Flu pandemic...probable chaos?

[Guest]

Ebola is not a problem. It can't spread because it 1) can't survive outside the body for more than a very short period in any but a tropical jungle climate (and even there it's only minutes), 2) its incubation period is too short (someone who gets infected at the airport in Brazzaville would show symptoms by arrival in New York so the entire aircraft would be quarantined).SARS is more of a problem but turned out to also be not very effective at spreading, possibly because it is less contageous than originally thought.H5N1 at the moment is even less of a problem. It can't spread at all between humans and the mortallity rate is lower than SARS (let alone Ebola).To counter Don's argument that companies work only for short term profits: companies are spending massive amounts of funding on Ebola and SARS related research despite the fact that there's little chance of recovering that investment ever.The reason is simply that being seen to do something against these high profile diseases is excellent PR.There's little to be gained from releasing a vaccine against a disease that can't even infect people except a very small group of people handling birds on a daily basis (and those are more cheaply protected using facemasks and things like that).Flu virusses don't lend themselves to proactively creating vaccines because they mutate too quickly.That's why every few years the flu vaccine concocted for that year (which is done based on predictions of which strain of the virus will be prevalent the next year) doesn't work. In this case it's even harder as the virus is a totally new entrant into the field and doesn't even exist as a human flu virus yet.

[Guest]

R&D at universities is paid largely BY the drugs companies.They may not all have massive R&D departments (most do in fact) but they do have large budgets for it.They also have to spend billions in certification trials, lawsuits brought by people who claim they got a headache from a pill and therefore are due a billion dollars in damages, patent licenses to universities and other agencies, etc. etc.Production cost is also rather high.

[Guest]

I think he was referring mostly to Don's ideals of government controlled production schedules and forcing those businesses which don't work for free to shut down.Your idea is rather communist as well, setting a legal limit to the profitabillity of companies.Investment happens everywhere, it's the lifeblood of companies. Those that don't invest in the future of their business go under, that's the law of the jungle (which indeed some of them don't understand, but they won't survive).If no company invested in R&D and product development I'd be out of a job, I've been working on product development since 1999.In fact, if companies didn't invest there'd be no new products hitting the market at all anywhere, something that you can see every day isn't so.But companies should NOT invest their money in things that simply will never work out.And creating a vaccine for a virus you don't even know what it's going to look like IF it maybe at some point in the future may exist is exactly such a venture.Noone knows what a human transmissable variant of this beast will be, or if it will even exist at all.All we know is that in the past flu virusses have popped up that seem to have made the cross from birds to mammals, but even that isn't certain (all we know is that the 1918 virus shows similarities with bird flu virusses, but it's not known how those came to be).Would you have your company invest millions or billions in a venture that has a 90% chance of failing completely, a 5% chance of not failing but resulting in a loss making product, a 3% chance of breaking even, and a 2% chance of turning a profit? That product, IF it works out, might save 100 million lifes.That's a 95% chance of potentially costing you your job.Would you still support it if you knew that the chances of that product being needed (even if it makes the market in time to make a difference) are 1%? Therefore the chances of getting a positive return on investment are even smaller...You now have a 99% chance of having thrown away your entire company budget even if you do succeed in creating the product.

[Guest]

>no unions. Besides, the unions in this country have almost no>power today. The jobs that are being sent to our CommunistTell that to the people who loose their jobs (thousands every year) because unions make completely insane demands to companies causing those companies to go under in the resulting strikes.Unions are interested in only one thing: bringing along the communist world revolution which can only happen if the proletariat (low paid and unemployed people) is large enough.>This is a dangerous situation because now we are dependent for>everything. A superpower should NOT be dependent on anyone for>anything. While jobs are sent to our Communist ChineseI agree with that. But apparently the people of the USA think differently and prefer to buy products made in China because they're cheaper than the locally produced equivalent.It's simple, there are US made products available but noone buys them.If a US made television cost $200 more than its Chinese equivalent (which is almost completely labour cost), that US made TV doesn't sell.So the manufacturer can do 2 things: sell at a $200 a unit loss (which will lead them into bankruptcy) or move production to a cheaper place like China.Thank the unions for getting US salaries to the point where US workers can no longer compete on a global market.It's not about profits, it's about survival. I might loose my job too, not because the company wants more profits but because I cost 3 times as much as my colleagues in Romania which means our product costs 2 times as much to create as one that's created by those colleagues in Romania.A competitor who creates his products in Romania can therefore sell his product for 50% less than can we, guess which product customers will go for?It's YOU, the customer and union member, who causes companies to go oversees.>I want to see the country back to being the busiest and best>producers of products, and not having to settle for foreign,>slave-labor materials that are making profits and livings for>the wealthy only. We need to be a self-sufficent country once>again. Then you should BUY AMERICAN (or whatever your country is), and not buy the cheapest because that gives you an extra dollar to spend on another cheap Chinese product.And try to convince Joe Average to do the same, something that won't be easy at all.You're as usual blaming the business owners for catering to a demand. Again you're reversing economic realities, trying to dictate corporate policy from a government level, trying to create a centrally controlled communist economy very similar to what China has (ironic isn't it...).P.S. I indeed do as I preach. I buy local products if available even if they cost more, I don't buy Chinese products at all unless there's no alternative (yes, I check product labels to see where they're made), I even go as far as to not buy online from other countries if I can find a local source of the same product even if that local source is a third more expensive.But many declare me insane for doing that, for supporting the local economy and trying to help preserve local jobs.

[Donmo 6]

My attitude isn't communist! LMAO! That was a dumb statement! My attitude is against DRUG COMPANIES and other companies, and their #1 need to make the almighty dollar. They are so worried about liabilities and profits, the humane factor of what they do is skipped. That is reality. Being against large companies and the way they do business does not make one a communist. I think you all need to re-examine what a communist is. I believe in a capitalistic society, providing it isn't used to abuse, break, gouge, suppress, or ignore the people who are paying for it to remain a capitalistic society. It is the extreme greediness that is spawned from capitalism that is dangerous, and that my friends, is what this country is traveling through right now. It will be a matter of survival one day when we are 100% dependent on the rest of the world. Who will the super power be then? Suppliers have the power. When we are no longer the supplier, that puts us under the supplier. THEY are now the super power. You may call them Communist Red China, if you like. You'll be correct. That is where extreme capitalistic greed will drive us. Right into their grubby little hands. We'll lose. They'll win. ####, we're borrowing money from China to run the country as it is! America needs to wake back up and start back on a path that will make us self-sufficent, and keep more of dollars inside the country for its own people. Capitalism is great. Capitalism can also crush. As with FS9, it all depends on where you place the slidder in the capitalism button. As far as the drug companies go, I don't feel a bit sorry for any corporation who posts billions of dollars in profits, and then cries the blues. THAT is the greed that will eventually destroy us. That isn't a communist statement. That is reality. Greed ALWAYS destroys.Don

[Donmo 6]

That is the problem! There are no more American product made in America to buy. There are no TV sets made here. Almost no clothing is made here anymore. Even sneakers are imported. Walmart, Kmart, and all the rest are nothing but Chinese supply houses with American names on them. I'd pay more for the products if they were made here, and so would many others. The unions are NOT the problem. Unions are dying out. I suggest you go study the reasons why unions were formed in America many years ago. At one time, they were a very necessary thing. Bottom line is that the American worker, at ALL levels, is now being hurt in numbers never before thought of, and it all has to do with excessive corporate greed. Sure, I expect companies to turn a profit. But at what expense to the people of the nation does one see it become unhealthy for the nation as a whole?Don

[Guest]

Sorry, but you did it to yourself.If you'd said NO to Japanese and Korean cars Detroit would still be strong.Same with Chinese coffee makers and clothes, Japanese electronics, and Taiwanese toys.But you didn't say no when an enterpreneur imported the first batches of Sony TVs and Nikon cameras, when a clothing emporium started selling Chinese flipflops.Instead you bought it like there was no tomorrow because it was so cheap.You can't blame companies for shifting production capacity to places where it's cheaper when they can't compete because union salaries (which ARE the cause) make US workers too expensive.Yes, unions were a good thing in the past but they've outgrown their usefulness.There are laws now dictating working conditions and even minimal wages (and in other countries things are going further, with plans to have the government dictate what every job should pay within very rigid margins, say byebye to free markets).Unions have adapted and gotten more activist, bent now on destroying companies and gaining political power rather than helping their members.

[Guest]

You're against free markets, for total government control of everything.That's de-facto (if not theoretical) communism...If companies are afraid of frivolous liability lawsuits, blame lawyers and lawmakers, not companies.When a restaurant for example can get forced to pay millions because someone got burned when she dropped a cup of coffee there's something fundamentally wrong with your legal system.Don't blame the companies for moving offshore where such lawsuits aren't possible, it's a matter of survival.

[btacon 1,786]

Well, I don't disagree with a thing you say, except for your suggestion that I have communist leanings , so I guess we agree!For the record, I would not "set" profit levels, I was speaking from more from a idealistic point of view. I do feel that in the long run, profit *purely* for the sake of profit, without some sort of larger goal can be a stumbling block. Companies that do not act as good stewards and use their profit for higher purposes, be it R&D, product development, growth/expansion/new jobs, etc may find themselves at the short end of the stick in the long run.bt

[Donmo 6]

Where did I say government should control everything? I am FOR a free-market system. I am FOR capitalism. BUT....when companies gouge and take advantage of people, that is where I draw the line. Infact, so does the senate. They are looking at what to do about gas companies who inflated their prices during the last storm. Yes, the government does overlook business in a freemarket society. Communism is state run businesses, and nowhere have I ever said I favor that. Never. Those are your words, not mine. Another thing that is bad is our offset balance of trade. It is fine to buy foreign goods, provided we are exporting somewhere in the neighborhood of the same dollar amount to the country we are importing from. Our trade deficit is so tilted away from us, we are now forced to buy what is put on the shelves. And I still disagree with the union argument. I worked in a factory for 10 years. Those jobs are gone. We were a NON-UNION company. 15% of the total U.S. labor force is union. That leaves 85% that is not, and that is where the biggest losses are in this country. The unions are the first ones that everyone blames, but in reality, they are the smaller % of the whole equation. Toss in NAFTA and CAFTA too! What a joke!Don

[Guest beana51]

Ya know, Its gotta be said,and I'll say it,because I'm just as guilty as the rest of us,as we all know.Whats this BLAA,BLAAA,BLAAA, got to do with things aviation or simming? At least in my recent controversy a plane was at the bottom of it,still is,but to equate a "chicken" with such worldly heated discussions about things cold warish?Well we did that already.The NY Times says it better anyway.Its appearant many won't accept the results.But I guess its fun,and our host has the Patience of Solomon.Just my nickle,inflation ya know,2cents ain't worth much any more. "CHEERS" :-beerchug

[Guest]

Such companies don't survive (as I said elsewhere), so it's in the company's own best interest to invest.I know in corporate America that's sometimes forgotten by shareholders who care only about their shortterm gains from stock price increases and just sell off when the company seems to be milked dry, but you can hardly blame the company itself for that.If anything, blame Wallstreet and especially the ever increasing automation of the stocktrade for making such a system possible.

[Guest]

Sure, and who determines what that entails?The GOVERNMENT. So effectively the government determines what a company can and cannot do to the smallest detail, as the company will have to get permission to do anything.How else can the government determine whether what the company plans to do fits their ideals of what a company should do?

[Donmo 6]

See, in the end, the government does have a direct affect on companies in some shape or form today. Does that make us communists? No. Is it still free-market business? Yes. But it isn't government run or managed. Business is only government regulated.Have a beer. Take a break! LOL!Don

[Donmo 6]

>Ya know, Its gotta be said,and I'll say it,because I'm just>as guilty as the rest of us,as we all know.Whats this>BLAA,BLAAA,BLAAA, got to do with things aviation or simming?>At least in my recent controversy a plane was at the bottom of>it,still is,but to equate a "chicken" with such worldly heated>discussions about things cold warish?Well we did that>already.The NY Times says it better anyway.Its appearant many>won't accept the results.But I guess its fun,and our host has>the Patience of Solomon.Just my nickle,inflation ya>know,2cents ain't worth much any more. "CHEERS" :-beerchug> It's fun, and as you can see, ALL the folks in here have remained calm and polite. Though I may not agree with everyone in here and vise-versa, I'd surely sit down and have a beer with them. So far it hasn't become personal, and that is a good thing.Don