Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:


On Mar 11, 10:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...






On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
om...

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. Way to go Ron. Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. We can repeat history. The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.


Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here 100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

You respond that "it isn't relevant to the situation in
manufacturing", and then go on to explain that your salary in the
medical business was higher then in the manufacturing business.


My point is that costs in the U.S. are higher then in much of the rest
of the world and that is basic problem. It costs more to do something
in the U.S. then it does in other countries, whether it is building
something or doing something -- even answering the telephone has moved
offshore -- and as a result we have the situation that exists in the
U.S. today.

Now, this is not a simple problem and there are a host of underlying
reasons for the situation as it exists today. frankly I feel that they
are unsurmountable.

It is easy to blame it on the notion that the cause is the greedy
unions with their insatiable demands for pay increases. Or the greed
of CEO's ,which probably, is not that far out of line in reality --
Exxon, the largest company in the world? How much should we pay for
the guy that runs that company? But trying to assign blame to a single
entity, or cause, is an over simplistic point of view.

The root cause is that developed countries, simply by the nature of
the beasts, increase the standard of living of the population and the
demand for bigger, better, more, and as a result costs of doing
business in the country increases. So, as long as there are less
developed areas business will move to the cheaper, less developed
areas.

This happened, in the U.S., after WW II with industry leaving the N.E.
states (with the result of lost jobs and failing economies) and moving
to the South. It is now happening again, except industry is now moving
outside the U.S. because there is no longer undeveloped areas within
the country.






Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)


Kinda makes you wonder if this "experiment in self government" is
actually working?

Richard

Guess it comes down to what you would call corporate greed and power
vs.
what some of us would call Organized Labor greed and power. The
pendulum tends to swing both ways. /mark


There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over to
the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while
ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now. So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

Hawke

It is difficult to believe that you are as naive as you appear to be.
Your statement "the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while
ordinary people see their lives get a lot worse" is almost
unbelievably uninformed. Have you never heard of CALPERS? One of the
largest stockholders/investors in the world with some $236 Billion
invested. I suggest that you Google "CALPERS" to discover who/what
they are and who the shareholders that benefit are. Hardly
aristocrats, Then, perhaps, you might wish re-word your post above.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

For this post you can call me Hawke-in-California, which ought to tell you
that yes I do know exactly what CALPERS is. But that has little to do with
what I said. Apparently you don't know much about American history and
especially the economic history of America. We've been through swings of
power between business and unions over the years and it's as I said, when
unions were the most powerful and had the highest membership the US was at
its best. This was in the late 50s and early 60s. That was also the time
when corporate taxes were the highest too. The total government revenue in
taxes at the time was 39% from corporations. It's nothing like that now and
the ordinary citizen now pays what the corporations used to. No wonder their
finances are in a decline.

And if you look at the income distribution gap between workers and owners or
between rich and poor or between high and low income workers it's the
highest right now it's ever been. So my point about a rich aristocracy and a
poor public is the fact not my opinion. The 1/10 of 1% has more wealth than
ever. That group is our aristocracy. The fact that state employees have a
big pension fund is really irrelevant to what I was talking about. What I
find surprising is that so many people like you think that everything is so
simple that basic business or econ 101 can explain the situation the country
now is facing.

Hawke

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

On Mar 11, 10:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in
messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...





On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. Way to go Ron. Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. We can repeat history. The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then
have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart
enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by
market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up,
around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement
of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here
is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world
that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the
wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in
big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would
like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made
around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that
Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming --
that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries
and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here
100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma
jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

You respond that "it isn't relevant to the situation in
manufacturing", and then go on to explain that your salary in the
medical business was higher then in the manufacturing business.


My point is that costs in the U.S. are higher then in much of the rest
of the world and that is basic problem. It costs more to do something
in the U.S. then it does in other countries, whether it is building
something or doing something -- even answering the telephone has moved
offshore -- and as a result we have the situation that exists in the
U.S. today.

I don't disagree that prices here are too high to be competitive against
low-wage countries. But your example was a bad one. The pharma business
isn't driven by competition or manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs in
the pharma business, for all except a very few drugs, mostly certain
biologicals, are trivial. The costs are in development (typically $200
million - $500 million for a new drug) and marketing.

If I wanted to get into it, which I don't, I would argue that we don't
*want* to be competitive with low-wage countries on present terms. We'd be
working for $1/hour if we did. The solution lies somewhere else.


Now, this is not a simple problem and there are a host of underlying
reasons for the situation as it exists today. frankly I feel that they
are unsurmountable.

If your solution is to make us "competitive," then yes, they are
insurmountable.


It is easy to blame it on the notion that the cause is the greedy
unions with their insatiable demands for pay increases.

Only for those who don't have a solution for competing with $0.80/hour wages
in China. They'll blame the unions, which is foolish on its face. The
problem would be the same if our wages were half what they are now. We're
already the most productive manufacturing country in the world. Most people
don't realize that.

Or the greed
of CEO's ,which probably, is not that far out of line in reality --
Exxon, the largest company in the world? How much should we pay for
the guy that runs that company? But trying to assign blame to a single
entity, or cause, is an over simplistic point of view.

True.


The root cause is that developed countries, simply by the nature of
the beasts, increase the standard of living of the population and the
demand for bigger, better, more, and as a result costs of doing
business in the country increases. So, as long as there are less
developed areas business will move to the cheaper, less developed
areas.

Right. The Chinese are counting on Africa next.


This happened, in the U.S., after WW II with industry leaving the N.E.
states (with the result of lost jobs and failing economies) and moving
to the South. It is now happening again, except industry is now moving
outside the U.S. because there is no longer undeveloped areas within
the country.

All true. As trade theory is evolving and as we're learning from harsh
experience, a consensus is developing that free trade is a very good thing
for countries of roughly comparable levels of development and costs. When
one country is rich and the other is poor, it's a good thing for the poor
country. The rich country generally comes out a wash on paper -- higher GDP
but lower wages and fewer jobs -- but there's hell to pay in terms of social
disruption. One consequence is a deepening of the economic divide. But
that's not the only ugly consequence.

This, of course, contradicts the Washingon Consensus (neoliberal economics),
which is the theory we're operating under today. It won't last much longer.
Our current accounts can't take much more of that theory. The neoliberal
idea (promoted by Milton Friedman) is that the dollar will decline when
these imbalances occur, and trade will restabilize. But neither Friedman nor
anyone else counted on China and India, nor upon the speed with which
manufacturing technology could disperse.

We face a choice. We either come up with new trade terms for dealing with
the developing world and the underdeveloped world, or we become the
underdeveloped world.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

--
Ed-in-New Jersey

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:



labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. Way to go Ron. Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. We can repeat history. The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then
have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

It's more complicated than that. The same company that makes that drug
probably sells it across the Canadian border for a lot less too. Our
pharmaceutical companies have the government by the balls and get sweetheart
deals you wouldn't believe. If they had to really compete we'd be paying the
same, or nearly the same as you are. Another example, Bill Clinton was in
Africa promoting anti AIDS programs. They had one where drugs were being
supplied from Europe and it cost about 200.00 a year to keep someone alive
who had AIDS. The same medication in the US was 10,000. There is something
horribly wrong when you see that kind of a difference in costs of
medication. It's all about the government and business and the deals they
pull off. There is no free market anywhere in the modern world. It's all
under government control. Some care a lot more about their own people than
others do. Just look at Japan vs. China. China doesn't care much about its
people but Japan does. Japan cares more about the Japanese than America does
about Americans. It all boils down to policy. In my view our policies suck
and is why things are as bad as they are here. We could make things a lot
better for the people here if we were willing to take control of the
corporations. We lost control of the corporations when we got a right wing
administration. If it changes to a Democratic one you will see changes that
improve the lot of regular Americans. How much is the question.

Hawke

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:06:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by
market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.
snip
===========
Indeed, and be reminded that the Recardo grift of "comparative
advantage" posited that capital, including intellectual capital
[i.e. technology] is "fixed" within a country. As soon as
capital is free to relocate, "comparative advantage" disappears
leaving only "absolute advantage." The continued assumption (or
at least propagandizing] of "comparative advantage" with mobile
capital appears to account for the large number of problematic,
economic crisis [and paupers] being generated.

That the economic trade theory under which we're operating is an underlying
problem, I agree. I think most of the propagandizing about "comparative
advantage" is being done by people who misunderstand the term, or who think
that the people they're talking to misunderstand it.

In any case, it remains, AFAIC, a joke that is a profound theory on paper,
but which I don't believe has ever worked in practice. I can't imagine how
it could unless consumers said to themselves, "I could buy an identical TV
made in my own country for less, but I'll buy this more expensive one from
France because it will help my country's overall trade volume." Huh?

Have you ever heard of a case where it works?

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:17:54 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
A whole bunch cut

Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

You respond that "it isn't relevant to the situation in
manufacturing", and then go on to explain that your salary in the
medical business was higher then in the manufacturing business.


My point is that costs in the U.S. are higher then in much of the rest
of the world and that is basic problem. It costs more to do something
in the U.S. then it does in other countries, whether it is building
something or doing something -- even answering the telephone has moved
offshore -- and as a result we have the situation that exists in the
U.S. today.

I don't disagree that prices here are too high to be competitive against
low-wage countries. But your example was a bad one. The pharma business
isn't driven by competition or manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs in
the pharma business, for all except a very few drugs, mostly certain
biologicals, are trivial. The costs are in development (typically $200
million - $500 million for a new drug) and marketing.

Zestril, manufactured by AstraZensca, in the United Kingdom, and
imported into thailand, costs 12 bucks in Thailand and 48 bucks in the
U.S. The same stuff, made in the same factory.

If a Thai pharmacy can sell it for 12 dollars, and I can assure you
that they make a profit, how come the mail order houses in the U.S.
are selling at a higher price.

That is not a matter of manufacturing in a low wage (actually low cost
of living) country. the U.K. is hardly cheap.

If I wanted to get into it, which I don't, I would argue that we don't
*want* to be competitive with low-wage countries on present terms. We'd be
working for $1/hour if we did. The solution lies somewhere else.


Now, this is not a simple problem and there are a host of underlying
reasons for the situation as it exists today. frankly I feel that they
are unsurmountable.

If your solution is to make us "competitive," then yes, they are
insurmountable.


It is easy to blame it on the notion that the cause is the greedy
unions with their insatiable demands for pay increases.

Only for those who don't have a solution for competing with $0.80/hour wages
in China. They'll blame the unions, which is foolish on its face. The
problem would be the same if our wages were half what they are now. We're
already the most productive manufacturing country in the world. Most people
don't realize that.

And probably the most technically advanced. But unfortunately that
isn't helping Ohio (was it) where jobs are evaporating like water on a
hot sidewalk.

Or the greed
of CEO's ,which probably, is not that far out of line in reality --
Exxon, the largest company in the world? How much should we pay for
the guy that runs that company? But trying to assign blame to a single
entity, or cause, is an over simplistic point of view.

True.


The root cause is that developed countries, simply by the nature of
the beasts, increase the standard of living of the population and the
demand for bigger, better, more, and as a result costs of doing
business in the country increases. So, as long as there are less
developed areas business will move to the cheaper, less developed
areas.

Right. The Chinese are counting on Africa next.


In fact there is already problems in China because of increases in
cost of living.

This happened, in the U.S., after WW II with industry leaving the N.E.
states (with the result of lost jobs and failing economies) and moving
to the South. It is now happening again, except industry is now moving
outside the U.S. because there is no longer undeveloped areas within
the country.

All true. As trade theory is evolving and as we're learning from harsh
experience, a consensus is developing that free trade is a very good thing
for countries of roughly comparable levels of development and costs. When
one country is rich and the other is poor, it's a good thing for the poor
country. The rich country generally comes out a wash on paper -- higher GDP
but lower wages and fewer jobs -- but there's hell to pay in terms of social
disruption. One consequence is a deepening of the economic divide. But
that's not the only ugly consequence.

The basis for the "free trade" theory comes from "the Wealth of
nations" published, what? In 17-something describing the wool/cloth
trade between two roughly equally advanced nations. It certainly is
not an equitable system when applied to developed and undeveloped, or
even worse, newly developing countries.

This, of course, contradicts the Washingon Consensus (neoliberal economics),
which is the theory we're operating under today. It won't last much longer.
Our current accounts can't take much more of that theory. The neoliberal
idea (promoted by Milton Friedman) is that the dollar will decline when
these imbalances occur, and trade will restabilize. But neither Friedman nor
anyone else counted on China and India, nor upon the speed with which
manufacturing technology could disperse.

We face a choice. We either come up with new trade terms for dealing with
the developing world and the underdeveloped world, or we become the
underdeveloped world.

It isn't China or India, per se, it is actually the developing
countries, or perhaps I should say, industries in developed nations,
Cummins diesel for example, put in an engine building plant in China a
few years ago. Foreign expertise, foreign designs, foreign money. Now
they make several of the Cummins engines and sell them around Asia,
and perhaps in other places, much cheaper then competing engines made
in the west. It wasn't the Chinese that discovered how to make Cummins
engines, it was a U.S. company that taught them

Not that "localization (for want of a better word) doesn't happen by
itself but help from the West certainly makes it happen faster.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:23:53 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

Much cut

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

It's more complicated than that. The same company that makes that drug
probably sells it across the Canadian border for a lot less too. Our
pharmaceutical companies have the government by the balls and get sweetheart
deals you wouldn't believe. If they had to really compete we'd be paying the
same, or nearly the same as you are. Another example, Bill Clinton was in
Africa promoting anti AIDS programs. They had one where drugs were being
supplied from Europe and it cost about 200.00 a year to keep someone alive
who had AIDS. The same medication in the US was 10,000. There is something
horribly wrong when you see that kind of a difference in costs of
medication. It's all about the government and business and the deals they
pull off. There is no free market anywhere in the modern world. It's all
under government control. Some care a lot more about their own people than
others do. Just look at Japan vs. China. China doesn't care much about its
people but Japan does. Japan cares more about the Japanese than America does
about Americans. It all boils down to policy. In my view our policies suck
and is why things are as bad as they are here. We could make things a lot
better for the people here if we were willing to take control of the
corporations. We lost control of the corporations when we got a right wing
administration. If it changes to a Democratic one you will see changes that
improve the lot of regular Americans. How much is the question.

Hawke

That is exactly my point although I wasn't quite as outspoken about
it. Costs in the U.S. are artificially high, thus the country is no
longer, except in rare cases, competitive.




Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:12:50 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:



Guess it comes down to what you would call corporate greed and power
vs.
what some of us would call Organized Labor greed and power. The
pendulum tends to swing both ways. /mark


There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over to
the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while
ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now. So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

Hawke

It is difficult to believe that you are as naive as you appear to be.
Your statement "the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while
ordinary people see their lives get a lot worse" is almost
unbelievably uninformed. Have you never heard of CALPERS? One of the
largest stockholders/investors in the world with some $236 Billion
invested. I suggest that you Google "CALPERS" to discover who/what
they are and who the shareholders that benefit are. Hardly
aristocrats, Then, perhaps, you might wish re-word your post above.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

For this post you can call me Hawke-in-California, which ought to tell you
that yes I do know exactly what CALPERS is. But that has little to do with
what I said. Apparently you don't know much about American history and
especially the economic history of America. We've been through swings of
power between business and unions over the years and it's as I said, when
unions were the most powerful and had the highest membership the US was at
its best. This was in the late 50s and early 60s. That was also the time
when corporate taxes were the highest too. The total government revenue in
taxes at the time was 39% from corporations. It's nothing like that now and
the ordinary citizen now pays what the corporations used to. No wonder their
finances are in a decline.

And if you look at the income distribution gap between workers and owners or
between rich and poor or between high and low income workers it's the
highest right now it's ever been. So my point about a rich aristocracy and a
poor public is the fact not my opinion. The 1/10 of 1% has more wealth than
ever. That group is our aristocracy. The fact that state employees have a
big pension fund is really irrelevant to what I was talking about. What I
find surprising is that so many people like you think that everything is so
simple that basic business or econ 101 can explain the situation the country
now is facing.

Hawke

I was replying specifically to your comment "the only ones who
benefit are the company management and stockholders" and trying to
point out that in many cases the "stockholders" may well be the
working man, not some invisible entity. Harley Davidson is a better
example - owned by the employees.

This Management versus workers is too easy an argument. In my
experience "Management" is always on th lookout for "workers" who can
be promoted, or upgraded.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

snipped

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

It's more complicated than that. The same company that makes that drug
probably sells it across the Canadian border for a lot less too. Our
pharmaceutical companies have the government by the balls and get
sweetheart
deals you wouldn't believe. If they had to really compete we'd be paying
the
same, or nearly the same as you are.

Nope. They aren't competing at all. What it takes is government price
controls on drugs. Everyone has them but us. That's why most drugs are
developed in the US. Our prices reflect all of the development costs. To
make money in Europe, they use a different accounting -- one in which all of
the development costs are sunk (in the US).

Another example, Bill Clinton was in
Africa promoting anti AIDS programs. They had one where drugs were being
supplied from Europe and it cost about 200.00 a year to keep someone alive
who had AIDS. The same medication in the US was 10,000. There is something
horribly wrong when you see that kind of a difference in costs of
medication.

What it says is that we're paying for the world's drugs. When you sort out
the arguments over this, you wind up with an accounting debate over whether
we're making it up in pharma jobs and corporate taxes. I've tried to sort it
out but it looks hopeless.


Not in the case of Zestril that I quoted. See the following:

AstraZeneca is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies,
with a broad range of medicines designed to fight disease in important
areas of healthcare.

Active in over 100 countries with growing presence in important
emerging markets; corporate office in London UK; major R&D sites in
Sweden, the UK and the US.

In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

I realize that I'm using an example of an item where the price IS
controlled by the Government and I think it is a valid example of why
the U.S. prices are so much higher then other countries.

All pharmaceutical companies protect their developments by patent or
copyright and there is no reason for government price controls on
medicine except to ensure that pharmaceutical companies make a
killing. I heard the other day that the patents/copyright finally ran
out for Fosamax, a medicine used to treat osteoporosis. The made (I
forgot how many) billion dollars during the period the drug was
protected. .

you AIDs comment, I don't know whether the Thai government
subsidizes the AIDS program here or not but the cost to a Thai is just
at $1.00 a month under the 30-baht medical scheme. But, as I say I
don't know where the medicines come from except that they are legally
made.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

"Hawke" wrote:

There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country.

Oh so you are saying the NEA has improved education?

rotflmao

Wes

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:39:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Have you ever heard of a case where it works?
snip
=================
It all depends on what you mean by "works" and for who.

If you mean a better standard of living for the population in the
aggregate, then not only no -- but HELL NO.

If you mean a huge increase in the absolute and relative wealth
of the richest 1% then "comparative advantage" has been an
outstanding success over the last 20 years right here in the USA.

It is exactly here that "the wheels come off." We are attempting
to operate one country containing two separate worlds.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:23:53 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
They had one where drugs were being
supplied from Europe and it cost about 200.00 a year to keep someone alive
who had AIDS. The same medication in the US was 10,000. There is something
horribly wrong when you see that kind of a difference in costs of
medication.
snip
=================
It is exactly these types of examples that show "free trade" to
be a lie for the people.

Every effort is made to prevent the shipment of cheap drugs to
the higher priced areas, even when these were made in the same
factory.

Drugs are not unique, and considerable efforts are made to
prevent imports of lower cost goods, for example the repeated
attempts to suppress the "gray market" in consumer electronics
and optics/cameras. This goes so far that the manufacturers now
add "code" to their consumer electronic products to prevent
operation or playback of a device or recording in the "wrong"
market.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:17:54 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
A whole bunch cut

Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

You respond that "it isn't relevant to the situation in
manufacturing", and then go on to explain that your salary in the
medical business was higher then in the manufacturing business.


My point is that costs in the U.S. are higher then in much of the rest
of the world and that is basic problem. It costs more to do something
in the U.S. then it does in other countries, whether it is building
something or doing something -- even answering the telephone has moved
offshore -- and as a result we have the situation that exists in the
U.S. today.

I don't disagree that prices here are too high to be competitive against
low-wage countries. But your example was a bad one. The pharma business
isn't driven by competition or manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs in
the pharma business, for all except a very few drugs, mostly certain
biologicals, are trivial. The costs are in development (typically $200
million - $500 million for a new drug) and marketing.

Zestril, manufactured by AstraZensca, in the United Kingdom, and
imported into thailand, costs 12 bucks in Thailand and 48 bucks in the
U.S. The same stuff, made in the same factory.

Well, that should make the point clear, then. It isn't manufacturing costs,
if they're being manufactured in the same place. A-Z manufacturers in 20
countries around the world, though (they were my client for four years) and
it's not likely yours is coming from the UK. Most likely it's coming from
IPR Pharmaceuticals in Puerto Rico, which is A-Z's high-volume manufacturer
for Zestril. I should point out, too, that A-Z markets Zestril under license
from Merck. Like most drugs, it was developed in the US. That's the benefit
from not having price controls. They can sink all of those development costs
in the US market, so they develop the drug here, develop the worldwide
marketing for it here, and, if you want to include PR as part of the US,
they manufacture it here. With our liberal patent laws they'll make most of
their money on it here, too.

Thailand's pharma price controls are most likely making the difference. Or,
in the case of Zestril, it may be competition from a generic that's being
made under compulsory license (and being fought over in the courts as we
speak). The competition varies for generics from country to country. There
are some known side effects with the generics (lisinopril), which, depending
on where you are, may make them a bigger or smaller competitive factor.

The big point, however, is that pharmaceuticals don't operate in anything
like a real market. It's totally convoluted and twisted by everything from
government regulations in use, to price controls, to patent fights. The
closest thing to a "free" market for drugs is the US. And even here the
normal market forces of supply and demand, choice among competitors, and so
on, is so distorted that "markets" are hardly recognizable.

If you want to compare manufacturing situations you'd do better to avoid
pharma. I worked in that industry long enough to know that it's totally
screwed up, in market terms.


If a Thai pharmacy can sell it for 12 dollars, and I can assure you
that they make a profit, how come the mail order houses in the U.S.
are selling at a higher price.

Because there are no price controls in the US.

AstraZeneca does it the same way as all the other big pharmaceutical
companies. Actual manufacturing costs are so low that they can jimmy their
accounting to make a profit at almost any price, in an individual market, as
long as they can cover the up-front costs somewhere -- which is to say, in
the US. I don't know specifically about Zestril, but ACE inhibitors in
general are really cheap drugs. I use a generic and it's dirt cheap.


That is not a matter of manufacturing in a low wage (actually low cost
of living) country. the U.K. is hardly cheap.

Again, it's probably made in Puerto Rico. The company name and addess on the
package insert and the label doesn't tell you where it's made.

But it wouldn't matter. You aren't paying based on the manufacturing cost.
Neither are we. We're both paying based on what the market will bear, and
the market, in your case, includes government price controls.


If I wanted to get into it, which I don't, I would argue that we don't
*want* to be competitive with low-wage countries on present terms. We'd be
working for $1/hour if we did. The solution lies somewhere else.


Now, this is not a simple problem and there are a host of underlying
reasons for the situation as it exists today. frankly I feel that they
are unsurmountable.

If your solution is to make us "competitive," then yes, they are
insurmountable.


It is easy to blame it on the notion that the cause is the greedy
unions with their insatiable demands for pay increases.

Only for those who don't have a solution for competing with $0.80/hour
wages
in China. They'll blame the unions, which is foolish on its face. The
problem would be the same if our wages were half what they are now. We're
already the most productive manufacturing country in the world. Most
people
don't realize that.

And probably the most technically advanced. But unfortunately that
isn't helping Ohio (was it) where jobs are evaporating like water on a
hot sidewalk.

Right. It's going to take some intrusive management of trade. There's really
no way around it, unless we want our true incomes, based on the falling
dollar, to drop to third-world levels.


Or the greed
of CEO's ,which probably, is not that far out of line in reality --
Exxon, the largest company in the world? How much should we pay for
the guy that runs that company? But trying to assign blame to a single
entity, or cause, is an over simplistic point of view.

True.


The root cause is that developed countries, simply by the nature of
the beasts, increase the standard of living of the population and the
demand for bigger, better, more, and as a result costs of doing
business in the country increases. So, as long as there are less
developed areas business will move to the cheaper, less developed
areas.

Right. The Chinese are counting on Africa next.


In fact there is already problems in China because of increases in
cost of living.

Sure. And it will continue. But it won't reach US levels in our lifetimes.
Economists are predicting 30 - 50 years.


This happened, in the U.S., after WW II with industry leaving the N.E.
states (with the result of lost jobs and failing economies) and moving
to the South. It is now happening again, except industry is now moving
outside the U.S. because there is no longer undeveloped areas within
the country.

All true. As trade theory is evolving and as we're learning from harsh
experience, a consensus is developing that free trade is a very good thing
for countries of roughly comparable levels of development and costs. When
one country is rich and the other is poor, it's a good thing for the poor
country. The rich country generally comes out a wash on paper -- higher
GDP
but lower wages and fewer jobs -- but there's hell to pay in terms of
social
disruption. One consequence is a deepening of the economic divide. But
that's not the only ugly consequence.

The basis for the "free trade" theory comes from "the Wealth of
nations" published, what? In 17-something ...

1776. But Adam Smith actually favored some controls on trade. Most modern
commentators miss that point. Of course, very few of them ever read it,
anyway. d8-) My edition is 1052 pages long. I've read it twice.

describing the wool/cloth
trade between two roughly equally advanced nations. It certainly is
not an equitable system when applied to developed and undeveloped, or
even worse, newly developing countries.

It's not equitable; it's a license for them to print money. There's nothing
wrong with that as long as we aren't paying for it.


This, of course, contradicts the Washingon Consensus (neoliberal
economics),
which is the theory we're operating under today. It won't last much
longer.
Our current accounts can't take much more of that theory. The neoliberal
idea (promoted by Milton Friedman) is that the dollar will decline when
these imbalances occur, and trade will restabilize. But neither Friedman
nor
anyone else counted on China and India, nor upon the speed with which
manufacturing technology could disperse.

We face a choice. We either come up with new trade terms for dealing with
the developing world and the underdeveloped world, or we become the
underdeveloped world.

It isn't China or India, per se, it is actually the developing
countries, or perhaps I should say, industries in developed nations,
Cummins diesel for example, put in an engine building plant in China a
few years ago. Foreign expertise, foreign designs, foreign money. Now
they make several of the Cummins engines and sell them around Asia,
and perhaps in other places, much cheaper then competing engines made
in the west. It wasn't the Chinese that discovered how to make Cummins
engines, it was a U.S. company that taught them

Not that "localization (for want of a better word) doesn't happen by
itself but help from the West certainly makes it happen faster.

With lightning speed. GM basically packaged an engine-manufacturing plant in
crates when they set up their Chevy engine line in Shanghai, which now makes
the engines for Chevy SUVs assembled in Canada and sold in the US. No theory
ever predicted that things like that could happen. No theory is capable of
dealing with the consequences.

--
Ed Huntress

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

snipped

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

It's more complicated than that. The same company that makes that drug
probably sells it across the Canadian border for a lot less too. Our
pharmaceutical companies have the government by the balls and get
sweetheart
deals you wouldn't believe. If they had to really compete we'd be paying
the
same, or nearly the same as you are.

Nope. They aren't competing at all. What it takes is government price
controls on drugs. Everyone has them but us. That's why most drugs are
developed in the US. Our prices reflect all of the development costs. To
make money in Europe, they use a different accounting -- one in which all
of
the development costs are sunk (in the US).

Another example, Bill Clinton was in
Africa promoting anti AIDS programs. They had one where drugs were being
supplied from Europe and it cost about 200.00 a year to keep someone
alive
who had AIDS. The same medication in the US was 10,000. There is
something
horribly wrong when you see that kind of a difference in costs of
medication.

What it says is that we're paying for the world's drugs. When you sort out
the arguments over this, you wind up with an accounting debate over
whether
we're making it up in pharma jobs and corporate taxes. I've tried to sort
it
out but it looks hopeless.


Not in the case of Zestril that I quoted. See the following:

Bruce, I worked in pharmaceutical marketing for four years and A-Z was one
of my clients, fer chrissake. Believe me, your costs have nothing to do with
manufacturing costs. Neither do ours. Yours are based on price controls and
accounting that covers only the marketing and distribution costs in
Thailand. Ours are based on everything they can get out of the market, with
no holds barred. Period.


AstraZeneca is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies,
with a broad range of medicines designed to fight disease in important
areas of healthcare.

Active in over 100 countries with growing presence in important
emerging markets; corporate office in London UK; major R&D sites in
Sweden, the UK and the US.

In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

Of course. You're larded with "compulsory licensing." That is, the Thai
government gives your pharma industry a license for pirating. d8-)


I realize that I'm using an example of an item where the price IS
controlled by the Government and I think it is a valid example of why
the U.S. prices are so much higher then other countries.

Why, because you have price controls and we don't? Sure, that's a good
reason why prices are higher here. It's also the reason we have the really
good jobs in pharma.


All pharmaceutical companies protect their developments by patent or
copyright and there is no reason for government price controls on
medicine except to ensure that pharmaceutical companies make a
killing.

Huh? You have that backwards. The price controls keep prices *down*, not up.


I heard the other day that the patents/copyright finally ran
out for Fosamax, a medicine used to treat osteoporosis. The made (I
forgot how many) billion dollars during the period the drug was
protected.

Of course. That's what the pharma business is all about. Big money on some
drugs, losses on many others. In the end, it's a highly profitable industry.
Or it was. Things are looking pretty iffy for Big Pharma right now.

Bruce, you started with an interesting point about manufacturing costs, but
you're barking up the wrong tree to use pharma as an example. There are no
conclusions that can be drawn about relative competitiveness from drug
pricing -- except that it's screwed up so deeply that every country is
different, and even every drug is different.

Why don't you try something else, like machinery or something?


you AIDs comment, I don't know whether the Thai government
subsidizes the AIDS program here or not but the cost to a Thai is just
at $1.00 a month under the 30-baht medical scheme. But, as I say I
don't know where the medicines come from except that they are legally
made.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

--
Ed-in-New Jersey

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:39:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Have you ever heard of a case where it works?
snip
=================
It all depends on what you mean by "works" and for who.

If you mean a better standard of living for the population in the
aggregate, then not only no -- but HELL NO.

If you mean a huge increase in the absolute and relative wealth
of the richest 1% then "comparative advantage" has been an
outstanding success over the last 20 years right here in the USA.

It is exactly here that "the wheels come off." We are attempting
to operate one country containing two separate worlds.

No, by "works" I mean that trade actually is done the way Ricardo's theory
of comparative advantage says it should be done. I've never heard of one,
and I've asked some economists about it over the years. They never gave me a
convincing answer.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 11, 1:38*am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"





wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. *Way to go Ron. *Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. *We can repeat history. *The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. *Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you are seeing there is the drug companies taking advantage of
the American consumers with the blessing of George Bush.

Someone has to pay for his kickbacks.

TMT

On Mar 11, 11:06*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...





On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. *Way to go Ron. *Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. *We can repeat history. *The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. *Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.



Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here 100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mind explaining why then that the pharma jobs are moving
offshores...especially the genetically generated ones?

TMT

On Mar 12, 12:17*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:adpet3hfpqfkhqli1k8bh1lkh17jpq29dp@4ax .com...





On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

On Mar 11, 10:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in
messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. Way to go Ron. Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. We can repeat history. The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then
have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart
enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by
market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up,
around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement
of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here
is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world
that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the
wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in
big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would
like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made
around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that
Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- *
that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries
and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here
100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma
jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

You respond that "it isn't relevant to the situation in
manufacturing", and then go on to explain that your salary in the
medical business was higher then in the manufacturing business.

My point is that costs in the U.S. are higher then in much of the rest
of the world and that is *basic problem. It costs more to do something
in the U.S. then it does in other countries, whether it is building
something or doing something -- even answering the telephone has moved
offshore -- and as a result we have the situation that exists in the
U.S. today.

I don't disagree that prices here are too high to be competitive against
low-wage countries. But your example was a bad one. The pharma business
isn't driven by competition or manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs in
the pharma business, for all except a very few drugs, mostly certain
biologicals, are trivial. The costs are in development (typically $200
million - $500 million for a new drug) and marketing.

If I wanted to get into it, which I don't, I would argue that we don't
*want* to be competitive with low-wage countries on present terms. We'd be
working for $1/hour if we did. The solution lies somewhere else.



Now, this is not a simple problem and there are a host of underlying
reasons for the situation as it exists today. frankly I feel that they
are unsurmountable.

If your solution is to make us "competitive," then yes, they are
insurmountable.



It is easy to blame it on the notion that the cause is the greedy
unions with their insatiable demands for pay increases.

Only for those who don't have a solution for competing with $0.80/hour wages
in China. They'll blame the unions, which is foolish on its face. The
problem would be the same if our wages were half what they are now. We're
already the most productive manufacturing country in the world. Most people
don't realize that.

Or the greed
of CEO's ,which probably, is not that far out of line in reality --
Exxon, the largest company in the world? How much should we pay for
the guy that runs that company? But trying to assign blame to a single
entity, or cause, is an over simplistic point of view.

True.



The root cause is that developed countries, simply by the nature of
the beasts, increase the standard of living of the population and the
demand for bigger, better, more, and as a result costs of doing
business in the country increases. So, as long as there are less
developed areas business will move to the cheaper, less developed
areas.

Right. The Chinese are counting on Africa next.



This happened, in the U.S., after WW II with industry leaving the N.E.
states (with the result of lost jobs and failing economies) and moving
to the South. It is now happening again, except industry is now moving
outside the U.S. because there is no longer undeveloped areas within
the country.

All true. As trade theory is evolving and as we're learning from harsh
experience, a consensus is developing that free trade is a very good thing
for countries of roughly comparable levels of development and costs. When
one country is rich and the other is poor, it's a good thing for the poor
country. The rich country generally comes out a wash on paper -- higher GDP
but lower wages and fewer jobs -- but there's hell to pay in terms of social
disruption. One consequence is a deepening of the economic divide. But
that's not the only ugly consequence.

This, of course, contradicts the Washingon Consensus (neoliberal economics),
which is the theory we're operating under today. It won't last much longer..
Our current accounts can't take much more of that theory. The neoliberal
idea (promoted by Milton Friedman) is that the dollar will decline when
these imbalances occur, and trade will restabilize. But neither Friedman nor
anyone else counted on China and India, nor upon the speed with which
manufacturing technology could disperse.

We face a choice. We either come up with new trade terms for dealing with
the developing world and the underdeveloped world, or we become the
underdeveloped world.



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

--
Ed-in-New Jersey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Actually the United States is becoming a third world country.

Remember the housing bust?

Our assets are depreciating quickly and there really is no end in
sight.

Then consider the national debt...the United States is technically
broke at this time and is selling assets to maintain the cash flow.

Note that it is happening under a Republican Administration.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 11:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in
messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...





On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. Way to go Ron. Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. We can repeat history. The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then
have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by
market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.



Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the
wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made
around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that
Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here
100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mind explaining why then that the pharma jobs are moving
offshores...especially the genetically generated ones?

Which jobs are you talking about, and what is your source of information? As
for generics, that's developing-country material. There's virtually no
research, and the chemistry is copy-cat.

--
Ed Huntress

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 12:17 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


We face a choice. We either come up with new trade terms for dealing with
the developing world and the underdeveloped world, or we become the
underdeveloped world.



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

--
Ed-in-New Jersey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually the United States is becoming a third world country.

Nonsense.

Remember the housing bust?

Which one?

Our assets are depreciating quickly and there really is no end in
sight.

The end in sight is their real underlying value. I doubt if we'll come
anywhere close to that.

Then consider the national debt...the United States is technically
broke at this time and is selling assets to maintain the cash flow.

There is no such thing as being "technically broke" when your debts are
denominated in your own currency, if it's not backed by anything tangible.

Note that it is happening under a Republican Administration.

TMT

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:48:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

No, by "works" I mean that trade actually is done the way Ricardo's theory
of comparative advantage says it should be done. I've never heard of one,
and I've asked some economists about it over the years. They never gave me a
convincing answer.

--
Ed Huntress
===========
The main reason is because there are no such examples/answers.

A few of the reasons that the theory doesn't work a

#1 -- countries don't trade, people and companies do. In many
cases the people/companies doing the trading are not "citizens"
of the country, and the "profits" are exported.

#2 -- All the text-book examples involve bilateral trade. As
soon as you have 3 or more trading partners, the problem becomes
indeterminate from a math standpoint, like a 3 body gravitational
problem.

#3 -- all the examples use counter-trade, i.e. goods for goods.
In the real world this is miniscule, and as soon as money is
introduced [as opposed to gold which is another commodity]
exchange rates, etc. come into play, totally obscuring the
dynamics.

#4 -- There are many other considerations besides "trade," from a
"national preservation" perspective, for example having a secure
food supply. The UK came within a hair's breadth of defeat in
both world wars because they ignored this basic requirement.

#5 -- It is increasingly apparent that Ricardo was a propagandist
for the UK during the Napoleonic wars. Because Napoleon was
imposing an early version of the EEC to promote trade and
industry within French Europe [the Continental system], the UK
naturally was all for free trade. If Napoleon had been for free
trade, I am sure Ricardo (or another flak) would have touted
"Imperial Preference" or some such. What is not clear is if
Ricardo actually believed his thesis, and was picked because this
was what the establishment wanted to hear, or if he determined
what the establishment wanted to hear, and wrote accordingly.
(Sound familiar?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27
Note that the country that Ricardo used as an example [Portugal
to export wine and import wool] is specifically mentioned as a
holdout against the Continental system.

#6 -- FWIW Economics and Astrology appear to be very similar.
They have an arcane vocabulary, bewildering mathematics, offer
convoluted explanations for past and future events, and are
worthless as a guide to practical actions. The practitioners are
highly paid and appear to have undue and unjustified influence in
society and government.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you are seeing there is the drug companies taking advantage of
the American consumers with the blessing of George Bush.

Someone has to pay for his kickbacks.

TMT


So you are saying that Zestril was cheaper by some 400% during the
Clinton Administration?

Gunner

Guess it comes down to what you would call corporate greed and power
vs.
what some of us would call Organized Labor greed and power. The
pendulum tends to swing both ways. /mark


There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side
of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over
to
the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while
ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now.
So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

Hawke

It is difficult to believe that you are as naive as you appear to be.
Your statement "the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while
ordinary people see their lives get a lot worse" is almost
unbelievably uninformed. Have you never heard of CALPERS? One of the
largest stockholders/investors in the world with some $236 Billion
invested. I suggest that you Google "CALPERS" to discover who/what
they are and who the shareholders that benefit are. Hardly
aristocrats, Then, perhaps, you might wish re-word your post above.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

For this post you can call me Hawke-in-California, which ought to tell
you
that yes I do know exactly what CALPERS is. But that has little to do
with
what I said. Apparently you don't know much about American history and
especially the economic history of America. We've been through swings of
power between business and unions over the years and it's as I said, when
unions were the most powerful and had the highest membership the US was
at
its best. This was in the late 50s and early 60s. That was also the time
when corporate taxes were the highest too. The total government revenue
in
taxes at the time was 39% from corporations. It's nothing like that now
and
the ordinary citizen now pays what the corporations used to. No wonder
their
finances are in a decline.

And if you look at the income distribution gap between workers and owners
or
between rich and poor or between high and low income workers it's the
highest right now it's ever been. So my point about a rich aristocracy
and a
poor public is the fact not my opinion. The 1/10 of 1% has more wealth
than
ever. That group is our aristocracy. The fact that state employees have a
big pension fund is really irrelevant to what I was talking about. What I
find surprising is that so many people like you think that everything is
so
simple that basic business or econ 101 can explain the situation the
country
now is facing.

Hawke

I was replying specifically to your comment "the only ones who
benefit are the company management and stockholders" and trying to
point out that in many cases the "stockholders" may well be the
working man, not some invisible entity. Harley Davidson is a better
example - owned by the employees.

This Management versus workers is too easy an argument. In my
experience "Management" is always on th lookout for "workers" who can
be promoted, or upgraded.


I agree. They are especially on the lookout for workers who will do the job
for less money. Which, after all is why all the jobs are going to third
world countries. The problem it seems is that the US no longer holds any
comparative advantage over the poorer countries. Too bad no one told us what
to do when we are disadvantaged in the global competition. Other countries
can now make everything we used to for a lot less due to cheap labor costs
so we therefore have to decline economically? That would be the case if it
weren't for governments getting involved to protect their markets. We aren't
protecting ours but they are. We're losing and they are winning. If I was in
charge I'd do what they are doing.

Hawke

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:54:21 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:48:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

No, by "works" I mean that trade actually is done the way Ricardo's theory
of comparative advantage says it should be done. I've never heard of one,
and I've asked some economists about it over the years. They never gave me a
convincing answer.

I was researching a book and came across Schumacher's _Small is
Beautiful_. Ever heard of it/him? What's you guys' take on it?

--
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on
her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even
the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve
of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:43:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

Snipped


Not in the case of Zestril that I quoted. See the following:

Bruce, I worked in pharmaceutical marketing for four years and A-Z was one
of my clients, fer chrissake. Believe me, your costs have nothing to do with
manufacturing costs. Neither do ours. Yours are based on price controls and
accounting that covers only the marketing and distribution costs in
Thailand. Ours are based on everything they can get out of the market, with
no holds barred. Period.


AstraZeneca is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies,
with a broad range of medicines designed to fight disease in important
areas of healthcare.

Active in over 100 countries with growing presence in important
emerging markets; corporate office in London UK; major R&D sites in
Sweden, the UK and the US.

In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

Of course. You're larded with "compulsory licensing." That is, the Thai
government gives your pharma industry a license for pirating. d8-)

Sorry, incorrect. the Thai government is discussing the CL question
with one or two drug companies but there has been no decision.
According to the pharmaceutical department of Chulalongkorn University
(the most prestigious school in the country) all current drugs covered
by copyright or patent are imported from the makers, or their licensed
representatives. (they operate a extremely well stocked pharmacy in
the heart of Bangkok so they are easy to talk to).

But the point of the discussion was my trying to illustrate my
assertion that costs in the U.S. are too high. I used the example of
Zestril simply to point out that

More snipped.

Bruce, you started with an interesting point about manufacturing costs, but
you're barking up the wrong tree to use pharma as an example. There are no
conclusions that can be drawn about relative competitiveness from drug
pricing -- except that it's screwed up so deeply that every country is
different, and even every drug is different.

I think I used the wrong example :-) as I had no intention of
discussing the pharmaceutical industry. My point was, simply, that
costs in the U.S. are too high. Perhaps I should have said something
like "Why, even my medicine for high blood pressure costs less then a
quarter of the U.S. price".


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:54:21 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:48:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

No, by "works" I mean that trade actually is done the way Ricardo's
theory
of comparative advantage says it should be done. I've never heard of one,
and I've asked some economists about it over the years. They never gave
me a
convincing answer.

I was researching a book and came across Schumacher's _Small is
Beautiful_. Ever heard of it/him? What's you guys' take on it?

He went the way of "appropriate technology." Kaput.

However, I saw his spectre raised recently in Bill McKibben's recent book,
_Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future_. I was
surprised anyone remembered him.

Here's an angular take on his ideas, which I've thought about in recent
years because I'm interested in both subjects: "Small is beautiful" ran up
against two things. The first was the New Trade Theory developed in the
'70s, which is based on economies of scale. The second is that the Japanese
proved New Trade Theory by flipping the idea that had been growing in the US
in the early-to-mid '70s, that computers and NC were going to produce highly
customized products and replace conventional mass production with
"one-at-a-time" mass production. The Japanese, in other words, killed "small
is beautiful." R.I.P.

It's still a valid idea. Along with appropriate technology, it could be
revived in competition with the capitalization ideas pushed by the IMF and
by theories of efficiency through globalization.

--
Ed Huntress

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:43:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

Snipped


Not in the case of Zestril that I quoted. See the following:

Bruce, I worked in pharmaceutical marketing for four years and A-Z was one
of my clients, fer chrissake. Believe me, your costs have nothing to do
with
manufacturing costs. Neither do ours. Yours are based on price controls
and
accounting that covers only the marketing and distribution costs in
Thailand. Ours are based on everything they can get out of the market,
with
no holds barred. Period.


AstraZeneca is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies,
with a broad range of medicines designed to fight disease in important
areas of healthcare.

Active in over 100 countries with growing presence in important
emerging markets; corporate office in London UK; major R&D sites in
Sweden, the UK and the US.

In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

Of course. You're larded with "compulsory licensing." That is, the Thai
government gives your pharma industry a license for pirating. d8-)

Sorry, incorrect. the Thai government is discussing the CL question
with one or two drug companies but there has been no decision.

Bruce, I don't know what kind of smoke the Thai government is blowing your
way, but they granted compulsory licenses in the last year or so for
anivirals efavirenz and lopinavir+ritonavir, and for clopidogrel, a heart
medication sold by Bristol Myers Squibb. There were four more in the works
but Abbott Labs responded to the CL for lopinavir+ritonavir (Kaletra) by
announcing they wouldn't register any more drugs in Thailand. The US put
Thailand on its 301 Priority Watch List, citing " further indications of a
weakening of respect for patents, as the Thai Government announced decisions
to issue compulsory licenses for several patented pharmaceutical products."

NOW the Thai government is re-thinking the CLs, and may pull back on the
ones they've already granted -- after they faced the probability that other
pharma companies would just stop doing business there. If they can't make
money there they aren't going to play.

According to the pharmaceutical department of Chulalongkorn University
(the most prestigious school in the country) all current drugs covered
by copyright or patent are imported from the makers, or their licensed
representatives. (they operate a extremely well stocked pharmacy in
the heart of Bangkok so they are easy to talk to).

But the point of the discussion was my trying to illustrate my
assertion that costs in the U.S. are too high. I used the example of
Zestril simply to point out that

But your whole premise was wrong. Here's what you said:

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

My response was no, it gives no hint. Because that wasn't the issue. If the
Zestril was made in the US (it probably was made by A-Z's "licensed
representative" in Puerto Rico), we'd sell it to you in Thailand for
$12.90/30, too. That's the way the business works. It has nothing to do with
costs within the US. It has everything to do with price controls and what
the local market will bear. That's the way it is on virtually *all*
pharmaceuticals, everywhere in the world.

The US market, as of now, will bear the costs, and there are no price
controls. So A-Z sells Zestril for $48.00/30 *here*. Not there. They can get
away with it in the US, but not anywhere else. That's what I was trying to
tell you earlier.

Now, for future reference, you can buy the generic of Zestril at Wal-Mart
for $4.00/30. And there are plenty of other ACE inhibitors to choose from if
you don't like generic Zestril. That's an important thing that you're
missing. FWIW, I can buy branded Zestril for $5.50/30 days, or $5.50/90 days
if I order it by mail. That's because I have good pharma coverage. I'm the
kind of person who might buy branded ACE inhibitors in the US. If you don't
have the insurance coverage, you buy generics.


More snipped.

Bruce, you started with an interesting point about manufacturing costs,
but
you're barking up the wrong tree to use pharma as an example. There are no
conclusions that can be drawn about relative competitiveness from drug
pricing -- except that it's screwed up so deeply that every country is
different, and even every drug is different.

I think I used the wrong example :-) as I had no intention of
discussing the pharmaceutical industry. My point was, simply, that
costs in the U.S. are too high. Perhaps I should have said something
like "Why, even my medicine for high blood pressure costs less then a
quarter of the U.S. price".

OK, back on track. It's true that costs in the US are high. For comparison,
the USA's GDP is around $44,000 per capita, while Thailand's is around
$8,000. Thailand's average income is under $4,000/year (much higher in
Bangkok); the US runs around $37,000. The Gini index for the US is 40.8; for
Thailand, 43.5.

So income distribution for both countries is rather widely split -- somewhat
wider in Thailand -- while the US has a GDP running more than five times
greater. One would expect costs to be MUCH lower in Thailand, as they are.
It isn't just incomes in manufacturing that matter. It's the entire supply
chain of embedded incomes, which means that practically all manufactured
goods will cost much less to produce in Thailand.

Now, given all that, what is it you're saying, or prescribing, for the US?
Our numbers are similar to those of Europe and Japan, and they're typical
for highly developed economies -- the ones at the top, in terms of income
and GDP. In direct competition, for anything that can be made in Thailand,
we're going to get creamed. What would you suggest?

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:11:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:17:54 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
A whole bunch cut

Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

More snipped

U.S. today.

I don't disagree that prices here are too high to be competitive against
low-wage countries. But your example was a bad one. The pharma business
isn't driven by competition or manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs in
the pharma business, for all except a very few drugs, mostly certain
biologicals, are trivial. The costs are in development (typically $200
million - $500 million for a new drug) and marketing.

Zestril, manufactured by AstraZensca, in the United Kingdom, and
imported into thailand, costs 12 bucks in Thailand and 48 bucks in the
U.S. The same stuff, made in the same factory.

Well, that should make the point clear, then. It isn't manufacturing costs,
if they're being manufactured in the same place. A-Z manufacturers in 20
countries around the world, though (they were my client for four years) and
it's not likely yours is coming from the UK. Most likely it's coming from
IPR Pharmaceuticals in Puerto Rico, which is A-Z's high-volume manufacturer
for Zestril. I should point out, too, that A-Z markets Zestril under license
from Merck. Like most drugs, it was developed in the US. That's the benefit
from not having price controls. They can sink all of those development costs
in the US market, so they develop the drug here, develop the worldwide
marketing for it here, and, if you want to include PR as part of the US,
they manufacture it here. With our liberal patent laws they'll make most of
their money on it here, too.

Well, the box is marked "manufactured in the United Kingdom" so I
assume that it is.

Thailand's pharma price controls are most likely making the difference. Or,
in the case of Zestril, it may be competition from a generic that's being
made under compulsory license (and being fought over in the courts as we
speak). The competition varies for generics from country to country. There
are some known side effects with the generics (lisinopril), which, depending
on where you are, may make them a bigger or smaller competitive factor.

As I say in another post, the Thai's don;t have any "price controls"
on drugs, or anything else that I know of. what they do have is import
duties.


The big point, however, is that pharmaceuticals don't operate in anything
like a real market. It's totally convoluted and twisted by everything from
government regulations in use, to price controls, to patent fights. The
closest thing to a "free" market for drugs is the US. And even here the
normal market forces of supply and demand, choice among competitors, and so
on, is so distorted that "markets" are hardly recognizable.

Certainly. the Thai Pharma controls basically control only the sale of
narcotics or other drugs of that type, but that is more of a police
matter then anything else.

AstraZeneca does it the same way as all the other big pharmaceutical

remaining pharmaceutical conversation deleted


Only for those who don't have a solution for competing with $0.80/hour
wages
in China. They'll blame the unions, which is foolish on its face. The
problem would be the same if our wages were half what they are now. We're
already the most productive manufacturing country in the world. Most
people
don't realize that.

The problem isn't wages as such. It is that the "standard of living"
in the U.S. is far higher then in other countries and thus wages must
match. You MUST have air conditioning, MUST have a dishwasher, MUST
have a car, MUST have this or that, this or that your parents did
perfectly well without, and of course to pay for these things you need
to make more money.

Of course, in some cases, the fact that everyone owns a car (for
example) means that cities, mainly west of the Mississippi, don;t need
public transportation, thus in the 1970's the voters voted down a bond
issue in Los Angeles two years in a row.

As they say in New York, "what goes round, comes round" and as the
"standard of living" goes up so do the wages you must receive to
purchase these items. Of course the increased money circulating in the
economy tends to drive up prices - after all now that one has more
money to spend the likely result is that it will be spent.


And probably the most technically advanced. But unfortunately that
isn't helping Ohio (was it) where jobs are evaporating like water on a
hot sidewalk.

Right. It's going to take some intrusive management of trade. There's really
no way around it, unless we want our true incomes, based on the falling
dollar, to drop to third-world levels.

I don;t believe it is possible. Our Comptroller used to tell the story
about working as an accountant at a company that had a "cost cutting"
program. He asked the comptroller "what is the cost cutting program"
and was told "anything that doesn't effect this department".

No one is going to accept a voluntary cut in income. whether it is a
company or a worker. It is just not human nature.


More snipped

With lightning speed. GM basically packaged an engine-manufacturing plant in
crates when they set up their Chevy engine line in Shanghai, which now makes
the engines for Chevy SUVs assembled in Canada and sold in the US. No theory
ever predicted that things like that could happen. No theory is capable of
dealing with the consequences.

Of course. and the guy that promoted the scheme undoubtedly got a very
large bonus or a promotion for coming up with the idea.


In closing, this subject is spreading rapidly. If we don;t stop we
will be into scientology or illegal immigrants if we aren't careful
(probably also impossible to solve subjects). I suggest that we either
end or chop it up in pieces to cover one subject each.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:17*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:adpet3hfpqfkhqli1k8bh1lkh17jpq29dp@4ax .com...





On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

On Mar 11, 10:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in
messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

Much deleted

Ed-in-New Jersey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Actually the United States is becoming a third world country.

Remember the housing bust?

Our assets are depreciating quickly and there really is no end in
sight.

Then consider the national debt...the United States is technically
broke at this time and is selling assets to maintain the cash flow.

Note that it is happening under a Republican Administration.


It wouldn't make any difference what party was running things the
whole economy was too top heavy to last.

I read a while ago that pipeline welders could make $50.00 an hour - I
can hire certified Thai pipe welders that will churn out as many x-ray
welds a day as a white man for about $1,000-1500 a month, working 7
days a week/12 hours a day. You can't compete.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:28:02 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


I agree. They are especially on the lookout for workers who will do the job
for less money. Which, after all is why all the jobs are going to third
world countries. The problem it seems is that the US no longer holds any
comparative advantage over the poorer countries. Too bad no one told us what
to do when we are disadvantaged in the global competition. Other countries
can now make everything we used to for a lot less due to cheap labor costs
so we therefore have to decline economically? That would be the case if it
weren't for governments getting involved to protect their markets. We aren't
protecting ours but they are. We're losing and they are winning. If I was in
charge I'd do what they are doing.

Hawke


I'm retired now but I worked for the past 30 years outside the U.S.
and you are correct. When I started all the supervisors were from
developed countries but as time went by more and more locals became
qualified.
I participated in a program ARCO Indonesia had to take about 30 fresh
collage graduates and try to turn some of them into managers.They
treated them just like any other big company, seminars, training,
promotions and terminations as merited, temporary transfers for some
to other countries to gain more experience and so on. the result is
that (if he hasn't retired) one of them is the President Director of
ARCO Indonesia and another is the V.P. Production..

All of this took some 20 years to occur but it has occurred and no, in
most cases there is no longer any reason to hire an American.



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...

In closing, this subject is spreading rapidly. If we don;t stop we
will be into scientology or illegal immigrants if we aren't careful
(probably also impossible to solve subjects). I suggest that we either
end or chop it up in pieces to cover one subject each.

Ok. Here's my one subject: The idea that costs in the US are too high is a
case of looking at things from the wrong end of the telescope. The fact is
that our costs are based on an equilibrium established when there was little
foreign competition. There is only one fundamental reason it couldn't be
sustained, and that would be if there was something structurally
unsustainable about isolating ourselves from low-wage competition, in a
limited and selective way, and it cut us out of too many export markets as
well. The only model for this in recent times is Europe, which
self-destroyed its small-computer production capabilities by isolating
itself through tariffs at a crucial time; but which, on the other hand, did
the same thing with its car market, limiting Japanese imports to 10% market
share, for example, and actually stimulated its domestic producers in the
process -- producers that are now on top of the world in terms of quality of
product and demand.

Now, our consumption of resources is another issue. It's unsustainable, but
China's is, too, and Europe's is problematic. That's a problem we're all
going to have to deal with soon but it's not the same thing as sustaining
relative incomes. As the world deals with limited resources, we will, too.

The lessons drawn from Europe and Japan are quite different, but we all face
similar problems. I'm not convinced that reducing our standard of living
(except for energy consumption) would materially change anything. The gaps
are too large. And it looks like Asia will take too long to approach our
cost levels. That's a long-run prospect. Something will happen, of
necessity, before they reach anything close to cost parity. In that regard,
as Lord Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.

So we're toying with the idea of selective protectionism; a dangerous idea
but one that may be the only way to deal with it. A lot would depend on how
Europe and Japan react to the same pressures. The idea would not be to keep
our industries in a hothouse but rather to slow down the pace of change to
something that we could deal with.

To me, that's the key long-term economic issue we face. Most of what's going
on now in financial markets has little to do with it, and will play itself
out regardless of it. The question is how much damage we can afford to
sustain for the sake of an economic theory that has never, in reality, been
tried befo free trade.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:48:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

No, by "works" I mean that trade actually is done the way Ricardo's theory
of comparative advantage says it should be done. I've never heard of one,
and I've asked some economists about it over the years. They never gave me
a
convincing answer.

--
Ed Huntress
===========
The main reason is because there are no such examples/answers.

A few of the reasons that the theory doesn't work a

#1 -- countries don't trade, people and companies do. In many
cases the people/companies doing the trading are not "citizens"
of the country, and the "profits" are exported.

#2 -- All the text-book examples involve bilateral trade. As
soon as you have 3 or more trading partners, the problem becomes
indeterminate from a math standpoint, like a 3 body gravitational
problem.

#3 -- all the examples use counter-trade, i.e. goods for goods.
In the real world this is miniscule, and as soon as money is
introduced [as opposed to gold which is another commodity]
exchange rates, etc. come into play, totally obscuring the
dynamics.

#4 -- There are many other considerations besides "trade," from a
"national preservation" perspective, for example having a secure
food supply. The UK came within a hair's breadth of defeat in
both world wars because they ignored this basic requirement.

#5 -- It is increasingly apparent that Ricardo was a propagandist
for the UK during the Napoleonic wars. Because Napoleon was
imposing an early version of the EEC to promote trade and
industry within French Europe [the Continental system], the UK
naturally was all for free trade. If Napoleon had been for free
trade, I am sure Ricardo (or another flak) would have touted
"Imperial Preference" or some such. What is not clear is if
Ricardo actually believed his thesis, and was picked because this
was what the establishment wanted to hear, or if he determined
what the establishment wanted to hear, and wrote accordingly.
(Sound familiar?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27
Note that the country that Ricardo used as an example [Portugal
to export wine and import wool] is specifically mentioned as a
holdout against the Continental system.

#6 -- FWIW Economics and Astrology appear to be very similar.
They have an arcane vocabulary, bewildering mathematics, offer
convoluted explanations for past and future events, and are
worthless as a guide to practical actions. The practitioners are
highly paid and appear to have undue and unjustified influence in
society and government.

That's good, George, and it sounds right on many counts. So the next
question is, why in the hell do trade theorists still talk about it? As far
as I can see, it's a textbook thing that is, as an economist once said, the
one idea in economics that is both simple and profound. But it's meaningless
when they talk to us non-economists.

I think it clouds understanding of real trade issues. But then, I'm assuming
someone could clear them up if it weren't for these clouds. That may be a
delusion on my part.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:56:27 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
snip
But the point of the discussion was my trying to illustrate my
assertion that costs in the U.S. are too high. I used the example of
Zestril simply to point out that
snip
============
Prices, costs, and profits are three separate, although related,
topics.

Given the amount of automation, and the low labor content of
almost all [production] pharmaceuticals, it is difficult for me
to see how the cost of labor has much [actual] affect on the
retail price, let alone 50% more. The allocation of G&A,
marketing, and executive bonus charges is something else.

On the other hand, the opportunity for "transfer pricing" and tax
evasion may have a big impact.

While not exactly tax evasion, corporations do not pay federal
[US] income tax on profits generated by operations in Puerto Rico
until those profits are "repatriated" to the US. Given the huge
expansion of off-shore operations, there is little need to ever
repatriate the profits, and this provides yet another tax payer
subsidized incentive for off-shore production and the elimination
of additional US jobs.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Millwright Ron wrote:

Unions are only about 10 percent of the work force. So why do you
blame them? Besides your poor opinion of people that are Union.
The real enemy is greed.

That 10% has done enough damage to the economy.


It is not how much it costs the manufacturers or what the laborers
get paid. . It is about GREED, GREED of the UNIONS.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:56:27 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:43:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

Snipped


Not in the case of Zestril that I quoted. See the following:

Bruce, I worked in pharmaceutical marketing for four years and A-Z was one
of my clients, fer chrissake. Believe me, your costs have nothing to do with
manufacturing costs. Neither do ours. Yours are based on price controls and
accounting that covers only the marketing and distribution costs in
Thailand. Ours are based on everything they can get out of the market, with
no holds barred. Period.


AstraZeneca is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies,
with a broad range of medicines designed to fight disease in important
areas of healthcare.

Active in over 100 countries with growing presence in important
emerging markets; corporate office in London UK; major R&D sites in
Sweden, the UK and the US.

In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

Of course. You're larded with "compulsory licensing." That is, the Thai
government gives your pharma industry a license for pirating. d8-)

Sorry, incorrect. the Thai government is discussing the CL question
with one or two drug companies but there has been no decision.
According to the pharmaceutical department of Chulalongkorn University
(the most prestigious school in the country) all current drugs covered
by copyright or patent are imported from the makers, or their licensed
representatives. (they operate a extremely well stocked pharmacy in
the heart of Bangkok so they are easy to talk to).

Sorry again. Just after I posted the above I read the newspaper. It
appears that contrary to previous printed reports the government HAS
decided to allow the manufacture of patented medicines under a
"Compulsory Licensing" (CL) law.

The article goes o to say that the EU confirmed the legality of
Thailand's action and it was allowed by WTO rules.






Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:10:11 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:43:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:40:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

Snipped


Not in the case of Zestril that I quoted. See the following:

Bruce, I worked in pharmaceutical marketing for four years and A-Z was one
of my clients, fer chrissake. Believe me, your costs have nothing to do
with
manufacturing costs. Neither do ours. Yours are based on price controls
and
accounting that covers only the marketing and distribution costs in
Thailand. Ours are based on everything they can get out of the market,
with
no holds barred. Period.


AstraZeneca is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies,
with a broad range of medicines designed to fight disease in important
areas of healthcare.

Active in over 100 countries with growing presence in important
emerging markets; corporate office in London UK; major R&D sites in
Sweden, the UK and the US.

In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

Of course. You're larded with "compulsory licensing." That is, the Thai
government gives your pharma industry a license for pirating. d8-)

Sorry, incorrect. the Thai government is discussing the CL question
with one or two drug companies but there has been no decision.

Bruce, I don't know what kind of smoke the Thai government is blowing your
way, but they granted compulsory licenses in the last year or so for
anivirals efavirenz and lopinavir+ritonavir, and for clopidogrel, a heart
medication sold by Bristol Myers Squibb. There were four more in the works
but Abbott Labs responded to the CL for lopinavir+ritonavir (Kaletra) by
announcing they wouldn't register any more drugs in Thailand. The US put
Thailand on its 301 Priority Watch List, citing " further indications of a
weakening of respect for patents, as the Thai Government announced decisions
to issue compulsory licenses for several patented pharmaceutical products."


I don;t know either but up until last week the paper said that the
government was considering action, but as I wrote in another post
today the paper announced that the Government Pharmaceutical
Organization was constructing a factory to make several drugs under
the CL laws (or agreements).

So much for "News" papers.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:43:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .

In closing, this subject is spreading rapidly. If we don;t stop we
will be into scientology or illegal immigrants if we aren't careful
(probably also impossible to solve subjects). I suggest that we either
end or chop it up in pieces to cover one subject each.

Ok. Here's my one subject: The idea that costs in the US are too high is a
case of looking at things from the wrong end of the telescope. The fact is
that our costs are based on an equilibrium established when there was little
foreign competition. There is only one fundamental reason it couldn't be
sustained, and that would be if there was something structurally
unsustainable about isolating ourselves from low-wage competition, in a
limited and selective way, and it cut us out of too many export markets as
well. The only model for this in recent times is Europe, which
self-destroyed its small-computer production capabilities by isolating
itself through tariffs at a crucial time; but which, on the other hand, did
the same thing with its car market, limiting Japanese imports to 10% market
share, for example, and actually stimulated its domestic producers in the
process -- producers that are now on top of the world in terms of quality of
product and demand.

I suppose it is really a matter of where you are looking from. From
the purchaser's point of view cheap is better. But from a structural
point of view you are correct. My question is whether the U.S. public
and more important the companies who took advantage of NAFTA or the
free trade or most favored trading partner agreements that the
government agreed to and now discover that their goods are going to
have a big penality applied to them are going to stand for it.

Example: Walmart, from all I read, became the largest retailer in the
world by selling cheap (mostly imported) goods. Assume that the
government proposers a law to add (lets say ) 300% import duty to
chinese made shirts so that they sell for the same price as a US made
shirt. What does WalMart think about that?

How much political power does a company like WalMart, and all the
other companies that have moved offshore, have? And how much would
they use that power in the next election? And what is the reaction of
any political party in the world to the news that the opposition is
going to have all the money in the world to contest the next election?

I don't think that whether it is the correct solution or not
isolation, or protective tariffs will work.

Now, our consumption of resources is another issue. It's unsustainable, but
China's is, too, and Europe's is problematic. That's a problem we're all
going to have to deal with soon but it's not the same thing as sustaining
relative incomes. As the world deals with limited resources, we will, too.

The lessons drawn from Europe and Japan are quite different, but we all face
similar problems. I'm not convinced that reducing our standard of living
(except for energy consumption) would materially change anything. The gaps
are too large. And it looks like Asia will take too long to approach our
cost levels. That's a long-run prospect. Something will happen, of
necessity, before they reach anything close to cost parity. In that regard,
as Lord Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.

So we're toying with the idea of selective protectionism; a dangerous idea
but one that may be the only way to deal with it. A lot would depend on how
Europe and Japan react to the same pressures. The idea would not be to keep
our industries in a hothouse but rather to slow down the pace of change to
something that we could deal with.

To me, that's the key long-term economic issue we face. Most of what's going
on now in financial markets has little to do with it, and will play itself
out regardless of it. The question is how much damage we can afford to
sustain for the sake of an economic theory that has never, in reality, been
tried befo free trade.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:


Example: Walmart, from all I read, became the largest retailer in the
world by selling cheap (mostly imported) goods. Assume that the
government proposers a law to add (lets say ) 300% import duty to
chinese made shirts so that they sell for the same price as a US made
shirt. What does WalMart think about that?

How much political power does a company like WalMart, and all the
other companies that have moved offshore, have? And how much would
they use that power in the next election? And what is the reaction of
any political party in the world to the news that the opposition is
going to have all the money in the world to contest the next election?

I don't think that whether it is the correct solution or not
isolation, or protective tariffs will work.



Companies like that have resources that the common man just can't
possibly match.

FOr instance, they can make significant campaign donations to BOTH
candidates, therby ensuring that they have the winner in their pocket.

I can't do that.

Can you?

Richard

Millwright Ron wrote in article
...
On Mar 11, 10:13*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Unions are only about 10 percent of the work force. So why do you
blame them?


----------


If the liberals can believe Algore when he says that a world population
that fits on a relative pinhead the size of Rhode Island can affect the
entire world's environment........

.......why won't they believe that a much larger ten percent slice of a
group can wreak more havoc and do much more damage?

Too_Many_Tools wrote in article
...

Actually the United States is becoming a third world country.

Remember the housing bust?

Our assets are depreciating quickly and there really is no end in
sight.

Then consider the national debt...the United States is technically
broke at this time and is selling assets to maintain the cash flow.

Note that it is happening under a Republican Administration.

TMT

----------


I believe the U.S. checkbook and Visa Card is under the control of Congress
- the majority of which is Democrats.