Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - What's Thai for "killing the goose that laid the golden eggs"?

roachboy · 07-12-2004, 10:48 AM

so let me see if i get this straight:
1. ngos that work on the question of aids are suspect because the international conferences/summits they attend happen in posh spaces.
have you ever been to a conference that did not happen in relatively posh spaces? ever?

2. because ngos employ staffs, who draw salaries, and because some of the aid money that gets channelled through these and other organizations involve people who draw salaries, the whole system is corrupt.

therefore it is better to not have any organizations that try to fight aids--or to have only organizations staffed by wealthy philanthropists, whose dilletante-ish relationship to the complexities of international relief work/health care administration is obviously superior to that of professionals in the area. fine idea.

that james pinkerton draws his salary as a fellow at the new america foundation means that he gets paid through alternative channles and is obviously in a superior position to speak about this matter, because he is not involved with the problem. maybe it is better to only go through people who are not involved to channel aid money.

3. drug company property claims should override any efforts to bring down the costs of the drugs produced because drugs are like any other commodity and property is property damn it.
so if there are people in a situation of epidemic, screw them.
the drug companies should be paid.
the rules of ownership on commodities override all other concerns.

great argument.

and if you use humanitarian reasons to undercut the claims to onwership on the commodity "drugs" then pharmaceutical corporations will stop making drugs. because market logic as understood by ideologues of the position, who work for places like the new america foundation are quite sure of that as an outcome. because they really believe that pharmaceutical corporations view what they make as commodities and do it for profit and no other reason.

gee, i wonder what the researchers in these companies would make of that claim. they few that i know see it otherwise. but maybe that is just anecdotal.

4. you even get a nice darwinian reference at the end, even though the more proper reference would be to spencer and the notions of social darwinism. which would be consistent with the line of this article. the poor are poor---they always die in great number--fuck em--why worry about it? what matters is that corporations get paid.

profit uber alles.

great article.

where do you find this stuff?

07-12-2004, 10:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so let me see if i get this straight: 1. ngos that work on the question of aids are suspect because the international conferences/summits they attend happen in posh spaces. have you ever been to a conference that did not happen in relatively posh spaces? ever? 2. because ngos employ staffs, who draw salaries, and because some of the aid money that gets channelled through these and other organizations involve people who draw salaries, the whole system is corrupt. therefore it is better to not have any organizations that try to fight aids--or to have only organizations staffed by wealthy philanthropists, whose dilletante-ish relationship to the complexities of international relief work/health care administration is obviously superior to that of professionals in the area. fine idea. that james pinkerton draws his salary as a fellow at the new america foundation means that he gets paid through alternative channles and is obviously in a superior position to speak about this matter, because he is not involved with the problem. maybe it is better to only go through people who are not involved to channel aid money. 3. drug company property claims should override any efforts to bring down the costs of the drugs produced because drugs are like any other commodity and property is property damn it. so if there are people in a situation of epidemic, screw them. the drug companies should be paid. the rules of ownership on commodities override all other concerns. great argument. and if you use humanitarian reasons to undercut the claims to onwership on the commodity "drugs" then pharmaceutical corporations will stop making drugs. because market logic as understood by ideologues of the position, who work for places like the new america foundation are quite sure of that as an outcome. because they really believe that pharmaceutical corporations view what they make as commodities and do it for profit and no other reason. gee, i wonder what the researchers in these companies would make of that claim. they few that i know see it otherwise. but maybe that is just anecdotal. 4. you even get a nice darwinian reference at the end, even though the more proper reference would be to spencer and the notions of social darwinism. which would be consistent with the line of this article. the poor are poor---they always die in great number--fuck em--why worry about it? what matters is that corporations get paid. profit uber alles. great article. where do you find this stuff? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-12-2004 at 10:50 AM..