 PM

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:35:38 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:42:13 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>
>>That realization has probably only sunk in the last few years due to
>>the slow but steady increase in the "cheap Canadian drugs" news
>>stories. As I understand it, this wasn't a big deal until the
>>disparity became known. Drugs were acknowledged to be expensive but
>>there wasn't a lot of talk (on TV news anyway) that there was anything
>>inappropriate about this.
>
>
> Come on, Peter, give us some credit. People here have
> known drug prices are high and have been complaining
> about them for quite some time. The revelation of
> "cheap Canadian drugs" was not that drugs are expensive
> here but that the same drugs are cheaper elsewhere.
>
> There are several things that raised consciousness here.
> One has been steady increase in drug prices, another the
> increase in co-pays or simply loss of prescription benefits,
> a third is an ever-greater number of getting-old(er) folks
> who are buying ever-greater quantities of drugs, and a
> fourth is physicians prescribing more drugs.

I debated about writing the last post as I didn't know quite how to
make the points I wanted to state without coming off as insulting. I
skipped over some issues as I didn't want to get embroiled in
explaining stuff that was potential insulting so I left it out. I
wasn't setting out to **** people off. Fortunately, your post
actually contains a better statement of the issue than my attempts.

"People here have known drug prices are high and have been complaining
about them for quite some time. The revelation of
"cheap Canadian drugs" was not that drugs are expensive
here but that the same drugs are cheaper elsewhere."

That "revelation" is really what I'm talking about. Without the news
stories of busloads of seniors heading north, it probably still would
not have happened. The essence of what I'm going on about, lies in
the "why so?".

That's enough from me on this issue.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

vincent p. norris

March 5th, 2004, 03:18 PM

>> ...my retirement, when I began
>> paying less attention to the sins of the drug companies and more to
>> fishing.
>
>Hm.....not a bad endorsement for retirement......I may just have to try that
>some day.
>
>Wolfgang
>how does one do that?

Easy. You just have to get old! Or rich.

I highly recommend it, whichever way you do it.

vince

vincent p. norris

March 5th, 2004, 03:28 PM

>I don't know about the doctor side of it but there is no advertising
>allowed to the public for prescription drugs

That was true in the US too, Peter, till recently.

MDs were (and still are) inundated, however, with ads, detail men,
(salesmen), free trips, goodies, etc.

And MDs are incredibly gullible. A pharmacist testified before a
Senate committee that he could always tell which company's detail man
had been in town this week, because of the perscriptions people
brought to him to fill.

vince

Peter Charles

March 5th, 2004, 09:47 PM

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:12:52 GMT, "slenon"
> wrote:

>>All of that is also true. But, I'm not sure why you're surprised that
>>I didn't mention it, as it is an entirely different issue.
>>Wolfgang
>
>It is related with respect to that long laborious FDA approval you
>mentioned. The good side of that approval process, from my vantage point,
>is that it kept many antibiotics off the market in this country for years
>longer than the manufacturers would have liked. That delay alone kept those
>drugs effective longer than they would have been without the FDA's delay.
>While antibiotics are only a small portion of the overall drug market, they,
>like all other drugs are also multi-tiered in marketing and pricing.
>
>Greg notes:
>>Then there's the practice of prescribing
>> antibiotics for people with the flu ...
>
>Also a major part of the problem. While patients would likely recover
>equally well with placebos in the case of viral infections, I can't imagine
>any physician today prescribing them.
>
>And both are related to the massive amount of advertising money pumped into
>what amounts to pimping these drugs to physicians.

BTW, it is illegal to advertise perscription drugs in Canada. I
wonder what would happen if that was tried in the US?

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter Charles

March 6th, 2004, 12:47 AM

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:41:33 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:47:15 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>
>>BTW, it is illegal to advertise perscription drugs in Canada. I
>>wonder what would happen if that was tried in the US?
>
>
> Do you mean to the public or to physicians ? Or both ?
> Marketing directly to the public here has "worked",
> apparently, in that a lot of patients push docs on certain
> drugs nowadays that they didn't have a clue about at one
> time. But the marketing on the MD side is fierce.

I don't know about the doctor side of it but there is no advertising
allowed to the public for prescription drugs. They even have to be
careful how they word their websites to avoid prosecution.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[email protected]

March 6th, 2004, 03:26 AM

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:35:38 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>
> Come on, Peter, give us some credit. People here have
> known drug prices are high and have been complaining
> about them for quite some time. The revelation of
> "cheap Canadian drugs" was not that drugs are expensive
> here but that the same drugs are cheaper elsewhere.

Don't forget the one about animal medications being a lot cheaper.
There, of course, the argument of them being perhaps less well
manufactured might hold. I'm sure many more average (normal?) humans
would be worried. Though I'm not sure it'd bother me, personally, to
take a calf antibiotic, or a canine pain reliever.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

troutbum_mt

March 8th, 2004, 03:36 AM

says...
> I don't know about the doctor side of it but there is no advertising
> allowed to the public for prescription drugs. They even have to be
> careful how they word their websites to avoid prosecution.

Well, can they beat this deal?
http://www.4eddbed.com/drugs/cialis.htm

Spammed minds want to know!
<bseg>
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

B J Conner

March 8th, 2004, 04:37 AM

Got any of these type places in Minnesota?
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1078577905206570.xml?oregonian?lcg
This is about "store front: pharmacies that relay prescriptions to Canada
and let people pick them up here. The state board here is closing them
down.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:45:44 -0500, Peter Charles
> > wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> >> Huh? REimport? This implies that the drugs
> >>are made here, sold to Canada, and then come back here. So why should
> >>they be dangerous?
> >
> >They aren't. You're being lied to.
>
> Figured that.
>
>
> >>Do they have special factories that sell
> >>substandard medications to Canadians?
> >
> >You aren't serious, are you?
>
> No. I was being bitter and sarcastic and cynical.
>
> Perhaps I _do_ come over as too sweet and innocent.
>
> A few of the medications I'm on are expensive. Sometimes I buy on
> the 'Net from Canada. If I could take the entire management of Glaxo
> Kline Smith fishing, I'd not dare, because I'd drown the *******s for,
> if nothing else (and I suspect there's else) two of their latest
> ploys that I've heard of where they intend to refuse to supply
> Canadian firms with meds if those firms sell to people in the U.S. and
> the second one their attempts to get the FDA to keep Wellbutrin as a
> protected med, not to let it go generic. They lost on the second one,
> so those of us who smoke can try to quit a little more cheaply.
>
> Wellbutrin was an early entry into the anti-depressant field. It sort
> of worked, but too many people had side effects (seizures) and other,
> presumably better meds came along. However, some researchers had
> noted that many of the patients on Wellbutrin had simply quit smoking.
> Most not even having had that intention. Wellbutrin languished for
> several years and then the second part, about smoking, became
> interesting to the world in general. However, they only had a few
> years to really push it at protected prices, and their slight tendency
> (sarcasm again) to greed got them to want to keep it and all the
> possible profits.
>
> And as far as the first one goes, they make a profit selling in Canada
> even at reduced prices or they'd not be doing it. The drug companies
> are not generous and giving (except those free samples of the
> (dangerous?) Viagra they're giving doctors to let patients try out),
> as can be proven by what any and all of them are doing for AIDS in
> Africa.
> --
>
> rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
> Often taunted by trout.
> Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely
on it.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli