POLITICAL THEORY - Karl Marx

[Periplus]

thats a rampant misconception. the somali republic borders does not have the natural resources or human resources to maintain a 1st world country status let alone a social/welfare state unless its concentrated in a few cities. the best lands are outside the borders.

Somalia has decent onshore/offshore fossil fuel deposits as well as massive renewable energy capacity, as solar panels can be set up in the semi-arid regions and wind turbines can be installed offshore.

Also, with successful reforestation methods, Somalia can introduce a lively agricultural sector that will prevent us from going through a famine again then some.

 

[Nilotic]

By social democracy, I refer to anything more socialised than the American economy but less socialised than the communist nations.

In that, I would prefer any public goods provided by the state, including stuff like health care and broadband infrastructure, similar to the NBN we have here in Aus.

While you are most likely right about the problems with social democracy in the West, as they rely on unequal exchange whilst preaching morality in ecology etc. Social democracy can work in many countries in Africa.

For example, in the context of Somalia, it is a country with a lot of raw materials as well as good potential for agriculture and maritime industry. They have necessary abilities to produce cheap materials and also profit of their raw material wealth. That money, imo, would be best placed into sovereign wealth funds and social programmes such as public housing, health care and infrastructure. Obviously, this is an almost implausible scenario but the one that fits my point.

I suppose that social democracy could work in Africa, but it would invariably still present the threat of outsourcing -- although this is far less likely due to the high rate of unionisation in the Nordic social democracies; the rate of unionisation is around 51% in Norway, but why be in a union when you could be an owner in the enterprise in a co-operative?

Co-operatives still have many distinct advantages over the corporate structures in the social democracies, so I would opt for them over the Nordic model. Co-operatives are a good alternative to State socialism and corporate capitalism.

The Nordic model is prudent enough to establish State control over certain strategic industries -- such as Statoil -> the Norwegian State owned energy company.

Contrary to the prevailing view... the Nordic Nations maintain significant State ownership and control over their economies; Finland has 67 State owned companies; Norway has 74; and Sweden has 48.

Sweden even extends this to the liquor sector. The Swedish liquor sector is under the monopoly of the State owned company - Systembolaget.

Switzerland is not part of the Nordic Nations, but it has some of the same features; State-run insurers provide building insurance.

In addition to State ownership and control over strategic industries... the private sector should be entirely dominated by co-operatives.

Commercial, private banks should not be permitted to exist; credit creation must always remain in public hands; Germany is the powerhouse of Europe due in part to its very high number of public banks; the public bank of North Dakota was the only bank that didn't experience issues during the GFC in the United States.

Would you opt to Nationalise the pharmaceutical industry in your ideal economy or would you allow it to form as a private industry?

 

[Periplus]

I suppose that social democracy could work in Africa, but it would invariably still present the threat of outsourcing -- although this is far less likely due to the high rate of unionisation in the Nordic social democracies; the rate of unionisation is around 51% in Norway, but why be in a union when you could be an owner in the enterprise in a co-operative?

Co-operatives still have many distinct advantages over the corporate structures in the social democracies, so I would opt for them over the Nordic model. Co-operatives are a good alternative to State socialism and corporate capitalism.

The Nordic model is prudent enough to establish State control over certain strategic industries -- such as Statoil -> the Norwegian State owned energy company.

Contrary to the prevailing view... the Nordic Nations maintain significant State ownership and control over their economies; Finland has 67 State owned companies; Norway has 74; and Sweden has 48.

Sweden even extends this to the liquor sector. The Swedish liquor sector is under the monopoly of the State owned company - Systembolaget.

Switzerland is not part of the Nordic Nations, but it has some of the same features; State-run insurers provide building insurance.

In addition to State ownership and control over strategic industries... the private sector should be entirely dominated by co-operatives.

Commercial, private banks should not be permitted to exist; credit creation must always remain in public hands; Germany is the powerhouse of Europe due in part to its very high number of public banks; the public bank of North Dakota was the only bank that didn't experience issues during the GFC in the United States.

Would you opt to Nationalise the pharmaceutical industry in your ideal economy or would you allow it to form as a private industry?

I think an ideal economy should take from good examples and avoid bad examples, hence why I rely on the Nordic countries as examples, in that they have good economies but have some components I would not necessarily advocate or implement.

For a pharmaceutical industry, I would allow private companies to operate in a very regulated environment, similar to Australia. In that, I would completely shake up the policies towards pharmaceutical patents and their profitability, as in America, simple products like insulin should not be bought and sold on the black market due to bad patenting policy.

As long as you can make sure that pharmaceuticals never become expensive for the average person (gov't can support the poor to buy), it seems okay to leave pharmaceuticals to private industry. After all, their competitive nature allows for increased innovation and better products. However, this should not be at the cost of the health/well-being of the populace.

I am sorry if this does not make sense, I'm trying to articulate my jumbled up points as best as I can.

 

[Nilotic]

I think an ideal economy should take from good examples and avoid bad examples, hence why I rely on the Nordic countries as examples, in that they have good economies but have some components I would not necessarily advocate or implement.

For a pharmaceutical industry, I would allow private companies to operate in a very regulated environment, similar to Australia. In that, I would completely shake up the policies towards pharmaceutical patents and their profitability, as in America, simple products like insulin should not be bought and sold on the black market due to bad patenting policy.

As long as you can make sure that pharmaceuticals never become expensive for the average person (gov't can support the poor to buy), it seems okay to leave pharmaceuticals to private industry. After all, their competitive nature allows for increased innovation and better products. However, this should not be at the cost of the health/well-being of the populace.

I am sorry if this does not make sense, I'm trying to articulate my jumbled up points as best as I can.

Yes, an ideal economy would incorporate the most productive aspects of each economic system, and I recognise that the social democracies are far more ideal than corporate capitalism and that this why you are so drawn to them.

I just don't see how any of the enterprises in social democracies could favourably compare with Mondragón and the many advantages it offers to its members; an economy built on the foundation of co-operatives would undoubtedly outcompete an economy built on the Nordic model.

The apparent innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is a myth; studies have been conducted showing that all the drugs that were approved by the FDA, were publicly funded.


Sources:

Editorial: The drug industry’s innovation myth

Even if Congress prohibits rebates and requires drug companies to pass along every dime in savings to customers, which almost every CEO in attendance pledged to do, tens of millions of patients will still be hitting their out-of-pocket maximums.

www.modernhealthcare.com

Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016

This report shows that NIH funding contributed to published research associated with every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010–2016. Collectively, this research involved >200,000 years of grant funding totaling more than $100 billion. The analysis...

www.pnas.org

Public sector financial support for late stage discovery of new drugs in the United States: cohort study

Objective To determine the extent to which late stage development of new drugs relies on support from public funding. Design Cohort study. Setting All new drugs containing one or more new molecular entities approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2008 and December...

www.bmj.com

The United States Federal Government provides at least 44% of the funding of the total corporate research and development in the pharmaceutical industry through tax subsidies alone. NIH funding takes this figure even higher.

The pharmaceutical industry claims that it's a misconception that the Government is largely responsible for the "innovation" in the pharmaceutical industry, and they cite the 75% figure for the number of patents that the private pharmaceutical sector patents on a yearly basis...

..The problem of course is that 85-90% of the new drugs provide no clinical advantages over existing drugs. There really is no need for the pharmaceutical industry to exist as a private sector.

You articulated yourself very well; I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Periplus]

Yes, an ideal economy would incorporate the most productive aspects of each economic system, and I recognise that the social democracies are far more ideal than corporate capitalism and that this why you are so drawn to them.

I just don't see how any of the enterprises in social democracies could favourably compare with Mondragón and the many advantages it offers to its members; an economy built on the foundation of co-operatives would undoubtedly outcompete an economy built on the Nordic model.

The apparent innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is a myth; studies have been conducted showing that all the drugs that were approved by the FDA, were publicly funded.


Sources:

Editorial: The drug industry’s innovation myth

Even if Congress prohibits rebates and requires drug companies to pass along every dime in savings to customers, which almost every CEO in attendance pledged to do, tens of millions of patients will still be hitting their out-of-pocket maximums.

www.modernhealthcare.com

Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016

This report shows that NIH funding contributed to published research associated with every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010–2016. Collectively, this research involved >200,000 years of grant funding totaling more than $100 billion. The analysis...

www.pnas.org

Public sector financial support for late stage discovery of new drugs in the United States: cohort study

Objective To determine the extent to which late stage development of new drugs relies on support from public funding. Design Cohort study. Setting All new drugs containing one or more new molecular entities approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2008 and December...

www.bmj.com

The United States Federal Government provides at least 44% of the funding of corporate research in the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry claims that it's a misconception that the Government is largely responsible for the "innovation" in the pharmaceutical industry, and they cite the 75% figure for the number of patents that the private pharmaceutical sector patents on a yearly basis...

..The problem of course is that 85-90% of the new drugs provide no clinical advantages over existing drugs. There really is no need for the pharmaceutical industry to exist as a private sector.

You articulated yourself very well; I enjoy reading your posts.

I have to be honest, I have not looked into Mondragon much. I think I have heard of it but not I am not too familiar on it.

As for the pharmaceutical innovation, I will look into that also by reading your sources.

I really like your input into academic discussions on SSpot, you seem very well-read my friend. Long may you contribute to this forum.

 

[Nilotic]

I have to be honest, I have not looked into Mondragon much. I think I have heard of it but not I am not too familiar on it.

As for the pharmaceutical innovation, I will look into that also by reading your sources.

I really like your input into academic discussions on SSpot, you seem very well-read my friend. Long may you contribute to this forum.

Mondragón is an exceptional co-operative conglomerate and your research into it will impress you -- and may very well put you further to the left on economic policy.

I hope you find those sources eye opening.

Thanks for the continued support, mate.

 

[reer]

Somalia has decent onshore/offshore fossil fuel deposits as well as massive renewable energy capacity, as solar panels can be set up in the semi-arid regions and wind turbines can be installed offshore.

Also, with successful reforestation methods, Somalia can introduce a lively agricultural sector that will prevent us from going through a famine again then some.

all of that would take years to change society on such a barbaric scalr. it costs too much to move to agriculture + industrialization unless you brutalize the population which costs alot of money too.

 

[Nilotic]

all of that would take years to change society on such a barbaric scalr. it costs too much to move to agriculture + industrialization unless you brutalize the population which costs alot of money too.

Outside the disabled, the elderly and children -- you could probably mandate that every able bodied person in the Country must work in a job guarantee program, if you wish to avoid the emergence of a Nordic style welfare State.

 

[Nilotic]

LKAB is a State owned mining company in Sweden; the largest telecommunications company in Norway (Telenor) is State owned; Norway's financial services giant (DNB) is also State owned.

I can list off many more State owned enterprises in the Nordic Nations but I think I've made my point; certain strategic industries need to be State owned and this is how the Scandinavian Nations avoided capital flight.

In Australia's case:

The Commonwealth Bank, Telstra (telecommunications) and Qantas (airlines) were in State hands prior to their privatisations in the 90s and 2000s.