If they REALLY believed in Free Trade, they would allow us to import drugs

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

and buy our insurance from the Swiss and the Dutch. I bet they could do a better job sitting in their desks in Amsterdam and Geneva, negotiating care and paying providers.


http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_healthcare_like_Neth.php

[Romulox]

1. If they REALLY believed in free trade, they'd allow workers free movement.

They don't; they believe in the free movement of capital.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I can definitely agree with that

Free trade doesn't exist without free movement of labor.

[HopeHoops]

2. Just curious. Are medical pot clinics allowed to import it or does it have to be domestic?

Greenhouse pot is probably the best, but there is some variety to be had around the world. It is sort of like coffee beans in that respect.

[Scipio the Elder]

3. :)

And if you believed in free trade, you'd have no problem with letting the Unions hemorrhage to outsourcing.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. Ah, but I never claimed to be a free trader. That's why I used the word "they" in my title

I'm just saying they're hypocrits. They're all for Free Trade when it suits their purpose.

But, I am for re-importing drugs since our "representatives" (using that term very loosely) won't negotiate on our behalf and I would be willing to use a foreign insurer who would probably do better by me than American companies who rip me off, cast me aside, deny me coverage when I need it the most and pay millions to their CEO's from my blood stained premiums.

[Scipio the Elder]

7. In order for you to get what you want, you have to believe in Free Trade

But if you want the freedom to have access to foreign goods at your leisure, this makes you a proponent of Free Trade.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. Yes, yes. I'm making an exception in these 2 cases.

I am pro: labor, pro-union, anti- Nafta, living wage, minimum tied to inflation, limits on exec compensation and

I am perfectly willing to pay more for a pair of shoes made by an American making decent union wages with decent union benefits with a decent union retirement in an American plant paying taxes in an American town as opposed to paying less for shoes made by child/slave labor in a foreign country so I can save a few bucks.

So what more do you want to know?

[Scipio the Elder]

9. I wasn't asking for your personal information or stances.

I was simply pointing out that there is no difference between you cherry-picking what you want to trade freely and what manufactures and corporations want to trade freely.

They don't want cheap drugs running around ruining their profits, you don't want China taking more manufacturing jobs ruining your profits. Everyone cherry-picks what they want in a free market.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. My post was ironic - I shouldn't HAVE to look outside the US

for pharmaceuticals or insurance - I am being forced to raise the issue.

The drug manufacturers have no problem negotiating drug prices with other countries. In our country they would prefer to extort the citizens and put their profits towards legalized graft in order to keep the prices artificially high.

I think we've about covered it. I accept your point that people are against things theoretically until an impact affects them in real life. No argument there.

:hi: Welcome to DU.

[Scipio the Elder]

11. :D

Thank you for the welcome.

Some background to put things in perspective: I am pro-Aristotle (aggregate) and anti-Plato. (philosopher king)

When you consolidate enough power into an entity that can dictate back what it wants from the mob, the line of communication is no longer open enough to be useful. A paradox forms: The king wants the mob to act a certain way for their own good, but if the transition is hurtful and unsettling to the mob and they let the king know, the king will take this as a challenge and enforce his will over that mob. Communication breaks down, mistrust becomes the rule of the day, and before long, the king and the aggregate are now two different entities at odds with each other for simply trying to coexist.

Things like "should" and "shouldn't" are dangerous, as they imply moral superiority. David Hume covered the "is-ought" problem in 1739 as Hume's Guillotine. I'm not meandering about long-dead philosophers to be superfluous and haughty. What I am stating is that by implying moral superiority, you begin down the path of the Philosopher King, in which when given the reigns over the aggregate, you will fall into the same paradox I have described above.

Faith in the aggregate is a difficult thing for those who can see the mechanical underpinnings of that aggregate with some clarity, yet, we do it every day with mundane tasks. We assume our jobs will be there when we walk into the office. We have faith that the market is buying whatever that company is producing. We have faith that the bank's will not simply take our life savings and run. We have faith that the resources we use on a daily basis will always be around in one incarnation or another. We all do this without thinking, so the idea of having faith in the aggregate should now have some point of reference in our personal lives.

How this relates to our discussion: The aggregate will provide for what the aggregate asks for and philosopher kings will try their hand at directing the flow of the aggregate. If one Philosopher King believes he can stop the aggregate, if the aggregate complies, then he will. If the aggregate does not comply, he will not. In the end, the aggregate determines how reality affects them and the Philosopher Kings are simply along for the ride.

The market always wins.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. Yer one of them thar smart book fellers ain't choo?

Great! I love that. Your prose is a little dense, but you make some interesting points.

[Scipio the Elder]

14. Ahhh I see

I'll keep my vernacular a bit more to the point then.

If people want cheaper drugs, then they will get cheaper drugs. If the need and want is great enough, that means a new market has been born and is awaiting a supplier and a workforce. Should and should not need not be discussed at all. There is no moral superiority to discuss. Every tariff, every blockage, every kingly intervention designed to stop human contact simply results in a new market every single time. That's just a raw fact.

Once more, the market always wins. The aggregate is always stronger than the Philosopher King.

If you want cheap drugs AND wealth simultaneously? Start putting together some doctors and chemists. See if you can't find patent-safe cheap FDA approved alternatives. The Free Market Theory WANTS you to do this. It damn near DEMANDS you to do this.

[Hannah Bell]

16. Difference is, corps get to decide; we don't.

I'd be more comfortable with nafta if there were free, unfettered movement of labor instead of what we have now, which is corporations/governments deciding who can move & who can't.

For example, i'd support unfettered movement of doctors, media pundits, lawyers, wall street types, & other highly paid "professionals".


there's no free trade, there's no unregulated trade: what we have is trade regulated in favor of the ruling class.

[Scipio the Elder]

17. WE are the corporations.

A corporation is a manifestation of market pressures and nothing more. They are not bottlenecks. They are not permanent fixtures. They are not omnipresent deities. To ancient Leftists who formed their power in Unions (while, ironically, funding internationalism) then, at best, corporations are stateless entities along the same lines as religious institutions: Can go anywhere, be anywhere, and do anything.

But, in the end, what the corporation provides is simply a manifestation of the market. IF the aggregate moves beyond that, the corporation must adapt. And if it adapts, it will be rewarded. And if it does not, it will fail.

Well.... almost always that's the case...

You were given a golden opportunity to crush all of you "enemies" with their own inertia in one fell strike on October 3rd, 2008. History would have been forever changed. The market would have corrected and the adapt-or-die model would have been completely in effect.

But you voted for the status quo. You voted to save them with your own money (and have it issued back to you at interest AND to be taxed again). It was the Republicans that threatened to kill politicians if the Paulson Plan got passed.

Now as per not there being any free trade, you have the same right to starting up a company and start outsourcing as anyone else. You have the same right to do the footwork and setup import channels for foreign goods to distribute here. You have the right to startup a company and hire immigrants and pay them higher wages at the expense of your own profit. You have never been denied these rights and you never will.

It, as all things economics, is a game that you can choose to play or not to play. Obviously, those who have been playing the game the longest will have an advantage. Therefore, when you say there is no "free trade" what you are really saying is there is no "easy" free trade. Which is correct. Competitive forces are ruthless. And people who were against globalization in the beginning are now recently being forced to rethink it and are starting the game VERY late.

Be careful what horse you back. It makes all the difference.

[Hannah Bell]

18. no, "we're" not the corporations, nor are corporations "manifestation of market pressures & nothing

more."

& yes, for all intents & purposes, many corps are, in fact, eternal.

Dupont, for example, has existed formally since 1802, & before that it existed as accumulated capital in the hands of the DuPonts of France.

Some of today's banking corps have existed since the 17, 16, 1500s.

Corporations are *organized* & networked. Consumers aren't.

Corporations control most information sources. Consumers don't.

Corporations are often market *makers*. Consumers almost never are.

A large portion of production is sold outside the consumer market, to other capitalists.

For example, you've never seen any carbon black for sale down at Safeway, yet it's profitable, & it's in hundreds of products; so many that you can't exist in the modern world without buying products containing it.

Cabot Corp is the biggest producer of carbon black & controls 1/4 of the world market. 90% of the world market is controlled by 5 producers, & they collude as much as they compete.

Cabot Corp was founded by an already-wealthy member of the New England Cabot family in 1882, & has been under family control for most, if not all, of its existence.

Its current CEO is also on the Board of DuPont & other chem corps. The "competitors" all know each other, are all super-rich, & have mostly been super-rich for generations. They go to the same private schools & intermarry, much like royalty.

Cabot is directly involved in the resource war in Congo which has killed 5 million-plus since the 1990s. If the consumer wanted to respond to this, how would they do so? There are about ten layers of fog between the product & the consumer, starting with the barely-publicly-acknowledged yet highly lethal war itself.

Your analysis is straight out of the Reagan handbook. Sure you're in the right place?


Cabot family fortune: founded on slave trading:

"The first great merchant of the Cabot family was George Cabot, who left Harvard to become a cabin boy on a shipping vessel. George Cabot worked his way through shipping to become extraordinarily wealthy, reportedly making profits of $900,000 on a single ship. Cabot made his fortune like many first families through the triangle trade with Africa for slaves and also rum, and wine. George Cabot also was involved in smuggling during the American Revolution, along with many other first families. One of the earliest U.S. Supreme Court cases, Bingham v. Cabot involved a family shipping dispute.

"Colonel Perkins" = slave trader too:

Samuel Cabot provided the next influx of money into the Cabot family by combining the first family staples of marrying money and working in shipping. He moved from Salem to Boston, and in 1812 married the daughter of merchant king Colonel Perkins. Seeing the opportunities in shipping that followed the War of 1812, Cabot became partners in Perkin’s firm and died a millionaire.

The Cabots, like all surviving first families, continued their legacy as Boston elite through the money of various businessmen with fortuitious timing. Eventually the Cabots moved their interests from shipping to textiles and chemicals.

John Cabot, son of the founding Cabots, established America’s first cotton mill in 1787 in Beverly, Massachusetts. (Spinning slave-grown cotton)

Godfrey Lowell Cabot was founder of the worlds largest carbon black producer (Cabot Corporation <1> NYSE:CBT ) in the country, which was used for inks and paints.

In Boston, the Forbes family is the symbol of inherited wealth; the arts belong to the Lowells; and political history belongs to the Adams family.

The Cabots, however, are the kings of Boston’s elite social scene. The Cabots have succeeded in dominating Boston’s social world since their rise to prominence. This is probably partly due to their membership in many of Boston’s first families through marriage.

Like all Boston Brahmin families, the Cabots only marry within their social circle, which serves to maintain exclusivity and to keep money within a small pool.

Cabots have been known to marry mostly Lees, Jacksons, Higginsons and Lowells. In one Cabot family of seven children, four of them married Higginsons. A Jackson family of five was reported to have married three Cabots."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabot_family

[ck4829]

4. You see though, "free" just means free for the corporations and the wealthy, not the little people

[Fresh_Start]

12. yes, and that is how it should be positioned

free trade means that other insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare providers can operate in this economy.
Why have to have a medical holiday in Mexico or India....let them setup shops here.
Why pay more for identical drugs?
Why not get cheaper health insurance....I'm sure there are companies willing to offer more for less if the market was open.

[reggie the dog]

15. I have been saying this for years.

[David Zephyr]

19. LOL!

Well said.