Kapitalizam 101

Quincy Endicott wrote:Et Kripi

Da ako pričamo o Americi. U Evropi država pregovara o ceni lekova sa farmaceutskim kompanijama. To je uglavnom dobro, jer moć države kao onoga koji plaća za sve (skoro sve) dovodi do toga da su ispregovarane cene lekova razumne. Sa druge strane, baš zato što država plaća postoje i veoma komplikovane cost/benefit analize koje mogu dovesti do toga da baš skupi lekovi ne uđu u državni zdravstveni sistem.

Najveći problem trenutno u farmaceutskoj industriji je attrition rate, jer 90% lekova koji se razvijaju i testiraju ne dođu na tržište, što znači da oni koji prođu moraju da pokriju sve troškove i obezbede profit za investitore (a profit margins u PI su standardno i bezobrazno visoko podignute).

паће wrote:А ПИ је, Дуњићу, шта? :паће:

Sotir wrote:

паће wrote:А ПИ је, Дуњићу, шта? :паће:

Private Investigator.
Ниси гледао Магнума?

https://www.monbiot.com/2019/06/12/landfall/


...
What is the most neglected issue in British politics? I would say land. Literally and metaphorically, land underlies our lives, but its ownership and control have been captured by a tiny number of people. The results include soaring inequality and exclusion; the massive cost of renting or buying a decent home; the collapse of wildlife and ecosystems; repeated financial crises and the loss of public space. Yet for 70 years this crucial issue has scarcely featured in political discussions.

Today, I hope, this changes, with the publication of the report to the Labour Party – Land for the Many – that I’ve written with six experts in the field. Our aim is to put this neglected issue where it belongs: at the heart of political debate and discussion.

Since 1995, land values in this country have risen 412%. Land now accounts for an astonishing 51% of the UK’s net worth. Why? In large part because successive governments have used tax exemptions and other advantages to turn the ground beneath our feet into a speculative money machine. A report published this week by Tax Justice UK reveals that, through owning agricultural land, 261 rich families escaped £208m in inheritance tax in 2015-16. Because farmland is used as a tax shelter, farmers are being priced out. In 2011, farmers bought 60% of the land on the market; by 2017 this had fallen to 40%.

Worse still, when planning permission is granted on agricultural land, its value can rise 250-fold. Though this jackpot was created by society, the owner gets to keep most of it. We pay for this vast inflation in land values through outrageous rents and mortgages. Capital gains tax is lower than income tax, and council tax is proportionately more expensive for the poor than for the rich. As a result of such giveaways, and the amazing opacity of the system, land in the UK has become a magnet for international criminals seeking to launder their money.

We pay for these distortions every day. Homes have become so expensive not because the price of bricks and mortar has risen, but because the land that underlies them now accounts for 70% of their price. Twenty years ago, the average working family needed to save for three years to afford a deposit. Today, it must save for 19 years. Life is even worse for renters. While housing costs swallow 12% of average household incomes for people with mortgages, renters pay 36%.

Because we hear so little about the underlying issues, we blame the wrong causes for the cost and scarcity of housing: immigration, population growth, the green belt, red tape. In reality, the power of landowners and building companies, their tax and financial advantages and the vast shift in bank lending towards the housing sector have inflated prices so much that even a massive housebuilding programme could not counteract them.

The same forces are responsible for the loss of public space in cities, a right to roam that covers only 10% of the land, the lack of provision for allotments and of opportunities for new farmers, and the wholesale destruction of the living world. Our report aims to confront these structural forces and take back control of the fabric of the nation.
...

Some stunning results for Spain, based on the just-published @lisdata  harmonized survey data.
Ten years after the crisis, real median income is the same as in 2007, bottom 40% lost in real terms, income of the top 1% went up by 21%. pic.twitter.com/ej6zouMxOV

— Branko Milanovic (@BrankoMilan) June 22, 2019

If you think that inherited wealth or wealth acquired through political connections is not the "right" type of wealth, W Europe and Russia are the worst (although for opposite reasons) and China the best.
(From @CarolineFreund "Rich people..") pic.twitter.com/FusOMUvIlx

— Branko Milanovic (@BrankoMilan) July 4, 2019

Poređenje sa Američkim tržištem i američkim logističkim praksama i troškovima je poput pomorandži i jabuuka sa malim tržištima udaljenim od glavnih lučkih pristaništa.
U Americi ne postoji PDV. Postoje različiti drugačiji porezi koji zavise od države do države i u zavisnosti gde se nalazi Amazonovo skladište i kupac, plaćaju se različiti porezi na izraženu, preporučenu cenu.
U Srbiji se plaća u dinarima, a sva roba se proizvođaču isplaćuje u dolarima, a krediti kroz koje se obezbeđuju budžeti za kupovinu se vežu za Euro. To je trostruki trošak samo na kursnim razlikama. U Srbiji je fiksna stopa PDV-a. U Srbiji se roba doprema (u glavnom) iz daleke Holandije, eventualno Češke ili Poljske... itd... itd... da ne ulazimo dalje u troškove poslovanja i obim tržišta koje se ne može porediti sa zapadnoevropskim tržištima... Matematika je mnogo kompleksnija, nego što običan kupac misli. A poređenje giganta poput Amazona i male lokalne maloprodaje je faktički nemoguće.

mesati jabuke i pomorandze

Filipenko wrote:
...sto je sve tehnicki tacno, ali kada su se hvalili jeftinim cenama, onda nije bio problem mesati 

ф wrote:jabuke i pomorandze

“The basic thought is that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”

[size=65]T[/size]

here is an interesting idea which originally came from American Marxist thinker Fredric Jameson but which has been perhaps more widely popularized by Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek. The basic thought is that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Žižek expands on this idea in the introduction to Mapping Ideology a collection of essays by various authors that he edited. He contrasts the post-Cold War landscape with the one just a few years before when it was unclear whether communism and fascism existed as plausible alternatives to liberal capitalism.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, capitalism became the only imaginable mode of production. But in this new era, issues like ecological catastrophe became much more present in people’s imagination. This, says Žižek, is what reveals that it is easier to imagine the world’s end than a much more modest change in the mode of production, however radical it may be. But this fact is not just a mere interesting curiosity. Rather, for Žižek it showcases how ideology shapes our understanding of the world. He writes that it is, “as if liberal capitalism is the ‘real’ that will somehow survive even under conditions of a global ecological catastrophe.” And he continues: “one can thus categorically assert the existence of ideology qua generative matrix that regulates the relationship between visible and non-visible, between imaginable and non-imaginable, as well as the changes in this relationship.”
This can be easily understood through his brief discussion of the 1988 film They Live. In the movie, protagonist John Nada discovers a pair of glasses that, in Žižek’s words, function like a critique of ideology. They allow him to see the ‘real’ that is hidden behind what is presented to us every day. Ideology is what makes us perceive reality the way we do, rather than seeing the ‘real’ that hides beneath. In this way, the ideology of post-Cold War capitalism is what makes this observation by Jameson and Žižek true: it makes capitalism seem pervasive and inevitable. In turn, what makes the observation relevant is the fact that it reveals the effects of this.

George Turner, the director of TaxWatch, said: “It is outrageous that the UK taxpayer is being asked to shell out tens of millions of pounds in subsidy to the developers of Grand Theft Auto, when at the time that the game’s developers put in their tax credit application Grand Theft Auto V had already generated several billion dollars in sales and profits. This is a drive-by assault on the British taxpayer and corporate welfare scrounging at its very worst.”