Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Pharmaceutical giants demand government handouts


Recommended Posts

In a startlingly frank admission of the failure of their capitalist business model, a collection of some of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies said they need incentives to develop antibiotics to fight 'superbugs'. Apparently the giveaways that are being promoted in the TPP like longer patent lifetimes and the ability to sue governments that do anything to interfere with their profits is no longer enough for multinational corporations. They need direct cash infusion now.

One line in this story is particularly interesting. Not only does it indicate where the drug companies focus their efforts.

It is far more lucrative to develop drugs for cancer or chronic diseases that can be used for months or even a lifetime and which typically have much higher prices.

It also indicates why there is no incentive (and in fact powerful financial disincentives) to cure any chronic condition or disease, ever.

This case illustrates a problem that plagues not only the drug industry but the whole medical industry, the crime industry, the military industry, the insurance industry and every other industry ever created to address problems. These huge industries become dependent on the problems they were created to address. If those problems ever disappear or even are significantly diminished, it will threaten the salaries of powerful people. And so the last thing these industries want is for those problems to go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These huge industries become dependent on the problems they were created to address. If those problems ever disappear or even are significantly diminished, it will threaten the salaries of powerful people. And so the last thing these industries want is for those problems to go away.

The same problem exists for governments that depend on smoking, gambling or carbon taxes. It is actually worse for governments because once a bureaucracy is created to "solve" a problem they have almost endless funds as long as they can convince voters that the problem needs "solving" (which of course implies it is not in their best interest to actually solve the problem). The department of aboriginal affairs + band chiefs is a good example. Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a startlingly frank admission of the failure of their capitalist business model, a collection of some of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies said they need incentives to develop antibiotics to fight 'superbugs'. Apparently the giveaways that are being promoted in the TPP like longer patent lifetimes and the ability to sue governments that do anything to interfere with their profits is no longer enough for multinational corporations. They need direct cash infusion now

One of the biggest costs associated with getting a drug to market is complying with regulations that the government imposes. Furthermore, in most advanced countries (except maybe the US), the government is the biggest customer for most pharmaceuticals. So basically what the companies are saying is that if their biggest customer wants them to develop something, they should pay for the development. This is the same way in which most industries work... if you go to a company and ask for a new product that doesn't exist to be developed, you pay for that development effort. For example, aerospace companies don't just randomly build new fighter jets and then hope someone buys them, rather, they find customers that have specific needs and build to those needs, and the customer pays for the development.

In industries that market to individual consumers, companies will try to develop new products themselves to catch media hype and stay ahead of the competition. But this happens mostly just in direct-to-consumer industries. Healthcare doesn't fit that mold. The cost of developing new healthcare technologies will only grow ever larger over time, and it is the customers that will have to pay for these development efforts, and in most countries it is government that has taken on this role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest costs associated with getting a drug to market is complying with regulations that the government imposes. Furthermore, in most advanced countries (except maybe the US), the government is the biggest customer for most pharmaceuticals.

Oh, those pesky regulations like ensuring the drugs don't kill people? Yeah, let's get rid of that kind of red tape. :rolleyes:

So basically what the companies are saying is that if their biggest customer wants them to develop something, they should pay for the development. This is the same way in which most industries work... if you go to a company and ask for a new product that doesn't exist to be developed, you pay for that development effort. For example, aerospace companies don't just randomly build new fighter jets and then hope someone buys them, rather, they find customers that have specific needs and build to those needs, and the customer pays for the development.

I've got a better idea. Instead of handing massive amounts of money to foreign drug companies to fund their ridiculous bonuses, let's properly fund universities so they can do research. It will be cheaper and provide opportunities to Canadian universities and students.

Once the research is done, we can license the product to drug companies and they can compete on a lowest cost basis to do the production.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet despite the war criminals in charge of drug development, our species is living longer than ever pretty much everywhere. Why is that?

There are lots of reasons but one of the biggest is public water and sanitation. Another is publicly funded vaccination programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of reasons but one of the biggest is public water and sanitation. Another is publicly funded vaccination programs.

The government funds a lot of stuff. They get to steal people's money for the public good right?

The public funds lots of research and development. Why can't they fund the development of new antibiotics? It's a lot more useful then a lot of things governments do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government funds a lot of stuff. They get to steal people's money for the public good right?

If you don't like the government stealing your money, go ahead and move to some deserted island and be "free".

The public funds lots of research and development. Why can't they fund the development of new antibiotics? It's a lot more useful then a lot of things governments do.

I just suggested that governments fund research - but through Universities, not by handing military-style, endless R&D programs to huge corporations.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of reasons but one of the biggest is public water and sanitation. Another is publicly funded vaccination programs.

So, drugs and better water. I'd add better and more food too,. and vaccinations, sure.

Trudeau met with a whole bunch of lobbyists quietly right after being elected.

Any Big Pharma there with begging bowls?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just suggested that governments fund research - but through Universities, not by handing military-style, endless R&D programs to huge corporations.

Universities are filled with researchers looking to profit from the research. Many professors have arrangements with corporations and/or start their own to exploit any ideas that they happen to come up with.

The point you are missing is ownership. If the government pays it owns the IP whether they fund private corporations or universities. If either want to keep the IP they have to pay for that privilege.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, those pesky regulations like ensuring the drugs don't kill people? Yeah, let's get rid of that kind of red tape. :rolleyes:

You'll notice I didn't suggest that.

I've got a better idea. Instead of handing massive amounts of money to foreign drug companies to fund their ridiculous bonuses, let's properly fund universities so they can do research. It will be cheaper and provide opportunities to Canadian universities and students.

Once the research is done, we can license the product to drug companies and they can compete on a lowest cost basis to do the production.

In many areas, large companies are usually better suited to conducting research and development of things that are actually gonna go to market than university labs are. For one, most work in university labs is done by grad students, which are there for 4-6 years and then graduate and go elsewhere. Meanwhile, developing a new drug and taking it to market takes much longer, and is a process that benefits from having personnel on hand that have long years of experience with the whole process. The resources and expertise of a corporation valued at many billions of dollars are impossible to replicate in a university lab setting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll notice I didn't suggest that.

I noticed you didn't really suggest anything, specifically. You left me to interpret your meaning so I did.

In many areas, large companies are usually better suited to conducting research and development of things that are actually gonna go to market than university labs are. For one, most work in university labs is done by grad students, which are there for 4-6 years and then graduate and go elsewhere. Meanwhile, developing a new drug and taking it to market takes much longer, and is a process that benefits from having personnel on hand that have long years of experience with the whole process. The resources and expertise of a corporation valued at many billions of dollars are impossible to replicate in a university lab setting.

Oh, you mean expertise as in Martin Shkreli?

If it's going to be funded by public dollars, then it should be done by a public organization. I'm sick of subsidizing billionaires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed you didn't really suggest anything, specifically. You left me to interpret your meaning so I did.

I was merely pointing out that much of the cost to get drugs to market is imposed by governments, even if some/most of those costs are reasonably justifiable from the perspective of public safety (reality is proving that a drug is safe before it goes to market is certainly critical and the regulations are indeed intended to do that, but the way they are implemented and the inefficiency of dealing with the bureaucracy costs companies billions of dollars more than it should). Governments are also generally the largest buyers of the end products. Therefore they are the ones that pay the cost. In the end, whether those costs are in terms of up-front R&D money, or if the company pays for the R&D itself and then recovers the cost by selling the drugs at a higher price, it'll be the government and other drug purchasers that pay for it.

Oh, you mean expertise as in Martin Shkreli?

No, I mean expertise as in all the thousands of highly trained employees with decades of experience that work at large pharmaceutical companies, as well as the institutional knowledge of how to do these things and billions of dollars worth of capital infrastructure.

If it's going to be funded by public dollars, then it should be done by a public organization.

Corporations are global, government agencies are replicated in each country. Medical solutions to address particular problems only need to be developed once, or maybe 2 or 3 times so there's some competition, they don't need to be replicated in each country. A few major global corporations that can recover their costs in a global marketplace are going to have more resources to throw at solving medical problems than if every country had its own public agency duplicating the efforts of every other country.

Furthermore, if a government agency was responsible for developing new drugs, you'd very quickly see its research become politically motivated. Would you want some crazy social conservative to come into power and decide that all medical research is bad since its against god's will and cancel all the funding? Not an impossibility in the US - where almost all new drug development happens currently. Meanwhile, companies are just out there to make a profit, meaning they'll be trying to address problems that the most people are affected by and are willing to pay to be solved, meaning the highest amount of research dollars goes to addressing the medical problems that affect the most people the most strongly, in general.

I'm sick of subsidizing billionaires.

Your emotional revulsion at having governments pay corporations to do things that it makes sense for corporations to do is noted.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was merely pointing out that much of the cost to get drugs to market is imposed by governments, even if some/most of those costs are reasonably justifiable from the perspective of public safety (reality is proving that a drug is safe before it goes to market is certainly critical and the regulations are indeed intended to do that, but the way they are implemented and the inefficiency of dealing with the bureaucracy costs companies billions of dollars more than it should). Governments are also generally the largest buyers of the end products. Therefore they are the ones that pay the cost. In the end, whether those costs are in terms of up-front R&D money, or if the company pays for the R&D itself and then recovers the cost by selling the drugs at a higher price, it'll be the government and other drug purchasers that pay for it.

Tell me. Do those "bureaucratic costs" include bribing doctors to prescribe drugs which may or may not work? Or for "off-label" uses? Or is that a different category of cost?

No, I mean expertise as in all the thousands of highly trained employees with decades of experience that work at large pharmaceutical companies, as well as the institutional knowledge of how to do these things and billions of dollars worth of capital infrastructure.

Ah. Like Mr Shkreli's unique talent for gouging desperate people.

Corporations are global, government agencies are replicated in each country. Medical solutions to address particular problems only need to be developed once, or maybe 2 or 3 times so there's some competition, they don't need to be replicated in each country. A few major global corporations that can recover their costs in a global marketplace are going to have more resources to throw at solving medical problems than if every country had its own public agency duplicating the efforts of every other country.

Really? You thought I meant every country would develop it's own drugs?

Furthermore, if a government agency was responsible for developing new drugs, you'd very quickly see its research become politically motivated. Would you want some crazy social conservative to come into power and decide that all medical research is bad since its against god's will and cancel all the funding? Not an impossibility in the US - where almost all new drug development happens currently. Meanwhile, companies are just out there to make a profit, meaning they'll be trying to address problems that the most people are affected by and are willing to pay to be solved, meaning the highest amount of research dollars goes to addressing the medical problems that affect the most people the most strongly, in general.

Oh, we can't waste money curing "politically motivated" diseases, can we? Much better to have drug companies invent new maladies or suddenly discover that rare conditions are really common so they can sell much more. Did you ever notice that drug companies don't come up with drugs for things that affect mostly poor people? But if you're rich, they'll invent whole new diseases just for you!

Much better than helping poor people for political motivations.

Your emotional revulsion at having governments pay corporations to do things that it makes sense for corporations to do is noted.

Your religious zeal for funneling money to sociopath corporate executives and their greedy wealthy shareholders is also noted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, we can't waste money curing "politically motivated" diseases, can we? Much better to have drug companies invent new maladies or suddenly discover that rare conditions are really common so they can sell much more. Did you ever notice that drug companies don't come up with drugs for things that affect mostly poor people? But if you're rich, they'll invent whole new diseases just for you!

Nope, never noticed that. Poor people don't get cancer? Poor people don't get depression? Poor people don't get HIV? Which diseases were deliberately invented just to infect rich people so more money could be extracted from them?

Your religious zeal for funneling money to sociopath corporate executives and their greedy wealthy shareholders is also noted.

Actually my only real interest in the field of medical technology would be to make sure that it develops as quickly as possible so that I can live for a good few thousand years :)

As for shareholders... yeah pretty much everyone with a retirement fund, as well as pretty much anyone who invests in index-tracking mutual funds or ETFs. So basically anyone who isn't an idiot. Far from all of them are wealthy.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with anti-biotic development is that the better a company is at it, the less money they stand to make.

Any good, new antibiotic has to be restricted for the fear of the bacteria quickly developing resistance to it. The drug companies know this will happen if they sell the product they develop such that it is profitable, and as such they will soon have a useless product on their hands.

The alternative is to restrict its use so the resistance takes a far longer time to develop, but then they don't make money from that either. Unless they charge an exhorbitant amount for it.

Either way they are not willing to incur the development costs. In contradiction to the OP, the article I listened to on the subject did state that increased patent protection times were an option the companies were asking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with anti-biotic development is that the better a company is at it, the less money they stand to make.

This is the problem with the entire medical industry. Also the police industry, the defense industry and a bunch of others.

When you pay people a huge amount of money to deal with problems, you shouldn't be surprised if those same people never manage to make those problems entirely go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem with the entire medical industry. Also the police industry, the defense industry and a bunch of others.

When you pay people a huge amount of money to deal with problems, you shouldn't be surprised if those same people never manage to make those problems entirely go away.

I'm sure. But problems specific to antibiotics make it difficult for a company to justify their development. I'm not one of those who believe a cure for cancer has been found, or a way to run cars on H2O is being hidden by the oil industry.

I can see it as the reason heroin and crystal meth are not being sold in grocery stores, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, never noticed that. Poor people don't get cancer? Poor people don't get depression? Poor people don't get HIV? Which diseases were deliberately invented just to infect rich people so more money could be extracted from them?

I'm old enough to remember a time when hyperactive was a behavior trait you might use to describe a child either episodically or more generally. Now ADHD is a disorder that affects 10% of American kids. There are no shortage of medical experts that consider it to be an invented condition that is just a reflection of ordinary variability of people's ability to concentrate. Look at the symptoms of ADHD. Really? Are there kids who don't have those symptoms? I know quite well 2 people on Ritalin that have never, to my knowledge, exhibited any traits of hyperactivity. I was told they have trouble concentrating. Doesn't everyone? We didn't evolve to sit and focus on one thing for a long period of time. It takes practice and discipline. Or drugs.

Another one is depression, although I would never call it an invented disease. But are all cases really legitimate? The incidence of depression has skyrocketed. According to The American Journal of Psychiatry, the prevalence of depression more than doubled between 1991 and 2002? How is that even possible?? I have an idea. I know people on long term anti-depression medication who binge drink, eat crap and rarely exercise. Wow, maybe the epidemic of obesity and depression are somehow linked? But hey, it's easier and more profitable for the medical industry to just prescribe pills.

Meanwhile, millions in undeveloped countries are dying of tropical diseases and parasites. These conditions attract relatively little attention from the pharmaceutical giants because you can't make money from the desperately poor.

Did you really not know this already? Or is this just a game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But problems specific to antibiotics make it difficult for a company to justify their development. I'm not one of those who believe a cure for cancer has been found, or a way to run cars on H2O is being hidden by the oil industry.

I've never seen compelling evidence that either of those things has occurred. However, I would say that the current economic model is not conducive to a cure for cancer being discovered. Not by the drug companies, anyway.

I can see it as the reason heroin and crystal meth are not being sold in grocery stores, though.

I don't follow - are you saying that they have some medicinal value?

I do believe that part of the reason it's taken so long to deal with legalized marijuana is that it can't be patented and it can compete with certain medications, particularly for people with chronic pain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen compelling evidence that either of those things has occurred. However, I would say that the current economic model is not conducive to a cure for cancer being discovered. Not by the drug companies, anyway.

I don't follow - are you saying that they have some medicinal value?

I do believe that part of the reason it's taken so long to deal with legalized marijuana is that it can't be patented and it can compete with certain medications, particularly for people with chronic pain.

No, I subscribe to the theory that the war on drugs keeps so many people gainfully employed that there is no will to win it quickly and completely by legalizing all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I subscribe to the theory that the war on drugs keeps so many people gainfully employed that there is no will to win it quickly and completely by legalizing all of them.

Most people can't accept that what they do for a living is a waste of time or actually counterproductive - law enforcement is no different. The war on drugs will go down as one of the great wastes of people and lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm old enough to remember a time when hyperactive was a behavior trait you might use to describe a child either episodically or more generally. Now ADHD is a disorder that affects 10% of American kids. There are no shortage of medical experts that consider it to be an invented condition that is just a reflection of ordinary variability of people's ability to concentrate. Look at the symptoms of ADHD. Really? Are there kids who don't have those symptoms? I know quite well 2 people on Ritalin that have never, to my knowledge, exhibited any traits of hyperactivity. I was told they have trouble concentrating. Doesn't everyone? We didn't evolve to sit and focus on one thing for a long period of time. It takes practice and discipline. Or drugs.

Did you really not know this already? Or is this just a game?

In my experience it's not really big pharma companies pushing to dose up kids on these drugs. Rather it's bad teachers and school systems that can't deal with kids that do anything but mutely sit in their seats in class trying to convince parents that their kids need these drugs. A coworker of mine has a 2nd grade kid that "acted up" twice in class and boom a week later, they are in the principal's office being recommended to put their kid on Ritalin, without even a qualified psychiatrist present.

Another one is depression, although I would never call it an invented disease. But are all cases really legitimate? The incidence of depression has skyrocketed. According to The American Journal of Psychiatry, the prevalence of depression more than doubled between 1991 and 2002? How is that even possible?? I have an idea. I know people on long term anti-depression medication who binge drink, eat crap and rarely exercise. Wow, maybe the epidemic of obesity and depression are somehow linked? But hey, it's easier and more profitable for the medical industry to just prescribe pills.

The lifestyle problems of many people in advanced countries these days are well known. The information on how to improve your lifestyle to help avoid both obesity and depression are also widely known. Nonetheless, many people fail to live a healthy lifestyle. For these people, drugs are available to alleviate some of the resulting symptoms of their poor lifestyle choices. Is that a bad thing?

Meanwhile, millions in undeveloped countries are dying of tropical diseases and parasites. These conditions attract relatively little attention from the pharmaceutical giants because you can't make money from the desperately poor.
Many of these diseases and infections are already treatable. Most parasites certainly are. The problem isn't that the technology to address most of these conditions doesn't exist, but rather that there is no infrastructure, no institutional ability, no money, and in many cases no local will to deploy these solutions. In fact, the overwhelming majority of disease load in tropical developing countries could be solved simply by providing universal access to clean water, hygienic sanitation systems, and adequate nutrition, without any fancy medical technology. And it's not really the role of drug companies to provide these basic necessities of health, but the local governments and people.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Similar Content

    • By Zeitgeist
      It's estimated that 20 percent of retailers will go out of business in Canada due to public health restrictions.  Workers and business owners are being forced onto government subsistence handouts for the sake of preventing viral spread. Rather than letting people decide whether they want to risk shopping or patronizing businesses, government is deciding for them and destroying some livelihoods.  Is it fair?
    • By Zeitgeist
      Consider our turbulent times: predictions of climate catastrophe, the spread of Coronavirus, challenges to existing political and economic systems through movements such as Extinction Rebellion.  The old liberal-democratic political oppositions, e.g. liberal vs. conservative, are struggling to survive as a moderate middle ground between a more radical emerging opposition.
      Thoughts?  Anything in the chart below that you think doesn't apply, should be moved, supplemented?  I would add "Containment" as a crisis response to pandemics.

    • By ReeferMadness
      Ray Dalio, Founder of the World's Largest Hedge Fund, Says the System is Broken
      Of course, most progressives know what Dalio and others like him have been blind to all along.  Without strong measures to restrain the worst of capitalism and force redistribution of wealth, this is exactly how capitalism always works - or rather fails to work.  When you define success as being richer than everyone else, people will find a way to do just that.  Whether it's fair, whether it's moral, whether it's legal; those are things for lawyers and ethicists to quibble over.  Only ideologues and idiots think that it's relevant that capitalism is transparently not a meritocracy.
    • By 7th_attempt
      The LAW, the thing that forces people to do things- is only as fair as the extent of external scrutiny (duh) but something obviously messed up will at least gain enough coverage to generate a response right? Well sure, but not before a whole host of people get screwed over. In cases like first world capitalism, no amount of coverage and outrage from a legally (and morally) wronged party, can evade the concrete consequences derived from violations cited on intentionally vague parameters covered by that very same law. The past 2 years, due to limited options, I've been working for a company (can't say) that is indeed founded out of Canada.. however the (U.S.) founders had simply maintained 'permanent' residency for a number of years, allowing them to claim Canadian citizenship and therefore establish Canadian founded business status for their new brand. This matters because the whole reason for this endeavor was so the 'new' company could circumvent the (somewhat) recent additions to anti-add and anti-spam laws to prevent U.S. based marketing tactics from overpowering local Canadian business. Well it turns out not even that can stop a determined U.S. businessman from (lawfully) stealing if they see enough potential to merit investing in a system that can achieve such a theft. If you're reading this, then please, for the sake of yourself and the sake of your loved ones read and pass along this REAL (and in my opinion, utterly distasteful) admittance to allowing vague laws to enable sales representatives for businesses to quite literally steal from others (the classic sign the contract, that just so happens to be indecipherable and says the complete opposite of what the plastic-smile sales representative just told you). Please note that this link outlines law that applies to U.S. AND Canadian based customers.
       
      THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART- https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0195-some-home-security-systems-may-be-scams  
       
      P.S. I know many reading this are going to say why are you wasting my time with this I already know better than to let a sales rep con me..   3 reasons:
      1. 80-90% of (wronged) customers will say the sales representative showed up at an interesting or 'destined' moment, providing (at the moment) so much more than just a killer deal on a sweet new sign-on product/service. They were helpers, friends, attractive, flattering, and almost seemed to understand their lifestyle and hobbies... please refer to https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/28/17172548/gdpr-compliance-requirements-privacy-notice which pretty much states your personal or any useful info- if it's ANYWHERE on the internet, it's free game for businesses to use. *this includes the ability to run credit tests without your consent/knowledge once enough info is obtained and automated programs that constantly trawl the internet for anything linked to a potential customer/area they've taken an interest in.
      2. Contracts do not end with the death of the signing customer and many are a minimum of 3 years- some up to 8 for official services. Yes, the law can protect a company collecting on a contract (aka fees, monthly bills, collection bids, etc) to the next of kin, for a contract signed by the parent or spouse even if no one was  ever notified about such a condition, as long as the contract was signed: the next of kin MUST pay the due in full. Meaning everything you're reading could affect you much more profoundly than you know even if you choose to never personally touch a contract, if they got your family by extension under extreme circumstances you must become involved (so better to prevent rather than struggle; simply by making sure as many people as possible are aware of this).
      3. This is the information age, data in general is constantly being filtered and analysed by increasingly advanced AI, capable of spitting out easy to use, yet disturbingly effective actions and procedures to use on specific common personality types. If you don't believe me, please check out the attached picture(s). The first one is a 'chart' provided in some way to sales representatives, and it's how they get their 'in' with a paying customer. I guarantee you'll see yourself and agree that it at least somewhat illustrates the possibility of use against you. The second picture is simply a QR code meant to link any QR code scanner phone app to bring one directly to the FTC website, if possible- everyone should read the linked page from that code..
      I spent valuable hours of my life (I'm 25 no joke, I work my ass off and this is my day off) to make this. It's because I've spent no less than the last 4 years listening to people cry to me (I do phone support) about how they were essentially lied to and then robbed. And it all came from a contract, a morally corrupt 'sales representative', and a complete lack of regulations in favor of protecting citizens simply because capitalism. Simply knowing they're out to finger your wallet should be more than enough to kneecap them halfway through their entirely false pitch and get them out of your hair and keep them out.
      Cheers. 


    • By Exegesisme
      1 Holy Good Capitalism, What They Should Do​

      By Exegesisme

      My concept, holy good capitalism, is inspired from Canadian constitution, verses in bible and the Liberal winning of the election 2015.

      1, Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
      2, Genesis 1:4, God saw the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
      Revelation 21:24 The nations will walk by its light.

      The light in the verses above, in our era in Canada, here and now, I understand as holy good capitalism.

      In the holy good capitalism, there are two fundamental wings. One wing is holy good, which is our environment and from God, we can not live without environment or holy good. In this wing, everyone is equal. The other wing is human good, which is created by human in the environment from God, we can not make progress without human creation inspired by God. In the human wing, people are not equal, peoples are arranged in a hierarchy of creation according to their creativity.

      According to the model of holy good capitalism, the just elected liberal government is not only the government of liberal, who directly voted them, but also and first is the government of all Canadians, it is in the political system of all Canadians they were elected. Therefore, all policies of this government, should consider two requirements, the benefits of all Canadians and the liberal view. This is the answer of what the liberal government should do.
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...