Should Corporate Profits be Banned?

[TimCallahan]

Getting back to a subject connected somewhat to the OP, Robert Prey noted that companies do share their profits with their employees. I countered that only a minority do so. According to this site, it is indeed a minority. here's a quote from the site (emphasis added:

The annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce Employee Benefits Survey indicates that somewhere between 19 and 23 percent of U.S. companies have offered some form of profit sharing since 1963. Other estimates place the number of companies offering profit-sharing plans in the 1990s somewhere between one-fourth and one-third of all U.S. firms. Some companies combine profit sharing with their 401(k) plans.

So, between 66.6% and 75% of American employees have no share in their company's profits.

 

[Robert Prey]

Getting back to a subject connected somewhat to the OP, Robert Prey noted that companies do share their profits with their employees. I countered that only a minority do so. According to this site, it is indeed a minority. here's a quote from the site (emphasis added:

The annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce Employee Benefits Survey indicates that somewhere between 19 and 23 percent of U.S. companies have offered some form of profit sharing since 1963. Other estimates place the number of companies offering profit-sharing plans in the 1990s somewhere between one-fourth and one-third of all U.S. firms. Some companies combine profit sharing with their 401(k) plans.

So, between 66.6% and 75% of American employees have no share in their company's profits.

And in many cases it's not more because unions don't want it by reason of the fact, that if they chose to strike, they'd be striking against themselves. But over all, a large majority of Americans own stocks and thus have a share in the profits, though once at a high of 67% in 2002, now due to the Obama Depression, at just 54%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-lowest-1999.aspx

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, this whole "cancer establishment" thing is getting way off topic, but are you seriously contending that removing a cancerous growth or organ - such as the prostate gland - doesn't affect the survival of the person afflicted with that cancer?

Some anti-Modern Medicine doctors claim that surgery actually may help the cancer to spread. But since nothing is for sure in any of this, the ultimate choice is up to the patient and he/she may go with the recommendation of the doctor, or one's own gut feeling, or simply toss a coin. Fact is, though some treatments may be affective, some patients just don't want to go through the pain, suffering and financial loss and choose to let nature take its course. But here is something to think about:

"In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists."

http://www.dailypaul.com/57536/75-of-oncologists-wouldnt-take-chemo

Hmmm.

 

[rustypouch]

And in many cases it's not more because unions don't want it by reason of the fact, that if they chose to strike, they'd be striking against themselves. But over all, a large majority of Americans own stocks and thus have a share in the profits, though once at a high of 67% in 2002, now due to the Obama Depression, at just 54%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-lowest-1999.aspx

Because Obama's been in power since 2002, and was responsible for everything that happened in that period.

 

[Robert Prey]

So Robert, what easy lending practices of the CRA banks caused the mortgage corporations to generate sub prime loans at high interest rates?

How was that competition with CRA institutions, what evidence do you have that CRA banks even competed in the sub prime markets?

the fuzzy wuzzy behind your shed?

I can't do all your homework for you. Google it. Common knowledge.

 

[Cleon]

And in many cases it's not more because unions don't want it

Less than 15% if the workforce is unionized, Robert. Somehow I doubt that accounts for the 2/3-3/4 of corporations that don't have profit-sharing.

And your premise is simply wrong; many unionized workplaces do have profit sharing plans. Such as the UAW-organized Ford and General Motors, and the USWA-organized US Steel.

So...Gotta call Baloney(tm) on that one.

 

[Robert Prey]

The whole purpose? What about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? You know, the first part of the 1st Amendment?

A ridiculous parsing, ".., or abridging freedom of speech..."

 

[Robert Prey]

I see so a corporation that is not a bank and is not covered by the CRA just becaomes "a distinction without a difference"?

So the CRA did not cover those corporate subdivisions that generated teh subprime loans, so why would the CRA have anything to do woith them?

Because your imaginary fuzzy wuzzy in the garage told you it was covered by the CRA?

I take that as an admission of ignorance of law or an admission you were wrong.

I submit that your lack of stating a point, is an admission that you don't have one.

 

[TimCallahan]

Less than 15% if the workforce is unionized, Robert. Somehow I doubt that accounts for the 2/3-3/4 of corporations that don't have profit-sharing.

And your premise is simply wrong; many unionized workplaces do have profit sharing plans. Such as the UAW-organized Ford and General Motors, and the USWA-organized US Steel.

So...Gotta call Baloney(tm) on that one.

Thanks for pointing that out, Cleon.

The union to which I belonged, the Animation Guild (Local 839, I.A.T.S.E.) has gone out on strike a grand total of three times since its inception in 1948. The first strike, for decent wages, created the union, which did not strike until 1978 to try to hang on to 25% of the work (the other 75% went overseas). These two strikes were successful. However, in 1981, at the next contract meeting, the producers refuse to continue any quota of work to be done in the U.S. The union struck, and the producers broke the strike. Since that time, all production work on all T.V. animation went overseas. Design work was still done here. However, from about 2000 on, even the design work was sent overseas - much of it to mainland China - leaving only storyboarding to be done here.

I gave this bit of history to point out a few things. First most unions do not enjoy going out on strike. It's usually a last resort. Second, as such, these strikes are far from frivolous and are likely to be infrequent. These points, plus Cleon's points that only about 15% of the U.S. workforce is unionized and that unionized companies do have profit sharing, totally invalidate your assertion that unions oppose profit sharing or are the cause, merely by their existence of the low level of profit sharing in the United States.

In fact, were you right about unions, profit sharing and other strategies to get the workforce to share management's goals should be encouraged by management to weaken the influence of unions. Yet, as I pointed out about the Disney feature animation unit, executives would rather exclude the rank and file from participation in capitalist endeavors. By and large, they tend to view their workers has a necessary evil, and an antagonistic model reigns.

 

[TimCallahan]

Some anti-Modern Medicine doctors claim that surgery actually may help the cancer to spread. But since nothing is for sure in any of this, the ultimate choice is up to the patient and he/she may go with the recommendation of the doctor, or one's own gut feeling, or simply toss a coin. Fact is, though some treatments may be affective, some patients just don't want to go through the pain, suffering and financial loss and choose to let nature take its course. But here is something to think about:

"In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists."

http://www.dailypaul.com/57536/75-of-oncologists-wouldnt-take-chemo

Hmmm.

Concerning the first hilited area: Your championing the view of "anti-Modern Medicine doctors"? Are you serious? What would you propose instead of modern medicine, bleeding the patient? As to the pain and financial loss involved with surgery, it pales compared to the pain of dying of cancer. I now, since I've seen it firsthand, both in the case of my father and, earlier, as a hospital corpsman in the U.S. Navy.

As to the second hilited area, I can't get your link to open. I'll keep trying. Do you have another link?

ETA: Okay, I got the link to open. It's a Ron Paul site. While I agree with Paul's views on the war on drugs, I find him a dubious source for medical advice. This is particularly the case when I find that the article's source for the claim about the survey is a site called naturalnews,com. On going to that site, I found the they gave the same quote you did in your post and listed the source as a site called holisticcancersolutions.com. On going to that site I did not find any reference to the survey.

I'll look up the McGill Cancer Center to see if I can find this survey. It would help, however, if you could give me the year in which it was done.

ETA 2: I e-mailed the Mcill cancer center and will report on their reply on this study. Meanwhile, looking at another claim about the survey, I found that one of the drugs asserted to be harmful and ineffective was called Cisplatin. Here is one notable quote from the Wikipedia site on Cisplatin. Note the area I've put in boldface and underlined:

Cisplatin is administered intravenously as short-term infusion in normal saline for treatment of solid malignancies. It is used to treat various types of cancers, including sarcomas, some carcinomas (e.g. small cell lung cancer, and ovarian cancer), lymphomas, and germ cell tumors. Cisplatin is particularly effective against testicular cancer; the cure rate was improved from 10% to 85%.

So, is increasing the cure rate from 10% to 85% your idea of an ineffective treatment?

ETA 3: I went back to the holisticcancersolutions.com site and did find something - the very same quote Robert used above, again with no attribution and no date given for when the survey was done. So, Robert's quote from the Ron Paul source was a quote of a quote of a quote without any substantiation. To be fair, however, I'm waiting for the reply from McGill to my e-mail.

 

[Dancing David]

I can't do all your homework for you. Google it. Common knowledge.

Stop playing the poser role on the forum, it really makes your critical thinking look weak. It makes your arms waving rather spectacular.

So YOU have NO EVIDENCE.

 

[Dancing David]

I submit that your lack of stating a point, is an admission that you don't have one.

I submit that you are ignorant and don't have any evidence.

Countrywide financial, the part that made the sub prime loans was not a CRA bank, that is a point.

One you can't explain.

 

[Robert Prey]

I submit that you are ignorant and don't have any evidence.

Countrywide financial, the part that made the sub prime loans was not a CRA bank, that is a point.

One you can't explain.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Robert Prey]

Concerning the first hilited area: Your championing the view of "anti-Modern Medicine doctors"? Are you serious? What would you propose instead of modern medicine, bleeding the patient?

The list of therapies tried, championed, and eventually abandoned by Modern Medicine is legion. Dr.Robt Mendelssohn first alerted me to the fact that if you look up a drug, for example, in the PDR, you will find that invariably the very thing the drug is supposed to cure is listed as a risk for taking it. I'm often amazed at the commercial hosted by pro golfer Phil Mickleson for a drug, Enbrel for managing pain caused by Psoriatic Arthritis. While Phil is pictured happily playing his sport, tying his shoes, playing with kids, the voice-over intones the risks which include, among other things, death.

"Serious infections have happened in patients taking ENBREL. These infections include tuberculosis (TB) and infections caused by viruses, fungi, or bacteria that have spread throughout the body. Some patients have died from these infections. Patients treated with ENBREL also may be at risk for other serious side effects including nervous system problems, such as multiple sclerosis, seizures, or inflammation of the nerves of the eyes; rare reports of serious blood problems (some fatal); heart failure, including new heart failure or worsening of heart failure you already have; new or worsening psoriasis; allergic reactions; immune reactions, including a lupus-like syndrome, lymphoma (a type of cancer) and other cancers. Call your doctor right away if you develop any of these. To see the full ENBREL Safety Information, click here."

http://www.enbrel.com/index.jspx#

 

[Robert Prey]

So, is increasing the cure rate from 10% to 85% your idea of an ineffective treatment?

ETA 3: I went back to the holisticcancersolutions.com site and did find something - the very same quote Robert used above, again with no attribution and no date given for when the survey was done. So, Robert's quote from the Ron Paul source was a quote of a quote of a quote without any substantiation. To be fair, however, I'm waiting for the reply from McGill to my e-mail.

You may have a point, and then again maybe not. There are stats all over the place which one can cherry pick. I found a site which attempts to expose claims of doctors refusing chemo as bogus, but in the process lists some that contradict the premise:


"The basis for these shocking and deceitful allegations is this excerpt from a book by Philip Day:"


Several full-time scientsts at the McGill Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)


http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/do-75-of-doctors-refuse-chemotherapy-on-themselves/

But then that same site leads to this:

"At a recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting convened to review the ASCO guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, objections were raised about the inclusion of prior data indicating that oncologists themselves would not take chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer even though they were willing to give it to their patients. In 1985, MacKillop and colleagues found that of 118 Canadian doctors who treat lung cancer, only 16% would want chemotherapy for symptomatic metastatic bone disease.[13] Lind and colleagues surveyed teaching oncologists in Boston in 1987 and found that 27% would probably or definitely take chemotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, but 76% would take radiation therapy.[14]"

http://www.cancernetwork.com/display/article/10165/66128?verify=0

 

[Robert Prey]

So, is increasing the cure rate from 10% to 85% your idea of an ineffective treatment?

Finally, everyone has there own personal experiences concerning medical issues. Personally, I have little faith the the percentages of success versus risk put out by Modern Medicine including anecdotal tragedies of family members who trusted medical professionals and their optimistic percentage numbers of possible outcomes.

 

[Dancing David]

A distinction without a difference.

Still lacking evidence.

 

[TimCallahan]

You may have a point, and then again maybe not. There are stats all over the place which one can cherry pick. I found a site which attempts to expose claims of doctors refusing chemo as bogus, but in the process lists some that contradict the premise:


"The basis for these shocking and deceitful allegations is this excerpt from a book by Philip Day:"


Several full-time scientsts at the McGill Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)


http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/do-75-of-doctors-refuse-chemotherapy-on-themselves/

But then that same site leads to this:

"At a recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting convened to review the ASCO guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, objections were raised about the inclusion of prior data indicating that oncologists themselves would not take chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer even though they were willing to give it to their patients. In 1985, MacKillop and colleagues found that of 118 Canadian doctors who treat lung cancer, only 16% would want chemotherapy for symptomatic metastatic bone disease.[13] Lind and colleagues surveyed teaching oncologists in Boston in 1987 and found that 27% would probably or definitely take chemotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, but 76% would take radiation therapy.[14]"

http://www.cancernetwork.com/display/article/10165/66128?verify=0

I find Credence Publications, which seems to deal more with spiritual matters, a bit dubious as a source for scientific or medical data. Here are two significant quotes from the cancernetwork.com site:


In 1985, a survey found that only about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. In response to statements made at a recent American Society of Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting questioning whether these data are still valid, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a new survey of oncologists attending a 1997 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual meeting. The results of that survey are summarized and analyzed.
Treatment recommendations for non-small-cell lung cancer[1-3] have changed markedly over the past 20 years, based on evidence that chemotherapy improves survival [4-8] and can palliate symptoms.[9] The use of combined-modality chemotherapy and radiation therapy, with or without surgery, has also substantially improved the 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival of patients with locally advanced disease,[4,5] although at the expense of modestly increased toxicity.
In 1985, MacKillop and colleagues found that of 118 Canadian doctors who treat lung cancer, only 16% would want chemotherapy for symptomatic metastatic bone disease.[13] Lind and colleagues surveyed teaching oncologists in Boston in 1987 and found that 27% would probably or definitely take chemotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, but 76% would take radiation therapy.
It's obvious, particularly from the hilited sections that your sweeping generalization of oncologists rejecting chemotherapy across the board simply isn't true. The oncologists were responding to very specific cancers and whether or not chemotherapy worked for these specific types of cancer. It's also interesting to note that the majority in one survey supported radiation therapy.

Finally, the whole thing may be moot, since the survey of 118 Canadian oncologists your referred to was done in 1987. Thus, it reflects the status of chemotherapy for concern certain kinds of cancer in the field some 25 years ago.

Applying the this survey as a blanket statement on today's chemotherapy is blatantly dishonest.

 

[Robert Prey]

I find Credence Publications, which seems to deal more with spiritual matters, a bit dubious as a source for scientific or medical data. Here are two significant quotes from the cancernetwork.com site:


In 1985, a survey found that only about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. In response to statements made at a recent American Society of Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting questioning whether these data are still valid, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a new survey of oncologists attending a 1997 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual meeting. The results of that survey are summarized and analyzed.
Treatment recommendations for non-small-cell lung cancer[1-3] have changed markedly over the past 20 years, based on evidence that chemotherapy improves survival [4-8] and can palliate symptoms.[9] The use of combined-modality chemotherapy and radiation therapy, with or without surgery, has also substantially improved the 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival of patients with locally advanced disease,[4,5] although at the expense of modestly increased toxicity.
In 1985, MacKillop and colleagues found that of 118 Canadian doctors who treat lung cancer, only 16% would want chemotherapy for symptomatic metastatic bone disease.[13] Lind and colleagues surveyed teaching oncologists in Boston in 1987 and found that 27% would probably or definitely take chemotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, but 76% would take radiation therapy.
It's obvious, particularly from the hilited sections that your sweeping generalization of oncologists rejecting chemotherapy across the board simply isn't true. The oncologists were responding to very specific cancers and whether or not chemotherapy worked for these specific types of cancer. It's also interesting to note that the majority in one survey supported radiation therapy.

Finally, the whole thing may be moot, since the survey of 118 Canadian oncologists your referred to was done in 1987. Thus, it reflects the status of chemotherapy for concern certain kinds of cancer in the field some 25 years ago.

Applying the this survey as a blanket statement on today's chemotherapy is blatantly dishonest.

YOU last statement is blatantly dishonest as I have never made such sweeping statements but only cautioned that in effect, while figures don't lie, liars have been known to figure.

 

[Robrob]

YOU last statement is blatantly dishonest as I have never made such sweeping statements but only cautioned that in effect, while figures don't lie, liars have been known to figure.

In other words, he's JAQing off.