• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Capitalism's Achilles Heel

Davka

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
981
Location
North of South. just barely.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
We are experiencing a global crisis caused directly by capitalism, and solutions are not forthcoming because capitalism provides no incentive to research and create those solutions. The problem? Antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains.

How do these strains occur? There are three major culprits, each one market-driven. First, there is a high demand for antibiotics among consumers, many of whom are poorly educated and have no idea how antibiotics work, or how misuse of antibiotics creates precisely those environmental pressures which will cause bacteria to evolve resistant strains. Many people don't bother to finish an entire course of antibiotics - instead, they stop taking antibiotics as soon as they begin to feel better. And many patients will essentially demand antibiotics from their doctors, regardless of what sort of infection they may or may not have. Since our medical system in the USA is a capitalist marketplace, doctors have learned to hand out antibiotics freely if they don't want to lose patients.

Secondly, there is a high degree of antibiotic use in the livestock industry. These antibiotics are not being administered primarily to fight infection, or even to prevent possible infection. No, the primary reason that livestock factories use antibiotics is that healthy animals who are given antibiotics grow faster and fatter than those not given antibiotics. In an industry which rewards on a per-pound of flesh basis, this means that the market (except the relatively tiny boutique "organic" market) demands that farmers feed their animals antibiotics or be out-competed by those who do. And the antibiotics used in livestock production are administered in such large quantities that there is a constant excess "overflow" into rivers and lakes, exposing more bacteria to low-level doses and encouraging the emergence of resistant bacterial populations.

And last there is the market mentality of antibiotic manufacturers, whose primary goal is to sell product, not to responsibly eradicate disease. So they sell antibiotics in hand-soap, diaper-wipes, dish-soap, plastic containers, and over 700 other household products.

The capitalist marketplace has inadvertently created the perfect environment for the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

But wait - it gets worse.

Because the global drug industry is market-driven, drug manufacturers are concentrating R&D on high-profit products. Things like acid-reflux medication, antidepressants, nutritional supplements - in short, any medication which consumers will buy and use on a daily basis - are far more profitable than antibiotics, which are are taken for a week and that's it. So drug companies are simply not interested in developing new antibiotics. There's not enough money in it to make it worthwhile.

The solution is, of course, a socialist/government-driven one. Moving to a single-payer system (like every other industrialized nation has) in the USA would remove the market incentive for doctors to over-prescribe antibiotics. Shifting drug R&D to the public sector - or, at least, creating a significant public-funded drug R&D program, aimed at creating unprofitable-but-needed products - would counter the "profit uber alles" motive of the global drug market. And strong legislation to stop the abuse and overuse of antibiotics by the drug industry and the livestock industry would stop the counterproductive flood of antibiotics into the environment as a whole.

Capitalism is a useful tool in many ways. But when it comes to situations in which the public good is pitted against private profit, the market fails us utterly. Free marketeers might not want to admit it, but their "invisible hand" is a greedy, self-serving one which cannot deliver the solutions we so desperately need, unless there is profit to be made. And in far too many cases, there is no profit in doing the right thing.
 
Yes, there is no incentive in capitalism to research and create solutions. See Genentech.

This haranguing of capitalism is just silly. We do not need a "socialist" solution regarding antibiotic resistance. The US has how many public and private research universities? How much money does the CDC give in grants? What about the Howard Hughes Medical Institute? Others? If this money is not being used to fund research on resistant bacteria, why not? We should thank our lucky stars that in our society we benefit from both profit-driven and publicly-funded research. Capitalism is not to blame for bacterial resistance - natural selection is.
 
You might as well blame Davkaism for these problems--it's as guilty as capitalism is.

1) Demand among consumers--how does the economic system have anything to do with this?

2) Antibiotics in livestock--again, why are you blaming capitalism? The same forces apply to the state as apply to businesses.

3) Antibiotics in products--outright fail, here. "Antibacterial" != "Antibiotic". There's a bottle of liquid on the shelf near me that's most definitely antibacterial. It's not an antibiotic and in fact is unsuitable for consumption in the first place.


You're proposing that the state rule our lives--never mind that history shows the worst abuses come from states, not businesses.

You're also ignoring that there is profit in doing the right thing--you just have to charge high prices when it's something like an antibiotic where the R&D will be spread across far fewer doses. Public R&D simply moves the cost to the government, it doesn't make it go away.
 
Capitalism is a system, a tool, nothing more. It is not good or bad nor does it have any perfecting power on human behavior.


It ain't magic and neither are markets. That being said, capitalists (who can be good or evil) are dropping the ball. Maybe it is time to call up the second string.
 
Yes, there is no incentive in capitalism to research and create solutions. See Genentech.

This haranguing of capitalism is just silly. We do not need a "socialist" solution regarding antibiotic resistance. The US has how many public and private research universities? How much money does the CDC give in grants? What about the Howard Hughes Medical Institute? Others? If this money is not being used to fund research on resistant bacteria, why not? We should thank our lucky stars that in our society we benefit from both profit-driven and publicly-funded research. Capitalism is not to blame for bacterial resistance - natural selection is.

Well, not capitalism per se, but market forces sure make the problem worse.
 
You might as well blame Davkaism for these problems--it's as guilty as capitalism is.

You might as well blame rainclouds for the rain. Come on, Loren - get real.

1) Demand among consumers--how does the economic system have anything to do with this?

Um - in every possible way? Supply-and-demand are irrelevant to command economies. This is the problem with command economies, which are easily just as flawed and imperfect as capitalist economies.

2) Antibiotics in livestock--again, why are you blaming capitalism? The same forces apply to the state as apply to businesses.
Nonsense. If there's no Farmer Joe down the road competing against you, there is no reason to adopt Farmer Joe's practices in order to survive economically.

3) Antibiotics in products--outright fail, here. "Antibacterial" != "Antibiotic". There's a bottle of liquid on the shelf near me that's most definitely antibacterial. It's not an antibiotic and in fact is unsuitable for consumption in the first place.

*ahem*

Bacteria are not about to succumb to this deluge,
however. Through mutation, some of their progeny emerge
with resistance to the antibacterial agent aimed at it, and
possibly to other antimicrobial agents as well
(4). Laboratory-
derived mutants of Pseudomonas stutzeri with resistance to
the cationic biocide chlorhexidine were also cross-resistant to
antibiotics (nalidixic acid, erythromycin, and ampicillin) (7)


Source (CDC)


You're proposing that the state rule our lives
:hysterical:

Glad to see that your love of strawmen has survived the transition to the new forum. :thumbsup:


--never mind that history shows the worst abuses come from states, not businesses.
That's arguable. Businesses exist today which are financially the size of small nations. Some of those businesses are guilty of horrendous abuses.
You're also ignoring that there is profit in doing the right thing--you just have to charge high prices when it's something like an antibiotic where the R&D will be spread across far fewer doses.

How am I "ignoring" that? Did you actually bother to read the OP before grabbing your patented prefab kneejerk reaction? Allow me to quote from the OP: "In an industry which rewards on a per-pound of flesh basis, this means that the market (except the relatively tiny boutique "organic" market) demands that farmers feed their animals antibiotics or be out-competed by those who do."

Golly gee, it's an actual parenthetical example of a niche market which charges higher prices to do the right thing! You'd almost think that I hadn't "ignored" this facet at all, but had in fact pointed out that, in a market economy, the market for higher-priced "right thing" products is necessarily limited. You'd have to actually pay attention to see it, I admit, but I'm pretty sure it was there.

Public R&D simply moves the cost to the government, it doesn't make it go away.
Yup. It moves it to a sector which has an actual incentive to do the research. Profit motives alone cannot get the job done. Not in this case.
 
You might as well blame rainclouds for the rain. Come on, Loren - get real.

1) Demand among consumers--how does the economic system have anything to do with this?

Um - in every possible way? Supply-and-demand are irrelevant to command economies. This is the problem with command economies, which are easily just as flawed and imperfect as capitalist economies.

Command economies don't change what patients want.

2) Antibiotics in livestock--again, why are you blaming capitalism? The same forces apply to the state as apply to businesses.
Nonsense. If there's no Farmer Joe down the road competing against you, there is no reason to adopt Farmer Joe's practices in order to survive economically.

Command economies are still faced with trying to produce as much as they can (to make the people happy) given the available resources.

3) Antibiotics in products--outright fail, here. "Antibacterial" != "Antibiotic". There's a bottle of liquid on the shelf near me that's most definitely antibacterial. It's not an antibiotic and in fact is unsuitable for consumption in the first place.

*ahem*

Bacteria are not about to succumb to this deluge,
however. Through mutation, some of their progeny emerge
with resistance to the antibacterial agent aimed at it, and
possibly to other antimicrobial agents as well
(4). Laboratory-
derived mutants of Pseudomonas stutzeri with resistance to
the cationic biocide chlorhexidine were also cross-resistant to
antibiotics (nalidixic acid, erythromycin, and ampicillin) (7)​


That could be a reason to restrict certain disinfectants, not an overall issue.

BTW, the bottle I mentioned--Isopropyl alcohol.

You're proposing that the state rule our lives
:hysterical:

Glad to see that your love of strawmen has survived the transition to the new forum. :thumbsup:

You're doing the state-knows-best approach.

--never mind that history shows the worst abuses come from states, not businesses.
That's arguable. Businesses exist today which are financially the size of small nations. Some of those businesses are guilty of horrendous abuses.

Still nothing compared to what states do. States are basically unaccountable, especially with black programs.

You're also ignoring that there is profit in doing the right thing--you just have to charge high prices when it's something like an antibiotic where the R&D will be spread across far fewer doses.

How am I "ignoring" that? Did you actually bother to read the OP before grabbing your patented prefab kneejerk reaction? Allow me to quote from the OP: "In an industry which rewards on a per-pound of flesh basis, this means that the market (except the relatively tiny boutique "organic" market) demands that farmers feed their animals antibiotics or be out-competed by those who do."

The thing is the demand for the antibiotics isn't there--there still are working antibiotics, the pressure simply isn't there for new ones. I don't see the command economies of the world producing new ones, either.

Golly gee, it's an actual parenthetical example of a niche market which charges higher prices to do the right thing! You'd almost think that I hadn't "ignored" this facet at all, but had in fact pointed out that, in a market economy, the market for higher-priced "right thing" products is necessarily limited. You'd have to actually pay attention to see it, I admit, but I'm pretty sure it was there.

If the demand were there the drugs would show up. Consider the flap about the new Hepatitis C treatment. $80k/course. There was an actual need, the drug was produced. The reason to be concerned here is not that the free market won't produce the drugs, but the lag time in doing so. I could easily see this being a case where government money would be warranted.

Public R&D simply moves the cost to the government, it doesn't make it go away.
Yup. It moves it to a sector which has an actual incentive to do the research. Profit motives alone cannot get the job done. Not in this case.

This is a fairly narrow case where the market doesn't do a good job. You could still solve the problem cheaper without government R&D, though--simply announce the government will buy the patent for a new class of antibiotics (subject to certain safety and effectiveness requirements) for a sum of $x. (Note: X will need to be at least $1 billion.)​
 
Antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains

That's as good an illustration as the grinding to a halt of all the fossil-fuelled machinery, or the last gasp of the last jungle, or the typhoon that takes out the eastern seaboard...
It's the same thing, really, isn't it? Short-sightedness. The philosophy of a two-year-old: "Everything I can grab, I will stuff in my face!"

Even more fundamentally: the necessity of indefinite, continuous growth. Who thought that was sustainable?
 
Tangential post. Theory of mine #1456

Our over anti-bacterial lifestyle has unbalanced our microflora. This has lead to an increase in heart disease, cancer, and obesity. This is why every week which food is bad for you changes, because we are fucking clueless about how our body actually processes food, and have only been looking at the forest, while we are killing the trees, in our gut.

PS. My brother in law is in the hospital now with antibiotic resistant pneumonia. He will probably be dead by Friday. Please no condolences. Just making a point.
 
You'll hear no absolutes on this subject. No substantive law will be passed anytime soon as a result. You're on your own here. I for one err on the side of caution. I don't have to wait for overwhelming evidence or for my self to be FUBAR. I don't need the crap in my life so the crap is not a part of my life. If I'm wrong, all I've done is waste is a little money on overpriced food and cleaning supplies. If you're wrong?

I share Zeluvia's theory and more. Capitalism will do the right thing when there is more money to be made doing the right thing than there is doing the wrong thing. Evidence: Walmart jumping on the organics bandwagon. When Walmart says quit with the antibiotics in livestock, the industry rogers up. No collective group of politicians can or will do that.
Maybe capitalism really can work. Maybe the consumer isn't so shortsighted after all, or maybe it's a passing fad and by and large they will go back to stuffing in to their faces what makes them happy.
 
Tangential post. Theory of mine #1456

Our over anti-bacterial lifestyle has unbalanced our microflora. This has lead to an increase in heart disease, cancer, and obesity. This is why every week which food is bad for you changes, because we are fucking clueless about how our body actually processes food, and have only been looking at the forest, while we are killing the trees, in our gut.

PS. My brother in law is in the hospital now with antibiotic resistant pneumonia. He will probably be dead by Friday. Please no condolences. Just making a point.

And a hard-won point at that.

This is a tangent worth raising, no doubt. It's the other side of the supply-and-demand coin, and it applies to all aspects of the free market system. We have an unfortunate tendency to vilify the suppliers, but if there were no demand, there would be no supply. It's like going after the evil purveyors of illegal drugs, without stopping to think that even if we somehow magically arrested every single grower, smuggler, and dealer of drugs tomorrow, a new crop would spring up immediately because there are millions of dollars out there clamoring to be spent on illicit drugs.

To be fair, there is also the fact that many (all?) product manufacturers and sellers are actively engaged in attempting to create - or at least increase - demand through various forms of advertising, even to the point of successfully selling deadly poison for "recreational" use (hello, tobacco industry!). But we cannot let the consumer off the hook. Corporations can pour all the capital in the world into marketing Chewable Arsenic Tablets (in yummy fruit flavors!), but if the consumers honesty and education instead of a quick fix, the market will not exist. Caveat Emptor, because there are sharks in the water.
 
In the case of antibiotic overkill, though, the consumer didn't have much chance to "know better" than the advertisers. Everybody was on board with this miracle - the medical profession, educators and all the government oversight agencies were convinced that antibiotics constitute a whole brave new world.
When doctors began to be aware of the of the problem, they might have made a bigger noise - only some of them were very slow to catch on; some were suborned or seduced by the drug companies; very few of the skeptics had a platform from which to reach the public.

It's all of us, isn't it? We want the goodies without the price, and choose not to look too far ahead (or to either side, for that matter.)
 
I think he's using the word "Capitalism" to mean "Economics", and even then he's using it wrong.

No, I'm using it right. You just don't understand what I'm saying, because I've gored a sacred cow and you can't see past the blood.

So, in your world, "Capitalism" means "if I don't like it therefore it is capitalism." It doesn't even mean "economic system" as many people here mis-use it.
 
I think he's using the word "Capitalism" to mean "Economics", and even then he's using it wrong.

No, I'm using it right. You just don't understand what I'm saying, because I've gored a sacred cow and you can't see past the blood.

So, in your world, "Capitalism" means "if I don't like it therefore it is capitalism." It doesn't even mean "economic system" as many people here mis-use it.

Capitalism is the strange notion that you can't consume more than you produce.
 
I think he's using the word "Capitalism" to mean "Economics", and even then he's using it wrong.

No, I'm using it right. You just don't understand what I'm saying, because I've gored a sacred cow and you can't see past the blood.

So, in your world, "Capitalism" means "if I don't like it therefore it is capitalism." It doesn't even mean "economic system" as many people here mis-use it.

Capitalism is the strange notion that you can't consume more than you produce.
What? No it's not. Capitalism is an economic system centered around the private ownership of the means of production. People routinely consume more than they produce under capitalism.
 
I think he's using the word "Capitalism" to mean "Economics", and even then he's using it wrong.

No, I'm using it right. You just don't understand what I'm saying, because I've gored a sacred cow and you can't see past the blood.

So, in your world, "Capitalism" means "if I don't like it therefore it is capitalism." It doesn't even mean "economic system" as many people here mis-use it.

Capitalism is the strange notion that you can't consume more than you produce.
What? No it's not. Capitalism is an economic system centered around the private ownership of the means of production. People routinely consume more than they produce under capitalism.
Not only that, but most economic systems operate under the notion that you cannot consume more than you produce.
 
I think he's using the word "Capitalism" to mean "Economics", and even then he's using it wrong.

No, I'm using it right. You just don't understand what I'm saying, because I've gored a sacred cow and you can't see past the blood.

So, in your world, "Capitalism" means "if I don't like it therefore it is capitalism." It doesn't even mean "economic system" as many people here mis-use it.

Capitalism is the strange notion that you can't consume more than you produce.
What? No it's not. Capitalism is an economic system centered around the private ownership of the means of production. People routinely consume more than they produce under capitalism.
Not only that, but most economic systems operate under the notion that you cannot consume more than you produce.

What I'm saying is that much of the objection to capitalism stems from an objection to the fact that it makes the production/consumption relationship obvious.
 
Back
Top Bottom