Illegal party election’s campaign funding and unemployment.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

We can level a few more criticisms against big pharma than just that they put money into profitable diseases more so than important diseases - though this particular criticism is the most significant I can think of.

But to the main point here - Aedes is right, these big companies do not necessarily want stagnation. These companies want profits. Go figure. To protect and expand their profit margins, these companies use all sorts of strategies - some as simple and reasonable as buying up a smaller company, other times methods get nasty. Thievery and political abuse is not beyond the means of many companies, and such tactics have a place in the playbooks.

Aedes is right, and we can level more criticism to any kind of commercial company on different levels (human rights, environment, safety etc).

However as you say these companies want profit. If stagnation is the key to more profit they'll take it. If buying out other companies is the key (and by that can cause either stagnation or innovation) they'll take that.

My saying is that even though companies invest in new technologies they at the same time try to prevent world changing innovation in order to push their old - safe - technologies.

I did not say Aedes his statement is wrong, but i felt he took a safe company, and ommited the rest of the companies that have far bigger and more dangerous monopolies than microsoft. Microsoft has computers, and only workstations and windows-only networks and their monopoly is relatively safe if you look at it. MobileExxon, Shell, BP and others have oil and the world market in their hands.

[Didymos Thomas]

You're absolutely right, Vasska. The price of oil soared and (more) people started going hungry; food riots.

It's easy for people to cause a great deal of suffering when they do not have to look at the suffering themselves.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You're absolutely right, Vasska. The price of oil soared and (more) people started going hungry; food riots.

It's easy for people to cause a great deal of suffering when they do not have to look at the suffering themselves.

I feel your example is not something a company wants unless it's corrupt and is compensated for it's troubles by the government or other influential and rich people who want something your example to happen.

The world market of course is separated in primary and secondary. Food, water, oil and all others are primary and needed to survive in the 21st century. In this case scenario your example will work, for it allows control of the people, but then again it's always a master plan of the people behind the curtain, and the companies are the weapons used.

The secondary market is the stuff that makes life easier, but is not needed, like computers, household appliance, TV's and all even the luxury foods like candy, chocolate and others. These companies do what they do out of pure profit. Nintendo keeps it stock low to make people stand in lines for the latest video console, and Apple did it with the iPhone V1 and in Europe again with iPhone V2.

Inflicting suffering on others is far easier for the common human being, when you don't have to see the faces of the ones you make suffering.
You're right on that one.