Does Greed and Avarice Spell the Eventual Demise of Capitalism?

..

Even young REPUBLICANS are growing tired of capitalism,

American pollsters say

25 Jun, 2021 14:22

A protester holds up an anarchist symbol flag during a Black Lives Matter protest in Manhattan, New York,

August 1, 2016 © Reuters / Andrew Kelly

Fewer than half of young Americans have a positive view of capitalism, a new poll has found. Even young Republicans are increasingly skeptical – but don’t expect America to go full-on socialist just yet.

An Axios poll published on Friday revealed that in the capitalist US, just 49% of Americans aged 18-to-34 actually support capitalism. And 51% say they have a positive view of socialism.

For several years, polling has found support for socialism rising among Democrats and the young. As a result, Democrats running on explicitly socialist platforms – like Democratic Socialists of America members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) – have translated this discontent into electoral success.

However, the latest poll found that young Republicans, usually tireless advocates for free-market capitalism, have grown sick of the system they’re used to defending. Among Republicans aged 18-to-34, some 66% now have a positive view of capitalism, down from 81% in 2019. But 56% of young Republicans want the government to focus on reducing wealth inequality, up from just 40% two years ago.

Axios puts this rise down to more Americans seeing the “tangible upsides of unprecedented levels of government intervention” during the coronavirus pandemic. Indeed, then-President Donald Trump criticized both parties in Congress for agreeing on sending out “ridiculously low” stimulus checks of $600 in December, instead of the $2,000 he pushed for – criticism that would have been alien from a Republican president in recent decades. Equally rarely, Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib both agreed with Trump on the issue.

Yet the Right’s shift away from unfettered capitalism has been underway since before the pandemic hit. Fox News host Tucker Carlson, America’s most-watched cable news host and an influence on Trump during his tenure in the White House, has backed proposals by Democrats to break up the Silicon Valley tech monopolies, and vocally condemned the “mainstream Republican” focus on the “religion” of “market capitalism.”

“We do not exist to serve markets,” he said in 2019. “Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.”

Yet most Americans aren’t ready to declare themselves socialists just yet. While a slim majority of young Americans have a favorable view of the term, just 41% across all age groups share this view, and 52% say they have a negative view. Carlson would likely call himself a populist rather than a socialist, and Trump – a self-declared “nationalist” – frequently railed against the socialism practiced in Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union, while passing tax cuts that significantly benefited the rich.

What the poll does reveal, however, is that Republicans might not be able to rely on calling their opponents “socialists” as a blanket pejorative for much longer. Aside from the fact that many Democrats wouldn’t argue with the label, a small but growing number of Republican voters might roll their eyes too.

As I have watched capitalism display its spectacular greed in the past two decades, I have become more and more disgusted. I am not a socialist, but I am old enough to have seen the damage done to too many societies from that. 

Capitalism only works in a society that is ethically determined to be good corporate citizens. These are very hard to find anymore. The amazing greed that caused the 2008 economic crash has not disappeared. Big Pharma is 100% about profits and 0% about health care. As a Canadian, I can't imagine living without full access to medical specialists for everyone. 

I think pharmaceutical research should be done in universities without the help of Big Pharma. Governments should pay for the research and collect a good portion of the dividends on profitable medications. There should also be room for research on medications that may not be highly profitable but may save money and lives in the long run. 

Someone should have done a major study on the effectiveness if Ivermectin last spring, but any such effort was destroyed by Big Pharma's propaganda. I wonder how many medications were ignored or disposed of because it would not make big profits for Big Pharma?

=============================================================================================

US Big Pharma Allowed to Continue Hiding ‘Intimidating’ Price Info from Customers in TV Ads

Corruption is Everywhere - While this may not technically fit the definition of corruption, what do you call it when Congress puts the profits of lobbyists over the welfare of the people they are supposed to be serving?

© Pixabay / TBIT

A federal judge has stepped in to save drug companies from a new rule that would have forced them to disclose drug prices in TV ads, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services lacks authority over the industry.

“No matter how vexing the problem of spiraling drug costs may be, [Health and Human Services] cannot do more than what Congress has authorized,” US District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled on Monday, blocking the order, which was due to go into effect on Tuesday.

Amgen, Merck, and Eli Lilly, three of the largest US drug companies, and the Association of National Advertisers filed the lawsuit last month, claiming HHS lacked the legal authority to enforce the rule, which would have mandated that pharmaceutical ads display the list price of a 30-day supply of any drug covered under Medicare or Medicaid costing more than $35. The suit also claimed the order violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, but Mehta’s ruling didn’t address that argument.

Drug companies complained the rule would “confuse” and “intimidate” patients because insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, negotiate discounts with drug companies, meaning the list price, often much higher, could cause sticker shock. But that argument got little sympathy from HHS secretary Alex Azar, who told the companies when he announced the rule in May:

If you’re ashamed of your drug prices,

change your drug prices. It’s that simple.

The US is one of only two countries worldwide where direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is legal, and it is a massive market – $5.2 billion in 2016, according to CBS. According to HHS, the 10 most-advertised drugs have list prices from $488 to $16,938 per month or for a typical therapeutic course, numbers that would surely terrify the average consumer. 

President Donald Trump has made lowering the costs of prescription drugs one of his signature domestic issues, and the HHS rule was designed to bring those costs down, under the reasoning that pharmaceutical companies would be so embarrassed to float those gargantuan numbers on their ads that they’d cut the prices voluntarily.

Much of pharmaceutical advertising remains TV-based and the pharmaceutical industry has argued that it should be allowed to include pricing information on a dedicated website named in the ad. While it might seem absurd to expect consumers to drop everything and open their web browsers after seeing a TV ad they weren’t looking for in the first place, drug companies’ influence in Congress – they spent $4.1 billion on lobbying over the last 20 years, according to OpenSecrets.org, more than any other industry – means they tend to get what they want.

And the people have to pay the exorbitant profits of big pharma as well as the lobbying money that goes into the pockets of the country's lawmakers. As if they weren't already paying them enough.

Pharma Bro now Prison Bro as Shkreli Sentenced to 7 Years

'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli gets 7 years

in securities fraud case

Judge ruled earlier this week that Shkreli would have to forfeit more than $7.3M

The Associated Press 

Martin Shkreli, who became notorious for raising the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000 per cent and trolling critics on the internet with his snarky "Pharma Bro" persona, was given a seven-year prison sentence on Friday for securities fraud.

Martin Shkreli, who became notorious for raising the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000 per cent and trolling critics on the internet with his snarky "Pharma Bro" persona, was given a seven-year prison sentence on Friday for securities fraud. (Seth Wenig/Associated Press)

The smirk wiped off his face, a crying Martin Shkreli was sentenced to seven years in prison for securities fraud Friday in a hard fall for the pharmaceutical-industry bad boy vilified for jacking up the price of a lifesaving drug.

Shkreli, the boyish-looking, 34-year-old entrepreneur dubbed the "Pharma Bro" for his loutish behaviour, was handed his punishment after a hearing in which he and his attorney struggled with limited success to make him a sympathetic figure. His own lawyer confessed to wanting to punch him in the face sometimes.

The defendant hung his head and choked up as he admitted to many mistakes and apologized to the investors he was convicted of defrauding. At one point, a clerk handed him a box of tissues.

"I want the people who came here today to support me to understand one thing: The only person to blame for me being here today is me," he said. "There is no conspiracy to take down Martin Shkreli. I took down Martin Shkreli."

In the end, U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto gave him a sentence that fell well short of the 15 years prosecutors wanted but was a lot longer than the 18 months his lawyer asked for. He was also fined $75,000 US.

Shkreli was found guilty in August of lying to investors in two failed hedged funds and cheating them out of millions. The case was unrelated to the 2015 furor in which he was accused of price-gouging, but his arrest was seen as rough justice by the many enemies he made with his smug and abrasive behavior online and off.

The judge insisted that the punishment was not about Shkreli's online antics or his raising the cost of the drug. "This case is not about Mr. Shkreli's self-cultivated public persona ... nor his controversial statements about politics or culture," Matsumoto said.

This courtroom sketch shows former pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli, left, seated next to his lawyer Ben Brafman in U.S. federal court in New York on Friday. (Elizabeth Williams via Associated Press)

But she did say his conduct after the verdict made her doubt the sincerity of his remorse. She cited his bragging after the verdict that he would be sentenced to time served. And she quoted one piece of correspondence in which he wrote: "F—- the feds."

The judge ruled earlier that Shkreli would have to forfeit more than $7.3 million in a brokerage account and personal assets, including a one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album that he boasted of buying for $2 million.

Defense attorney Benjamin Brafman described Shkreli as a misunderstood eccentric who used unconventional means to make his defrauded investors even wealthier. He told the court that he sometimes wants to hug Shkreli and sometimes wants to punch him, but that his outspokenness shouldn't be held against him.

"It's like the kids today who hit send before they really understand what they texted," Brafman said.

Prosecutors rejected that notion.

"Mr. Shkreli is not a child," federal prosecutor Jacquelyn Kasulis said. "He's not a teenager who just needs some mentoring. He is a man who needs to take responsibility for his actions."

Shkreli became the face of pharmaceutical industry evil in 2015 when he increased by 5,000 percent the price of Daraprim, a previously cheap drug used to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection that can be fatal to people with the AIDS virus or other immune system disorders.

Shkreli seemed to treat the case like a big joke. After his arrest in December 2015, he taunted prosecutors, got kicked off of Twitter for harassing a female journalist, heckled Hillary Clinton from the sidewalk outside her daughter's home, gave speeches with the conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and spent countless hours livestreaming himself from his apartment.

He also infuriated members of Congress at a Capitol Hill hearing on drug prices when he repeatedly cited his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Afterward, he tweeted that the lawmakers were "imbeciles."

Last fall, the judge revoked his bail and threw him in jail after he jokingly offered his online followers a $5,000 bounty to anyone who could get a lock of Clinton's hair.

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Prov 16:18.

Drug Company Raises Everyday Vitamin Price by 800 Percent

Astonishing Corporate Greed

© Global Look Press

Following the lead of pharma-bro Martin Shkreli, a US drug company has hiked the price of a prescription version of vitamin B3 pills by over 800 percent. A drug used to treat respiratory ailments also got a price hike of nearly 2,500 percent.

Avondale Pharmaceuticals raised the price of Niacor, a prescription-only version of niacin (vitamin B3), by 809 percent last month. This means a bottle of 100 tablets went from costing $32.46 to $295, according to figures sent to the Financial Times.

While the drug is available over the counter, some doctors prefer to prescribe a version that has US Food and Drug Administration approval. The drug is used to lower cholesterol to reduce the chance of having a heart attack.

Doctors need to stop prescribing Niacor and recommend over the counter versions of B3.

The company also acquired another generic, SSKI, and increased its price by 2,499 percent, taking a 30ml bottle from $11.48 to $295.

The Birmingham, Alabama-based company raised its prices shortly after acquiring the rights to the drugs in a “buy-and-raise” deal made notorious by Martin Shkreli, the hedge fund investor recently convicted of securities fraud.

Shkreli became mired in controversy when he raised the price of a drug used by cancer and HIV patients by 5,500 percent.

The price hikes by Avondale were first noticed by Truven Health Analytics, according to The Independent.

According to the Financial Times, Avondale Pharmaceuticals was set up in August by a registered agent, Acrogen Pharmaceuticals, seemingly for the sole purpose of drug acquisition. Acrogen was started in 2016 by Mark Pugh, an executive behind several pharmaceutical companies.

“This is the latest example of an inefficient US market where the consumer, payer, and doctor don’t have all the information available to make a financially sound choice,” Michael Rae, CEO of Rx Savings, told FT. “They are caught in a web of inefficiency and are being taken advantage of.”

Price gouging is a controversial but established strategy whereby firms buy up the rights to a drug that faces little or no competition, before massively inflating the price and enjoying the profits.

It can't be that difficult to make this spectacular expression of greed illegal. These companies buy up rights, probably at inflated prices, and then dramatically raise their prices without adding anything to the product. Don't monopoly laws apply? 

At least, there should be a special tax, a dramatically inflated tax on the profit from the increase in prices of these drugs. The entire increase should be considered profit and therefore taxable. 

At best, these people should be thrown in jail and never allowed to work in the industry again. It is people like these who give the free-market system a black-eye and give ammunition to countries where there is no free-market system to criticize America and maintain their own forms of corruption.

The Netherlands Could be the First Country to Ban Gas, Diesel Vehicles

The Netherlands are looking to ban gas- and diesel-powered cars in the near future. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

By Nicole Mortillaro Science and Weather Reporter Global News

Gas-powered vehicles could be a thing of the past if Dutch politicians have their way.

A proposal has been put forth by the Netherlands’ Labour Party to ban gas- and diesel-powered cars by 2025.

John Vos, a member of the Labour Party, told the Yale Climate Connection, “We need to phase out CO2 emissions and we need to change our pattern of using fossil fuels if we want to save the Earth.”

While I totally agree with switching to a cleaner form of propulsion and getting out from under the gouging of oil companies, this gesture is unlikely to make any measurable difference in the global temperature. 

Unfortunately this report makes no mention of trucks or tourists; presumably they won't turn you away at the border because your Audi is petrol-powered.

But in a small, flat country like the Netherlands, the idea might just work. And, it might catch on in many other countries after which the global temperature change may almost be measurable. But I doubt it.

While the proposal may sound like an ambitious endeavour, the country isn’t the only one looking for such a ban: India — a country with stifling air pollution — as well as Norway, Germany and Austria are making similar proposals.

However, it’s the Netherlands that has made the biggest advance. The proposal has already passed through the lower parliament and could become law soon.

Though the country has about 20,000 charging stations, Vos said that more will have to be installed. Another challenge before the country can impose an all-out ban, is making electric and hydrogen cars more affordable.


Electric Cars with the Most Range
Year, Make, Model
Electric Range
MSRP

2016 Tesla Model X 4dr SUV Exterior
220 miles
$$$$$ $83,000

2016 Kia Soul EV Electric Wagon
90 miles
$$$$$ $31,950

2016 FIAT 500e Electric 2-door Hatchback
87 miles
$$$$$ $31,800

2016 Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive Electric 4-door Hatchback
87 miles
$$$$$ $41,450

2016 Nissan Leaf Electric 4-door Hatchback
84 miles
$$$$$ $29,010

2016 Volkswagen e-Golf Electric 4-door Hatchback
83 miles
$$$$$ $28,995

2016 Chevrolet Spark EV Electric 4-door Hatchback
82 miles
$$$$$ $25,120

2016 BMW i3 Electric 4-door Hatchback
80 miles
$$$$$ $42,400

2016 Ford Focus Electric 4-door Hatchback
76 miles
$$$$$ $29,170

2016 smart fortwo Electric 2-door Hatchback
68 miles
$$$$$ $25,000

Oil Co.s - Good Corporate Citizens or Greedy, Soulless, Bloodsucking Leeches?

Gas should be much cheaper with fall in oil prices, BMO says

Gasoline should be about 80 cents a litre, if historical correlations between crude and gas held true

CBC News 

Historic trends, if they held true today, should result in gasoline costs closer to 80 cents a litre based on the price of oil, the Bank of Montreal says.

It's not your imagination — gasoline prices in Canada should be a lot lower than they are right now.

That's according to Benjamin Reitzes, an economist at Bank of Montreal, who said the price Canadians pay at the pump should be a lot lower than it currently is based on the plunging price of a barrel of crude.

"With last week's plunge in oil fresh in my mind as I headed into the weekend, I couldn't help but notice how gasoline prices had ticked higher from the previous week," he wrote in a research note on Monday evening.

Despite Canada having one of the world's largest reserves of crude oil in the world, much of the gasoline that Canadians put into their cars — especially in Central Canada and on the East Coast — is based on crude oil that's been imported, most likely Brent crude from Europe.

Many factors go into the price of gasoline, but crude prices are a significant factor. And with crude prices plunging to under $35 US a barrel yesterday — a new six-year low — that should be affecting pump prices.

Except, it's not. At least, not as much as it should be.

"Simply, consumers don't appear to be reaping the full benefit of lower oil prices," Reitzes said, noting that Canadians are still paying more than $1 per litre in many markets, despite Brent crude prices falling to levels they haven't been at since 2008.

The following chart shows what Reitzes is talking about.

The price of gas and the price of oil have diverged this year, as this chart from a recent BMO report suggests.
(Bank of Montreal)

And it is not much different in the USA:

Throughout 2015, and especially recently, Canadian & US gasoline prices have diverged from crude. They are still correlated, but not as closely as they should be.

If historical trends were still true, gasoline should cost about 80 cents per litre in Canada with crude being where it currently is. Yet across the country, the national average gas price was 97.70 cents a litre, according to gasoline price website GasBuddy.com

One more thing - notice in the top chart the relationship between Canadian and American gas prices. Traditionally, Canada has been paying 30 to 35 cents per litre more than Americans, but in the last 2 years that discrepancy has risen to 40 to 50 cents per litre even as oil prices drop. Have refining cost increased substantially more in Canada than in the US?

Christmas bonus
"Talk of a Christmas bonus by way of cheaper gas prices may be disappointing due to weakness in the Canadian dollar and profit taking by speculators and refiners," GasBuddy's senior petroleum analyst Dan McTeague said.

"As most saw crude tumble last week, drivers expected further relief at the pumps, but got a surprising increase instead."

Worse still, the problem shows no signs of abating any time soon. Indeed, it could be about to get worse.

"Drivers in Vancouver and Victoria should look to an average three-cent increase per litre, with Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and the B.C. Interior following with an average two-cent bump," by this weekend, McTeague predicts.

"Toronto, Ottawa, London, Hamilton, most of Southern Ontario and Montreal set for a two-cent average hike, while the Maritimes and Newfoundland, which follow last week's market prices, should expect a three-cent increase for Thursday and Friday."

So if you are expecting a Christmas bonus from the oil companies, you had better have shares in them. The names Grinch, and Scrooge, are much too nice to call these wretched, conscienceless, pigs. 

Higher gas prices don't affect society evenly, it affects lower income people much more than others. Oil executives pad their multi-million dollar bonuses at the cost of health, nutrition and mobility of societies most fragile demographics. 

You make me sick! Merry Christmas.