The hysteria over avian flu a few years ago and swine flu today has some very interesting ramifications. Namely that certain people are making a killing off of it.
The primary drug used to treat these outbreaks has been Tamiflu, developed by Gilead Sciences and marketed by Hofmann La Roche, Ltd. Gilead was started in 1987. In 1988 Donald Rumsfeld joined the Board and became chairman of the company in 1997. In 2001 he stepped down from that position to join the Bush administration as Secretary of Defense. However, Rumsfeld continued to own between $5 million and $25 million of Gilead stock. In 2005, George W. Bush urged Congress to pass $7.1 billion in emergency funding for the possible bird flu pandemic, of which one billion was dedicated to the purchase, and distribution of Tamiflu. Gilead's share prices went up from $35 to $57 per share, which netted Rumsfeld between $2.5 million and $15.5 million.
It seems that whipping up public hysteria over potentially threatening diseases is a very lucrative enterprise. So lucrative that this year's 'disease of the year' is swine flu, where, once again, Tamiflu is raking in ever greater profits for stockholders.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow would you enforce rule that would prevent politicians from owning stock? How much stock ownership would be the threshold? Virtually everyone owns some stock in something if you include mutual funds and retirement account money. Also, how would you define politician? Are you including town council members? sherrifs? municipal judges? State Senators? Congressman?
I don't understand why politicians in the US are allowed to own stock in companies anyways. That's just begging for corruption.
Strictly speaking, in any case, Rumsfeld's position as Secretary of Defense wasn't even a political position. It's a cabinet post appointed by the President and serving under the President.
In any case, with all due respect to the OP, I think that blaming Donald Rumsfeld for the hype over the bird flu is a major stretch. The media causes the hype, not the White House, Joe Biden's stupid comment about not taking the subway notwithstanding.
Originally posted by sh76Well, surely any senator, cabinet member or governor should not be allowed to own any stock - I don't see why you could possibly want this to happen. A retirement fund is not really owning stock since the retirement fund decides where it invests its money. For local politicians the case is perhaps not so clear cut. How would you enforce such a rule? I'm not sure if that question is serious, since it's extremely straightforward to make a law that bans it.
How would you enforce rule that would prevent politicians from owning stock? How much stock ownership would be the threshold? Virtually everyone owns some stock in something if you include mutual funds and retirement account money. Also, how would you define politician? Are you including town council members? sherrifs? municipal judges? State Senators? Congress ...[text shortened]... not the White House, Joe Biden's stupid comment about not taking the subway notwithstanding.
But yes, the media are mostly to blame for overhyping this flu thing.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat about heads of the administrative agencies? What about state senators? Lieutenant governors? What if Bill Gates is elected to Congress? Would you make him sell his half a billion (or whatever) shares of MSFT at once? That would destroy the company.
Well, surely any senator, cabinet member or governor should not be allowed to own any stock - I don't see why you could possibly want this to happen. A retirement fund is not really owning stock since the retirement fund decides where it invests its money. For local politicians the case is perhaps not so clear cut. How would you enforce such a rule? I'm ...[text shortened]... a law that bans it.
But yes, the media are mostly to blame for overhyping this flu thing.
Would you include the politicians' family members? What about the investments of private companies that he owns? Would you let them hold stock in private companies or would this rule apply to them also? Would the politician be able to keep a family owned business, such as a farm? What if the farm's account owned mutual funds? Would the LLC that owns the farm have to sell its mutual funds? What if the politician only owns 10% of the farm? What if he owns 1%? 0.0001%?
Most retirement funds (IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.) are invested at the direction of the investor, who can invest in pretty much anything he or she chooses. The vast, vast majority of working people have them.
It's a rule that would be tough to write and tougher to enforce. Investment in the stock market is something that is relevant to almost all Americans. I don't know if it's possible to simply exclude politicians from that class all of a sudden.
Originally posted by sh76Yeah man, incredibly hard to enforce. That's why none of the ministers in the Dutch cabinet own companies or have significant shares in companies. In fact, there would be public outrage if they did - and it completely baffles me why you even try to defend such a policy which so clearly leads to corruption and the waste of billions of taxpayers' dollars.
What about heads of the administrative agencies? What about state senators? Lieutenant governors? What if Bill Gates is elected to Congress? Would you make him sell his half a billion (or whatever) shares of MSFT at once? That would destroy the company.
Would you include the politicians' family members? What about the investments of private companies that he ...[text shortened]... don't know if it's possible to simply exclude politicians from that class all of a sudden.
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI believe in the general freedom to invest as one sees fit.
it completely baffles me why you even try to defend such a policy which so clearly leads to corruption and the waste of billions of taxpayers' dollars.
I believe that good government takes away as few rights as possible.
I don't believe that the speculative possibility of corruption is a compelling enough reason to ban stock ownership by all politicians. I believe incidences of corruption can be handed on a case by case basis.
I believe that the securities laws as they already exist are, by and large, restrictive enough, thank you. Sure, they could be tightened up a bit here and there and more oversight of things like mortgage securities trading is probably a good idea. I'm not a totally laissez faire capitalist and I'm not inherently suspicious of every government regulation.
I just happen to thing that your suggestion is overkill and impractical. I'm not criticizing your thought process or your aim and I'm not saying that any country that adopts such policies is wrong. I'm saying I don't think your suggestion would or should be adopted in the United States.
Originally posted by sh76There is no "speculative possibility". There is corruption. Part of this corruption is caused by the fact that very little is done to prevent conflicts of interests.
I believe in the general freedom to invest as one sees fit.
I believe that good government takes away as few rights as possible.
I don't believe that the speculative possibility of corruption is a compelling enough reason to ban stock ownership by all politicians. I believe incidences of corruption can be handed on a case by case basis.
I believe that ...[text shortened]... I'm saying I don't think your suggestion would or should be adopted in the United States.
Why do you believe it wouldn't work in the US?
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Do you think that pervading, insidious, pro-corporate, pro-donor, en masse voting patterns of U.S. politicians "can be handed on a case by case basis"?
I don't believe that the speculative possibility of corruption is a compelling enough reason to ban stock ownership by all politicians. I believe incidences of corruption can be handed on a case by case basis.
Can you cite any examples of it happening?
Not talking about spectacular examples of corrupt legislators. We're talking about the ingrained, outwardly plausible, deeply subverting kind of 'corruption'. Any examples of it being tackled?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMainly, as I mentioned above, because I don't see any practical way of drawing the line between who is allowed to own corporate stock. I would guess that every, or substantially every, major politician owns some stock in his or her portfolio. I don't think it's practical to force every President, Senator, Congressman, Governor, Cabinet member, etc. to liquidate his portfolio of every stock and mutual fund and corporate bond or paper of any kind (which could lead to the same kind of conflict of interest).
There is no "speculative possibility". There is corruption. Part of this corruption is caused by the fact that very little is done to prevent conflicts of interests.
Why do you believe it wouldn't work in the US?
Why do I not think it would work specifically in the US? Because the US mentality, by and large, is inherently capitalist. Save for a few extremists, Americans don't view businesses as the bad guys. We view entrepreneurs and businesses in general as the lifeblood of the economy. Americans generally view the stock market as a good thing and investment advice and stock market analysis is thick as fleas.
I'll grant that capitalism has taken a bit of a hit in the last year. So, instead of enjoying 98% popularity, capitalism now perhaps only enjoys 90% or 85% popularity. Americans are simply not going to stand for telling a large group of people "You may not invest in American businesses. You may not take part in our capitalist system." It's simply not going to happen.
Originally posted by sh76That's not so hard. The line is where there reasonably could be a conflict of interests. Simple, huh? It works like a charm, too.
Mainly, as I mentioned above, because I don't see any practical way of drawing the line between who is allowed to own corporate stock. I would guess that every, or substantially every, major politician owns some stock in his or her portfolio. I don't think it's practical to force every President, Senator, Congressman, Governor, Cabinet member, etc. to liquidate ...[text shortened]... esses. You may not take part in our capitalist system." It's simply not going to happen.
As for your story on capitalism: I don't see what capitalism has to do with all this. Are you saying corruption is OK because it is "capitalist"? Presumably not, so what are you trying to say? The Dutch don't view businesses as the "bad guys" either - in fact trust in both government and corporations is higher than in the US. So what is this "capitalist mentality" you speak of? Surely, anyone in any country wants to get rich?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSaying that certain people may not own stock of any company, period because of potential conflict of interest, seems to me to be a bit inconsistent with capitalism principles.
That's not so hard. The line is where there reasonably could be a conflict of interests. Simple, huh? It works like a charm, too.
As for your story on capitalism: I don't see what capitalism has to do with all this. Are you saying corruption is OK because it is "capitalist"? Presumably not, so what are you trying to say? The Dutch don't view business ...[text shortened]... s "capitalist mentality" you speak of? Surely, anyone in any country wants to get rich?
I think your standard of "where there reasonably could be a conflict of interests" is great. But, how do you define that in practical terms?
Originally posted by sh76It is not inconsistent with capitalist principles at all. What capitalist principle is that, anyway?
Saying that certain people may not own stock of any company, period because of potential conflict of interest, seems to me to be a bit inconsistent with capitalism principles.
I think your standard of "where there reasonably could be a conflict of interests" is great. But, how do you define that in practical terms?
I think your standard of "where there reasonably could be a conflict of interests" is great. But, how do you define that in practical terms?
It's quite straightforward to make a law with this formulation (or at least the legal equivalent of it). Then a judge can decide whether or not there reasonably was any conflict of interests, should a politician be suspect of corruption.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou can't just have a judge to decide it after the fact. You need to give fair warning to the politician as to what standard he will be held.
It is not inconsistent with capitalist principles at all. What capitalist principle is that, anyway?
[b]I think your standard of "where there reasonably could be a conflict of interests" is great. But, how do you define that in practical terms?
It's quite straightforward to make a law with this formulation (or at least the legal equivalent of ...[text shortened]... there reasonably was any conflict of interests, should a politician be suspect of corruption.[/b]
A statute that made it a crime for a politician to own stock "where there reasonably could be a conflict of interests" would be void for vagueness and unenforceable.