TPP Trade Deal Proposal Would See CBC, Canada Post Exist Solely For Profit

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Nelju

we need to kill the supply management system. Canadians are getting ripped off with high cheese prices and high milk prices

What about the high gasoline prices? Whoops, that doesn't fit into your narrative of course.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Let me make sure I get you right: you think the Canadian taxpayer would be better served if the Government of Canada created, and fully funded, a big state-owned pharmaceutical research lab that would be, from now on, the sole source of new drugs in the country?

No, such an entity would require subsidization, but government spending is not the basis of my argument.

What I ultimately want (like this will ever happen, though), is a large, multinational organization run by the UN or the WHO or some such, that would develop drugs and release them cheaply immediately. It would be subsidized by all countries in the world through a treaty.

That would be in the best interest of the human race.

Think about all the drugs being made that treat diseases, but don't cure them, for example. For a drug company, it's more profitable to make someone have to take a pill every month for the rest of their life, then give then a single drug and they're done. Maybe that's why there's so many treatments for AIDS but not yet a cure.

But it would obviously be far better for humanity to just have cures.

I believe that the overall well-being of the people should always be the #1 priority of any government. In most cases, regulated capitalism works well to advance that interest. But in some cases, like this one, it does not. In such a case, capitalism should not be the tool used in that area.

We already have this philosophy for primary education, for example (provision of which is government-funded and regulated, not provided by businesses). We need something similar for drugs.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I wouldn't consider Bloomberg or Economist to be sensational. Certainly not as sensational as things like, ahem, the Huffington Post, or even The Globe and Mail.

American media have a much larger breadth of media coverage, from TMZ to NPR and everything in between. I'm not saying all of those sources are equally legitimate.

Again, regarding Monsanto, please provide an actual lawsuit you believe turned out incorrectly, especially with regards to patent law, and not another sensationalized article from RT or HP.

The publications you quote are just mouthpieces for the 1%.

I've never been in a union but we can all see the sad legacy in North America of these trade deals that began in the Reagan-Mulroney era. Well-paying manufacturing jobs bleeding off to countries with no environmental or labour protection. A shrinking middle class.

Without writing in a level environmental playing field, these trade deals are useless and deadly for the planet.

[1overcosc]

I'm a firm believer that some things are best left to a free market, others left to a free market but regulated, and others controlled by government. Neither capitalism nor socialism are perfect and we need a combination. Perfecting that combination is the challenge.

Going back to the OP, I actually support eliminating government control of Canada Post. Letter delivery should be a free market just like parcels are. The mailbox infrastructure should shared through a government entity that funds them through a revenue-neutral fee (to prevent the massive inefficiency and consumer annoyance of every company having to have its own parallel mailbox network), and is open to any company that wants them.

I see no value or benefit to society in having the current model over the one I described above. With the rise of the internet, letters are no longer the critical service that must remain inexpensive to the public, that it once was.

On CBC, I'm more divided and not really sure, but I think that with the invention of the internet and the rise of alternative media that has resulted, the old concerns about private control of media and consolidation are much less pressing.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The publications you quote are just mouthpieces for the 1%.

I've never been in a union but we can all see the sad legacy in North America of these trade deals that began in the Reagan-Mulroney era. Well-paying manufacturing jobs bleeding off to countries with no environmental or labour protection. A shrinking middle class.

Without writing in a level environmental playing field, these trade deals are useless and deadly for the planet.

What I don't get is why trade deals must force everyone to race for the bottom. We could have easily made trade deals requiring environmental protection, wage standards, government provision of certain services, etc. that would have prevented the race to the bottom effect.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

No, such an entity would require subsidization, but government spending is not the basis of my argument.

What I ultimately want (like this will ever happen, though), is a large, multinational organization run by the UN or the WHO or some such, that would develop drugs and release them cheaply immediately. It would be subsidized by all countries in the world through a treaty.

That would be in the best interest of the human race.

I'm not sure that idea would work reasonably well for all the parties involved, though...

Taking your AIDS example... if that multinational organization manages to find a cure after throwing countless billions at the problem, that's basically equivalent to the first world countries subsidizing places like Zimbabwe or South Africa -- and the question that ensues is, what if that same money originating from the coffers of first world countries had been spent over there on more direct aid?

And if funding countries have a disproportionate say because they're the ones funding it, then this multinational research lab might work on things like diabetes and obesity (if the US has a say in it) instead of AIDS. Needless to say, humanity inventing an obesity-combating pill wouldn't do Zimbabwe much good.

Countries will be disagreeing with the organization's priorities all the time...

The UN doesn't even work that well, I can't imagine an international research lab ever working correctly.

[waterloowarrior]

here we go....
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-off...ic-partnership

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

here we go....
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-off...ic-partnership

Time for the evil domestic corporations with government protected monopolies to lobby hard into fear mongering this agreement so they aren't forced to compete. All your milk and eggs now contain 50% cancer!

[eemy]

Will it do something about beer stores and their monopolies?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Will it do something about beer stores and their monopolies?

Good question, I don't see why it shouldn't as government operated stores have no place in a free market. But I would have expected to hear about it if it did.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Good question, I don't see why it shouldn't as government operated stores have no place in a free market. But I would have expected to hear about it if it did.

Just to be clear, the "Beer Store" is a government sanctioned (ON) privately owned monopoly for the retailing or beer in Ontario and it's 100% foreign owned (90% US and 10% Japanese).

But at least they have great hours, super service and convenient locations. Oh wait ...

[Mister F]

Yes, it's worth repeating that the Beer Store is not government owned. It's a relic of prohibition that has inexplicably survived into the 21st century.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Will it do something about beer stores and their monopolies?

No. It might, however, see more imported beer on their shelves.

[1ajs]

doubt beer store will change

though might make it easyer for us to take our booz from province to province

[theman23]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

No, such an entity would require subsidization, but government spending is not the basis of my argument.

What I ultimately want (like this will ever happen, though), is a large, multinational organization run by the UN or the WHO or some such, that would develop drugs and release them cheaply immediately. It would be subsidized by all countries in the world through a treaty.

That would be in the best interest of the human race.

Think about all the drugs being made that treat diseases, but don't cure them, for example. For a drug company, it's more profitable to make someone have to take a pill every month for the rest of their life, then give then a single drug and they're done. Maybe that's why there's so many treatments for AIDS but not yet a cure.

But it would obviously be far better for humanity to just have cures.

I believe that the overall well-being of the people should always be the #1 priority of any government. In most cases, regulated capitalism works well to advance that interest. But in some cases, like this one, it does not. In such a case, capitalism should not be the tool used in that area.

We already have this philosophy for primary education, for example (provision of which is government-funded and regulated, not provided by businesses). We need something similar for drugs.

This is silly. The lack of a cure for AIDS has nothing to do with a lack of trying.