Humor-Satire What are some good reasons for the United States to invade Canada?

[T-Rexx]

You forget the much of the reason US health care is more expensive is the so many of the new drugs and devices are developed, tried, approved and developed in the US because we do not have price controls. Canada and others countries get the benefit but pay less for the drugs, avoiding the research and development expense.
if we get socialized medicine, you can be sure the dems will enact a law that minorities get in line first " to the maximum extent possible".

This is nonsense.

Of the top 12 pharmaceutical countires (by revenue), 6 (half) are in Europe. If socialized medicine is so repressive of the drug industry, how is it that the industry is just as big there as it is in the USA?


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

 

[Kulindahr]

This is nonsense.

Of the top 12 pharmaceutical countires (by revenue), 6 (half) are in Europe. If socialized medicine is so repressive of the drug industry, how is it that the industry is just as big there as it is in the USA?


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

And if socialized medicine makes it impossible to develop new drugs, why is it that roughly half of the new drugs developed in the last several years were developed in countries with socialized medicine?

 

[rareboy]

Why to invade?

Burger King.

 

[Benvolio]

And if socialized medicine makes it impossible to develop new drugs, why is it that roughly half of the new drugs developed in the last several years were developed in countries with socialized medicine?

because they know that if they successful, they can sell ito the vast, wealth, US market without the price controls they have in socialised counturies. Teh European countries recieve at least half their revinues from the US. The big danger of obamacare is that research and development, both here and abroad will dramatically decrease.

 

[T-Rexx]

because they know that if they successful, they can sell ito the vast, wealth, US market without the price controls they have in socialised counturies. Teh European countries recieve at least half their revinues from the US. The big danger of obamacare is that research and development, both here and abroad will dramatically decrease.

Not true.

American trade law is stunningly protectvie of the US pharmaceutical industry. With rare exception, ALL drugs sold in the USA MUST be manufactured here. (Those filthy Swiss just can't be trusted to make product free from contaminants). If European pharmaceutical comapnies wish to sell product here, they must license their drug to an American manufacturer, which will then make and sell the product here. The American drug market is very much about PREVENTING competition. It is very much about keeping the Europeans OUT.

 

[Alnitak]

Not true.

American trade law is stunningly protectvie of the US pharmaceutical industry. With rare exception, ALL drugs sold in the USA MUST be manufactured here. (Those filthy Swiss just can't be trusted to make product free from contaminants). If European pharmaceutical comapnies wish to sell product here, they must license their drug to an American manufacturer, which will then make and sell the product here. The American drug market is very much about PREVENTING competition. It is very much about keeping the Europeans OUT.

Some drugs are extremely difficult to synthesize and so they have have few manufacturers since competition is impossible. Pseudophedrine comes to mind as one example. Last I read it is made in India and nowhere else.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not true.

American trade law is stunningly protectvie of the US pharmaceutical industry. With rare exception, ALL drugs sold in the USA MUST be manufactured here. (Those filthy Swiss just can't be trusted to make product free from contaminants). If European pharmaceutical comapnies wish to sell product here, they must license their drug to an American manufacturer, which will then make and sell the product here. The American drug market is very much about PREVENTING competition. It is very much about keeping the Europeans OUT.

Yep. Once again, ben is opposed to free markets.

Foreigners can only sell drugs in the US if no US company can make them.

 

[rareboy]

because they know that if they successful, they can sell ito the vast, wealth, US market without the price controls they have in socialised counturies. Teh European countries recieve at least half their revinues from the US. The big danger of obamacare is that research and development, both here and abroad will dramatically decrease.

OMG. You continue to just make shit up.

Give your citations for sources for these claims.

 

[bankside]

Not true.

American trade law is stunningly protectvie of the US pharmaceutical industry. With rare exception, ALL drugs sold in the USA MUST be manufactured here. (Those filthy Swiss just can't be trusted to make product free from contaminants). If European pharmaceutical comapnies wish to sell product here, they must license their drug to an American manufacturer, which will then make and sell the product here. The American drug market is very much about PREVENTING competition. It is very much about keeping the Europeans OUT.

I'd go with a "free trade or no trade" approach.

 

[bankside]

Yep. Once again, ben is opposed to free markets.

Foreigners can only sell drugs in the US if no US company can make them.

That's actually the general US approach to trade: free trade in a given industry as long as the US has a competitive advantage to begin with.

 

[TX-Beau]

Celine Dion - or is that a reason not to invade Canada?

 

[Kulindahr]

OMG. You continue to just make shit up.

Give your citations for sources for these claims.

The thing is, he doesn't realize he's making stuff up. These are articles of faith to today's faux conservatives. Any data presented will either support his position or just slide by and not even be seen -- that's the nature of the beast. And he can find a good number of economists to cite to support his view -- the only problem is that real world data disagree with the economists.

 

[Kulindahr]

Reason to invade Canada....

they use the metric system. They have to be brought back to God-given inches and ounces and cups.

 

[Benvolio]

The thing is, he doesn't realize he's making stuff up. These are articles of faith to today's faux conservatives. Any data presented will either support his position or just slide by and not even be seen -- that's the nature of the beast. And he can find a good number of economists to cite to support his view -- the only problem is that real world data disagree with the economists.

you are so eager to lie that you cannot see how one sentence belies the other. You accuse me of making things up but then agree that a good number of economists support the view. So obviously I did not make it up.

 

[Keeland]

Reason to invade Canada.... they use the metric system. They have to be brought back to God-given inches and ounces and cups.

U.S. ounces and cups*, no doubt, not the one, true God-given British ounces and cups.

Typical Yankee imperialism.

*liquid measure*

 

[mightbe]

you are so eager to lie that you cannot see how one sentence belies the other. You accuse me of making things up but then agree that a good number of economists support the view. So obviously I did not make it up.

Yet nutritionists would not hire a fast food representative to speak at a convention.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yet nutritionists would not hire a fast food representative to speak at a convention.

Heh -- good comparison! Kind of like if you want to know how to paint an old house, you don't ask someone who paints boards in a factory.

Just because an economist says something doesn't mean it will work. I could cite two anarcho-capitalist economists who would support benvolio's position, off the top of my head, but I wouldn't trust either of them (or any other anarcho-capitalist) with anything in the real world, because they're just theorists. And the funny thing about economic theories is that they pretty much never take the single biggest factor into account: human beings. And if I've learned anything about economics while I've been on JUB, it's that actual human behavior screws up economic theory with great regularity.

 

[Benvolio]

Heh -- good comparison! Kind of like if you want to know how to paint an old house, you don't ask someone who paints boards in a factory.

Just because an economist says something doesn't mean it will work. I could cite two anarcho-capitalist economists who would support benvolio's position, off the top of my head, but I wouldn't trust either of them (or any other anarcho-capitalist) with anything in the real world, because they're just theorists. And the funny thing about economic theories is that they pretty much never take the single biggest factor into account: human beings. And if I've learned anything about economics while I've been on JUB, it's that actual human behavior screws up economic theory with great regularity.

Your crypto/bazarre hatred of corporations proves that you have learned nothing of economics and this certainly is no place to learn. You say the capitalist economists are only theorys. So please point out where you bazzarro corporation ideas have risen above the level of your own ideosyncratic notions. Our economy is the most successful in the history of the world, so no, it is not just a theory.

 

[bankside]

Reason to invade Canada....

they use the metric system. They have to be brought back to God-given inches and ounces and cups.

LOL now you're the one making the argument for atheism.

 

[mightbe]

Your crypto/bazarre hatred of corporations proves that you have learned nothing of economics and this certainly is no place to learn. You say the capitalist economists are only theorys. So please point out where you bazzarro corporation ideas have risen above the level of your own ideosyncratic notions. Our economy is the most successful in the history of the world, so no, it is not just a theory.

He said anarcho-capitalist. Very different from Adam Smith. Capitalism works to varying degrees. It does a spectacular job 90% of the time. The other bit is where capitalism fails the people due to market strangling by influential corporations, banks, hospitals, and through the actions of corrupt politicians in pay of the above.

There's a few areas were socialist ideas have proven useful. Healthcare, as the most visible example. But other utilities, mass transportation (or where a government owns a private company, e.g. Deutsche Bahn), public services etc. are common. One could even say that a nation's military is an example. It's paid for by all, with the express purpose of protecting all (or as has been recently demonstrated, protecting some)--a service. One that is usually more important to a government than the people. After all, it is directed in the governments interests.