Antibiotics show free market failure

[Hermit]

Silly rainbow. It's because consumers only want them to last for three years now.

Yes indeed. If they wanted toasters to last 20 years, they would buy them instead, wouldn't they? That's what lolbertardianism is all about.

[pErvinalia]

It's actually comical that anyone could believe in the "free market". If it wasn't fucking us all over so much, it would be really funny.

[Seth]

"Dramatically" has it?? Why are there more (per capita) below the poverty-line now than there was in the 70's before neoliberalism kicked in?!?

Because the welfare state keeps encouraging them to reproduce another generation of dependents.

Drivel.
Have you actually looked at the data?

If you had you'd realise that welfare states in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand actually have very low natural population growth rates.

Tell us Seth, why do you think this is?

Because, like Obama at the moment, they are substituting the mass importation of government-dependent aliens from other nations as a substitute for the breeding programs they were using because the productive class has been propagandized into believing that reproducing is bad for the planet so they are not-breeding themselves into extinction.

[Seth]

It's actually comical that anyone could believe in the "free market". If it wasn't fucking us all over so much, it would be really funny.

Problem is it's only fucking YOU over, and you're mad about it so you act like a three year old. It's serving most of us very well, thank you very much.

Your problems with the free market are of your own devising and perpetuation.

[Blind groper]

The argument about whether the free market or the controlled market is best is another idiocy about which extreme is best. Those kinds of arguments are bulldust. Extremes are not the way to go. What is needed is a balance between the extremes. In other words a compromise.

The case of the free market is a good example. A totally free market leads to swindles, cheats, over-priced goods, and the consumer exploited. A totally controlled market, such as we saw in the USSR, leads to terrible inefficiencies and a drop in standard of living for everyone. It generates poverty.

A balance, though, permits the market to be as free as possible, but with some controls, such as legislation to prevent fraudulent advertising, and give consumers a right to return defective goods, and get comeback for defective services. It may also include some control of the market via taxes and subsidies.

Too much control is killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but too little control is to permit unscupulous people to screw the system.

As always, balance is the key.

[Blind groper]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oritavancin

Back to antibiotics.
In case some of you think all activity is stopped, look at the reference above. This is a new antibiotic, similar to vancomycin, which is still being tested and not yet approved. Hopefully, it will gain approval, and be a help in fighting resistance. This antibiotic is claimed to have the special property of being able to completely clear up an infection, with a single injection, thus preventing the problem of people who fail to complete their course.

[JimC]

The argument about whether the free market or the controlled market is best is another idiocy about which extreme is best. Those kinds of arguments are bulldust. Extremes are not the way to go. What is needed is a balance between the extremes. In other words a compromise.

The case of the free market is a good example. A totally free market leads to swindles, cheats, over-priced goods, and the consumer exploited. A totally controlled market, such as we saw in the USSR, leads to terrible inefficiencies and a drop in standard of living for everyone. It generates poverty.

A balance, though, permits the market to be as free as possible, but with some controls, such as legislation to prevent fraudulent advertising, and give consumers a right to return defective goods, and get comeback for defective services. It may also include some control of the market via taxes and subsidies.

Too much control is killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but too little control is to permit unscupulous people to screw the system.

As always, balance is the key.

[Seth]

The argument about whether the free market or the controlled market is best is another idiocy about which extreme is best. Those kinds of arguments are bulldust. Extremes are not the way to go. What is needed is a balance between the extremes. In other words a compromise.

The case of the free market is a good example. A totally free market leads to swindles, cheats, over-priced goods, and the consumer exploited. A totally controlled market, such as we saw in the USSR, leads to terrible inefficiencies and a drop in standard of living for everyone. It generates poverty.

A balance, though, permits the market to be as free as possible, but with some controls, such as legislation to prevent fraudulent advertising, and give consumers a right to return defective goods, and get comeback for defective services. It may also include some control of the market via taxes and subsidies.

Too much control is killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but too little control is to permit unscupulous people to screw the system.

As always, balance is the key.

Your fundamental mistake is very common. "Free market" does not mean anarchy or a market without rules or enforcement. In fact a free market depends for proper operation on control of fraud and upon the honest fulfillment of contracts. Nothing in the concept of a free market permits force or fraud and all participants in the markets have the authority to enforce performance of a contract and redress fraud.

Thus, a "free market" does not mean an unregulated market.

A "controlled market," as opposed to a free market, is one in which the government intervenes and regulates the markets not so as to prevent force and fraud and punish attempts, but so as to manipulate the market to the benefit of one or another participants in the market, or putatively for the benefit of the populace, by using its regulatory power to choose economic winners and losers in the marketplace.

The classic contemporary example of this is GM. General Motors went bankrupt because it was not able to compete in a free marketplace due to government regulations that interfered with the company's ability to shed unnecessary expenses (employees) when economic conditions called for cutbacks.

Absent egregious meddling in the labor market by the government, through the unions, GM would have survived as all businesses do when economic times are bad; by contracting and shedding expenses that produce no profits...like unneeded workers and bloated pension plans that pay retired employees more money during their retirement than they earned while they were working.

[JimC]

The argument about whether the free market or the controlled market is best is another idiocy about which extreme is best. Those kinds of arguments are bulldust. Extremes are not the way to go. What is needed is a balance between the extremes. In other words a compromise.

The case of the free market is a good example. A totally free market leads to swindles, cheats, over-priced goods, and the consumer exploited. A totally controlled market, such as we saw in the USSR, leads to terrible inefficiencies and a drop in standard of living for everyone. It generates poverty.

A balance, though, permits the market to be as free as possible, but with some controls, such as legislation to prevent fraudulent advertising, and give consumers a right to return defective goods, and get comeback for defective services. It may also include some control of the market via taxes and subsidies.

Too much control is killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but too little control is to permit unscupulous people to screw the system.

As always, balance is the key.

Your fundamental mistake is very common. "Free market" does not mean anarchy or a market without rules or enforcement. In fact a free market depends for proper operation on control of fraud and upon the honest fulfillment of contracts. Nothing in the concept of a free market permits force or fraud and all participants in the markets have the authority to enforce performance of a contract and redress fraud.

Thus, a "free market" does not mean an unregulated market.

A "controlled market," as opposed to a free market, is one in which the government intervenes and regulates the markets not so as to prevent force and fraud and punish attempts, but so as to manipulate the market to the benefit of one or another participants in the market, or putatively for the benefit of the populace, by using its regulatory power to choose economic winners and losers in the marketplace.

The classic contemporary example of this is GM. General Motors went bankrupt because it was not able to compete in a free marketplace due to government regulations that interfered with the company's ability to shed unnecessary expenses (employees) when economic conditions called for cutbacks.

Absent egregious meddling in the labor market by the government, through the unions, GM would have survived as all businesses do when economic times are bad; by contracting and shedding expenses that produce no profits...like unneeded workers and bloated pension plans that pay retired employees more money during their retirement than they earned while they were working.

The fact that some examples of government intervention in markets have produced poor results is not evidence that all such intervention is doomed to failure, simply that it has to be done very judiciously...

[Seth]

The fact that some examples of government intervention in markets have produced poor results is not evidence that all such intervention is doomed to failure, simply that it has to be done very judiciously...

Free market theory views any government manipulation of the market beyond it's policing role to be innately harmful to the proper functioning of the marketplace. The reason is because such manipulation constitutes central planning to one degree or another, and as Hayek demonstrates, central planning can never be as efficient at dealing with supply and demand as are the billions of individual buying decisions made each day by consumers.

[pErvinalia]

It's actually comical that anyone could believe in the "free market". If it wasn't fucking us all over so much, it would be really funny.

Problem is it's only fucking YOU over, and you're mad about it so you act like a three year old. It's serving most of us very well, thank you very much.

Your problems with the free market are of your own devising and perpetuation.

adapt or die, Seth. You've been given a heads up. The people are coming for their democracy. The rich will be royally fucked when it finally kicks off. Make sure you are on the right side of history, Seth..

[Seth]

It's actually comical that anyone could believe in the "free market". If it wasn't fucking us all over so much, it would be really funny.

Problem is it's only fucking YOU over, and you're mad about it so you act like a three year old. It's serving most of us very well, thank you very much.

Your problems with the free market are of your own devising and perpetuation.

adapt or die, Seth. You've been given a heads up. The people are coming for their democracy. The rich will be royally fucked when it finally kicks off. Make sure you are on the right side of history, Seth..

That's what Marx said. Didn't work out for him or anybody else.

But, that's why we have the guns and you don't.

[pErvinalia]

Liberals own guns too in your nutjob society. In the sane part of the world, very few people have them. People power will overcome the wackjob puppets of the rich. This isn't about an organised revolution. It's an almost certain guarantee from the way the rich are fucking up the planet and making it harder and harder for anyone other than them and their cronies to have a decent life. You live in a bubble, Seth. There might be a not insignificant number of hill billies and tea party types in the US, but in the rest of the world they are rightly shunned by society and don't exist in anything nearing countable numbers.

As I said, Seth, adapt or die. Pick your side of history carefully...

[rainbow]

Thus, a "free market" does not mean an unregulated market.

Contradiction. Who does the regulating, and who decides on the regulations?

[pErvinalia]

...