POL - More big business courruption

[Flasch186]

To all of you whom I debate with on here about the underhandedness of big business. To those who say, that deregulation is good, less taxes on business, caps on lawsuit damages, I harken back to when we were batting back and forth about the Worldcoms, the enrons, the global crossings, and their ties to the admin. I point back to how many of you said these things were isolated and that all in all big business, corporate america had our best interests at heart. I want you to look behind the curtain, begin to put the 2 and 2 and 2 together and the picture starts to flesh out....you see all the way fromt he highest parts of our governemnt it is your life, your money, and your health that are weighed out against dollar signs and for the last 30 years the dollar signs win....hands down. Here is just another case of your best interests being brushed aside by those who are responsible for it, in the name of a fatter wallet of the pharm. industry (Bush's #! campaign finance industry):

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050225/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/drug_votes_11

Panelists in FDA Drug Vote Tied to Makers

2 hours, 20 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Ten members of the Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) advisory panel who voted that a group of powerful pain killers should continue to be sold had ties to the drug makers, an advocacy group says.



A study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest indicates that 10 of the 32 panel members had ties to either Pfizer Inc. or Merck & Co., ranging from consulting fees and speaking honoraria to research support.

The FDA (news - web sites) issued a statement saying it screened members of the panel for conflicts of interest. "This transparent process requires the agency to carefully weigh any potential financial interest with the need for essential scientific expertise in order to protect and advance the public health," the agency said.

After three days of hearings on the drugs, known as Cox-2 inhibitors, the panel voted 31-1 to keep Pfizer's Celebrex on the market, 17-13 with 2 abstentions in favor of Pfizer's Bextra and 17-15 that Merck's Vioxx should be allowed back on sale.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market Sept. 30 after heart problems were reported in some users. Similar questions were later raised about the other two drugs, prompting the FDA to call the advisory panel to look into the matter.

Since drug companies fund many studies it is not unusual for researchers to have ties to manufacturers, though some have questioned the practice.

The transcript, including the votes by the individual members of the panel, has not yet been posted by the FDA. However, a copy obtained by The Associated Press indicated that the 10 panel members in question voted 10-0 in favor of keeping Celebrex and Bextra available and 9-1 in favor of allowing Vioxx to be brought back onto the market.

Without those ballots the vote would have been 13-7 in favor of withdrawing Bextra and 14-8 to keep Vioxx off sale.

The industry ties of the panel members were first reported Friday by The New York Times.

[Desnudo]

Go back to Germania, Commie.

[BucDawg40]

Clinton got a blowjob.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Since drug companies fund many studies it is not unusual for researchers to have ties to manufacturers, though some have questioned the practice.

Having worked a little bit around the pharma industry, this sentence pretty much covers my take -- you'd be hard-pressed to find a steady supply of people who have enough knowledge to be credible on the subject and who don't have some financial connection to the pharma companies.

It's an industry I don't particularly like or trust, so I'm not exactly saying I like the situation ... but I believe that's pretty much the reality of it -- there's not an adequate supply of people who are squeaky clean to fill the demand, so what the hell else do you do?

If they aren't connected to the subject of a current vote, then their likely either connected to other companies with competing interests or to organizations with competing interests, etc. I don't see a winning hand in this anywhere.

[Flasch186]

Since drug companies fund many studies it is not unusual for researchers to have ties to manufacturers, though some have questioned the practice.

Having worked a little bit around the pharma industry, this sentence pretty much covers my take -- you'd be hard-pressed to find a steady supply of people who have enough knowledge to be credible on the subject and who don't have some financial connection to the pharma companies.

It's an industry I don't particularly like or trust, so I'm not exactly saying I like the situation ... but I believe that's pretty much the reality of it -- there's not an adequate supply of people who are squeaky clean to fill the demand, so what the hell else do you do?

If they aren't connected to the subject of a current vote, then their likely either connected to other companies with competing interests or to organizations with competing interests, etc. I don't see a winning hand in this anywhere.


garbash, we have MILLIONS of people in the academies that couldve done this. You eman that there are only 20? in the whole country who couldve weighed in with some knowledge? The resulting votes said everything, those with ties swept it, the others felt that perhaps the drugs had some problems....

[Glengoyne]

I have no problems with your conclusions Flasch.

I would like to point out that you'd stand on your head to try and tie this to Bush.

[Flasch186]

I have no problems with your conclusions Flasch.

I would like to point out that you'd stand on your head to try and tie this to Bush.

not necessarily bush but the atmosphere in corporate america and our government for the past 15 years has been "screw everyone in the sake of $." all the way back to the Firestone tires and im sure further.

[SunDancer]

[QUOTE=Flasch186] Here is just another case of your best interests being brushed aside by those who are responsible for it, in the name of a fatter wallet of the pharm. industry (Bush's #! campaign finance industry):

QUOTE]

You specifically pointed out Bush.....

[Glengoyne]

[QUOTE=Flasch186] Here is just another case of your best interests being brushed aside by those who are responsible for it, in the name of a fatter wallet of the pharm. industry (Bush's #! campaign finance industry):

QUOTE]

You specifically pointed out Bush..... That isn't as aggregious as the first time he pointed out Bush in the first topic when he mention all the administration ties to the likes of Enron and WorldCom, while neglecting to mention that those ties got them exactly zilch in the help department. The fact that Ken Lay is buddy buddy with the President hasn't kept him from being tried along side Jeffery Skilling.

Classic the Corporations are evil, and you all know how much Bush just loves the Corporations. The eviller the better. My point was that Bush has nothing to do with the fact that the people in charge of policing the drug manufacturers are somewhat tied to those same manufacturers. This was just revealed about the NIH as well. This is a pretty significant issue, just not one that Bush should be blamed for or even tied to. It is a problem with the "culture" of the FDA.

[Flasch186]

That isn't as aggregious as the first time he pointed out Bush in the first topic when he mention all the administration ties to the likes of Enron and WorldCom, while neglecting to mention that those ties got them exactly zilch in the help department. The fact that Ken Lay is buddy buddy with the President hasn't kept him from being tried along side Jeffery Skilling.

Classic the Corporations are evil, and you all know how much Bush just loves the Corporations. The eviller the better. My point was that Bush has nothing to do with the fact that the people in charge of policing the drug manufacturers are somewhat tied to those same manufacturers. This was just revealed about the NIH as well. This is a pretty significant issue, just not one that Bush should be blamed for or even tied to. It is a problem with the "culture" of the FDA.

I think its a problem with more than just the FDA. The admin is wrought with appointees who have been put in charge of the exact same areas of the country that, prioor to their appointment, were working "against". ie. EPA.



And YES, I do feel that the current admin AND Bush/Cheney have fertilized this environment.....

[JonInMiddleGA]

garbash, we have MILLIONS of people in the academies that couldve done this. You eman that there are only 20? in the whole country who couldve weighed in with some knowledge? The resulting votes said everything, those with ties swept it, the others felt that perhaps the drugs had some problems....

Umm ... please tell me that "academies" doesn't mean "academia", that's a group that's as agenda-laden & corrupt as anything in the history of the world. And one that doesn't lack for ties to the pharma industry either, for that matter.

And if "academies" means the various special interest groups that surround medicine/pharma, well ... see above.

Face it Flasch, if you're looking for white knights around the pharma biz, you'd be better served to look for unicorns, you'd have more luck.

(FWIW, any ideas about how many of those voting "no" had ties to competitors of the companies in question? If that info is out there, I'd say it'd be real interesting).

I won't argue with you that it isn't a corrupt niche of society, I'm just arguing with you that you can consistently find any way of performing the same task that isn't equally (or more) corrupt.

[judicial clerk]

Hey Flasch, look up Thimerosal and the controversy surrounding it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

While I find the "ties" to be a little troubling, is not everyone shocked that you only need a majority vote to get back on to the shelves! Vioxx got in on a 17-15 vote!! That means 15 of 32 doctors/experts think its unsafe. Shouldn't it need be unanimous or 75% or something, at least? All I can say is I will use my own intelligence on this. If my doctor suggests I take Vioxx, I'll take a pass. Of course, the drug company will just change the name and we will be taking it anyway without knowing about it.

[Flasch186]

i think another prob. and this is much more engrained (sp?) but the fact that the doctors themselves, the practitioners are getting money too, and referrell fees, and free crap (bribes) so their advice is not necessarily clean advice too...thats troubling.

[albionmoonlight]

As a matter of law, corporations have a fiducary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. As Max Barry points out, corporations are not good or evil; they are immoral. They exist soley to make money, and anything they do that is not directed toward that goal can get them sued by their owners.

I don't think that it is right to call corporations evil. I also, however, think that it is niave (sp?) to think that corporations have anything other than profits on their mind. They certainly cannot be a force for good in the world they way that they currently exist.

[Flasch186]

As a matter of law, corporations have a fiducary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. As Max Barry points out, corporations are not good or evil; they are immoral. They exist soley to make money, and anything they do that is not directed toward that goal can get them sued by their owners.

I don't think that it is right to call corporations evil. I also, however, think that it is niave (sp?) to think that corporations have anything other than profits on their mind. They certainly cannot be a force for good in the world they way that they currently exist.

thats why we have a social contract and law....to protect us from the immoral.

[gstelmack]

And YES, I do feel that the current admin AND Bush/Cheney have fertilized this environment.....
And what was Clinton doing while Enron, Worldcom, all the DOTCOMs, etc were running around amok? Answer: Busy taking credit for the wonderful economy built on all this fraud.

You have a great point about big business that I heartily agree with, don't mess it up by tying it to just the Republicans. The Democrats were just as corrupt on this stuff. Even you pointed out it goes back 15+ years (actually it goes back through pretty much all of human history, but I digress...)

[Tekneek]

As a matter of law, corporations have a fiducary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. As Max Barry points out, corporations are not good or evil; they are immoral. They exist soley to make money, and anything they do that is not directed toward that goal can get them sued by their owners.

They have a duty to maximize profits? I'm not sure that is really the case. They have a duty to be responsive to the shareholders, but I would question your belief that all shareholders are exclusively interested in profits or always place profits above all other concerns.

[JonInMiddleGA]

As Max Barry points out, corporations are not good or evil; they are immoral.

I'm guessing here that you mean amoral.

[CraigSca]

They have a duty to maximize profits? I'm not sure that is really the case. They have a duty to be responsive to the shareholders, but I would question your belief that all shareholders are exclusively interested in profits or always place profits above all other concerns.
I would venture to say that the great majority of shareholders are exclusively interested in profits. Greater profits = greater stock prices. The little mom and pop who invested $12 in XYZ Tuna Corporation would probably pay lip service to saving the whales and dolphin-safe tuna, but ultimately they want/need their $12 investment to become $13 and up.

As per the norm - it's great to think altruistically and think of the whole picture (and it's one of the nice things about the US is that we can AFFORD to do so), but once your bottom line is effected (and/or you lose your job), the looking out for #1 mind-set kicks in.

Just an FYI, I am totally against some of the accounting practices of recent history. I am against the mass slaughter of dolphins. I think we need air to breathe and that trees are a necessity, etc. However, when one speaks about the shareholders, it's ALWAYS about increasing profits for them - to keep them happy. Shareholders hate to see you miss your number, and they REALLY hate to see their investment lose money. What else can the shareholder look at? They have enough going on in their own lives and there's not enough time in the day to analyze each stock in one's mutual fund to make sure they're doing everything they can to be environmentally friendly. How would anyone know, anyway?

This is becoming a tangent of a tangent of a tangent...but it reminds me of every stupid CNN poll they put out there. For instance, "do you think VIOXX should be taken off the market?" How the HELL should I know? I'm not an expert in prescription medicines, heart attacks, statistical analysis of test groups, etc. The question should be: "Based on the evidence you have heard from the media (who has shown a propensity for blowing things out of proportion for a "story" - and who is after the almighty dollar themselves) do you think a pharmaceutical company should remove VIOXX from the market due to potential bad press?" Now, I admit I know very little about this...if the drug has shown statistically that it's potential benefits outweight it's risks, then by all means it should be taken off the market. But I'll leave that to the experts. No, not all experts are ethical (which is what this thread is really about), but I would say that the great majority of them are and try to do (like me) the best job they can do.

And another tangent...you know what? Maybe they aren't as ethical as they should be. But I see this crap in everyday life, where people think they can get away with crap just because they won't get caught. It sickens me, and I hate it.

/END RAMBLING POST

[albionmoonlight]

I'm guessing here that you mean amoral.
Yea. Early morning posting was never my strong suit.

[Tekneek]

I would venture to say that the great majority of shareholders are exclusively interested in profits. Greater profits = greater stock prices. The little mom and pop who invested $12 in XYZ Tuna Corporation would probably pay lip service to saving the whales and dolphin-safe tuna, but ultimately they want/need their $12 investment to become $13 and up.

Buying shares in an individual company hoping for it to go up so you can sell is not what it should be about. That is what index funds and mutual funds are about, where an overall positive gain makes money for you. Buying XYZ Tuna Corporation shares directly should only be done if you really want to own some of that company. This constant up-and-down and inability to consider anything beyond the next quarter's financial results (and how they stack up to what some analyst predicts) seems like a by-product of day-trading and is overall bad for the business and the shareholder.

That's my opinion at least.

[HomerJSimpson]

Buying shares in an individual company hoping for it to go up so you can sell is not what it should be about. That is what index funds and mutual funds are about, where an overall positive gain makes money for you. Buying XYZ Tuna Corporation shares directly should only be done if you really want to own some of that company. This constant up-and-down and inability to consider anything beyond the next quarter's financial results (and how they stack up to what some analyst predicts) seems like a by-product of day-trading and is overall bad for the business and the shareholder.

That's my opinion at least.


If only your opinion had any bearing on reality.

[CraigSca]

Buying shares in an individual company hoping for it to go up so you can sell is not what it should be about. That is what index funds and mutual funds are about, where an overall positive gain makes money for you. Buying XYZ Tuna Corporation shares directly should only be done if you really want to own some of that company. This constant up-and-down and inability to consider anything beyond the next quarter's financial results (and how they stack up to what some analyst predicts) seems like a by-product of day-trading and is overall bad for the business and the shareholder.

That's my opinion at least.
Really, increasing the value for the stockholders IS what it's all about. I've worked for corporate America for 12 years and bringing in the revenue before quarter-end is the driving force that shapes everything about the company. Does it stink? Sometimes, like when you have to drop your pants on price to get the deal in the current quarter when it could have been more profitable the following quarter. However...the revenue has to come in or there's no payroll...or we miss the number and the analysts downgrade the stock and the price falls off the table.

It's all fine and dandy talking about business as if it's a great philanthropic, altruistic love-in. If there's enough money, that's great. However, miss the number and all of a sudden those great pie-in-the-sky dreams fall apart. Welcome to the land of lay-offs, foreclosures, etc. I've been there.

[clintl]

Really, increasing the value for the stockholders IS what it's all about. I've worked for corporate America for 12 years and bringing in the revenue before quarter-end is the driving force that shapes everything about the company. Does it stink? Sometimes, like when you have to drop your pants on price to get the deal in the current quarter when it could have been more profitable the following quarter. However...the revenue has to come in or there's no payroll...or we miss the number and the analysts downgrade the stock and the price falls off the table.

It's all fine and dandy talking about business as if it's a great philanthropic, altruistic love-in. If there's enough money, that's great. However, miss the number and all of a sudden those great pie-in-the-sky dreams fall apart. Welcome to the land of lay-offs, foreclosures, etc. I've been there.

I agree, this is the reality at most companies, but it's also an example of how horribly mismanaged most companies are. Companies do have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, but many seem to interpret that to maximizing short-term shareholder value, and focus on things other than what really does maximize long-term shareholder value - satisfying customers and attracting and retaining quality employees.

[lynchjm24]

Buying shares in an individual company hoping for it to go up so you can sell is not what it should be about. That is what index funds and mutual funds are about, where an overall positive gain makes money for you. Buying XYZ Tuna Corporation shares directly should only be done if you really want to own some of that company. This constant up-and-down and inability to consider anything beyond the next quarter's financial results (and how they stack up to what some analyst predicts) seems like a by-product of day-trading and is overall bad for the business and the shareholder.

That's my opinion at least.


You might change your mind if the company you work for went from $30 to $145 over 36 months.

It's pretty a pretty fun ride.

[Tekneek]

I am not talking about missing payroll. That is a fundamental that has nothing to do with shareholders. Every company has to cover payroll.

I am talking about too many people buying stock with nothing in mind except figuring out when to sell it. Warren Buffet always says to buy shares in a company that you want to own, which is a point of view that I share. If you do your research and think you want to own part of a company, you aren't buying it to sell it next quarter if earnings were a penny less per share than some analyst predicted.

I don't have the data in front of me to be certain, but I don't think analyst's projections used to generate the kind of volume in the market that they currently do. Shareholders in the market today seem to be hooked totally into these analysts, which hooks businesses into them as well. Short-term projections are all the rage, and you are a darling if you meet or exceed them even if it dangers the future potential of the company.

In just the 6+ years I have worked for a publicly traded company, I know that the whole value of a company was not judged on quarterly estimates. We certainly weren't judged that way. We were also a lot more innovative and willing to take risks back then. Since the shift over to the quarterly rat race, just about all innovation has been put on the back burner and only revived once a rival has moved forward with a similar idea. More jobs have been eliminated, as it became less important to do a great job and all that was important was to meet supposed "norms for the industry." Instead of aiming for 100% quality and satisfaction, we aim for around 40% because our rivals hang around 35%-38%. I suppose the shareholders are happy for the short-term positives this is bringing, but it is making it impossible to meet the potential we once had.

[clintl]

I don't remember where I read it, but it seems like pretty good advice to me - buy shares in companies that you would want to work for if you were employed in that industry.

[SunDancer]

I am not talking about missing payroll. That is a fundamental that has nothing to do with shareholders. Every company has to cover payroll.

I am talking about too many people buying stock with nothing in mind except figuring out when to sell it. Warren Buffet always says to buy shares in a company that you want to own, which is a point of view that I share. If you do your research and think you want to own part of a company, you aren't buying it to sell it next quarter if earnings were a penny less per share than some analyst predicted.

I don't have the data in front of me to be certain, but I don't think analyst's projections used to generate the kind of volume in the market that they currently do. Shareholders in the market today seem to be hooked totally into these analysts, which hooks businesses into them as well. Short-term projections are all the rage, and you are a darling if you meet or exceed them even if it dangers the future potential of the company.

In just the 6+ years I have worked for a publicly traded company, I know that the whole value of a company was not judged on quarterly estimates. We certainly weren't judged that way. We were also a lot more innovative and willing to take risks back then. Since the shift over to the quarterly rat race, just about all innovation has been put on the back burner and only revived once a rival has moved forward with a similar idea. More jobs have been eliminated, as it became less important to do a great job and all that was important was to meet supposed "norms for the industry." Instead of aiming for 100% quality and satisfaction, we aim for around 40% because our rivals hang around 35%-38%. I suppose the shareholders are happy for the short-term positives this is bringing, but it is making it impossible to meet the potential we once had.

Big difference...When Buffet buys shares, he buys ALOT of them, where he gets a big stake in the company and has a voice and interest.

[ISiddiqui]

*gasp* The people who have knowledge about the safety of drugs had ties to pharma companies! OMG! Call out the Feds! Please...

As for buying shares if you want to own the company, no one would issue shares if that was the case. They issue shares to make money and they make more money if people think if they buy your share it'll make them money. If people just bought shares because they liked a company, there wouldn't nearly be as much buying of shares.

[Tekneek]

As for buying shares if you want to own the company, no one would issue shares if that was the case. They issue shares to make money and they make more money if people think if they buy your share it'll make them money. If people just bought shares because they liked a company, there wouldn't nearly be as much buying of shares.

There will always be speculators. The difference is, the market wasn't primarily driven by analyst expectations like it is now. The analysts seem to control the entire market. That's why some of the corrupt companies had analysts in their pockets, too. The speculators did things a different way before than they do today. I just don't see the way things happen today as positive for anyone (except the analysts). It will change, eventually, as the day-trading mindset fades away and speculators who care about details will move in. The current atmosphere may be a backlash against the "dot-com bubble" and the Enron/Worldcom/etc scandals.

[Tekneek]

Big difference...When Buffet buys shares, he buys ALOT of them, where he gets a big stake in the company and has a voice and interest.

It's the advice he gives to anyone. He doesn't subscribe to the idea that you buy stocks in X company just because you think it might reach Y value so you can sell it all. The idea being that if you buy stock in a company you believe in, that you would actually WANT to own, then the price side will take care of itself...or you will lose. It's a different spin on the speculation that goes on already, but it makes the analysts just one factor in your decision rather than nearly 100% of it like it sometimes seems.