FF:
No patents? So you don’t believe in intellectual property. Even Ayn Rand believed in THAT!

China doesn’t believe in intellectual property.  So it’s OK to steal others’ brilliance and underprice them, purely for profit.

That would be the BIGGEST killer of new drug development of all—that once a fortune is spent on developing a new drug, ANYONE could make it and sell it.

That’s turning intellectual property into a “public good” like a river or the atmosphere and allowing any asshole to pollute it.

And while we are on the subject of pharmaceuticals, perhaps you can tell me why Quaaludes were banned, and why MDMA is still a Schedule I. And what is that whole Analogs Act about, anyway, protecting people? Why is medical marijuana still illegal in most areas? Could it have something to do with Marinol?

Really? Seldane and Vioxx would still be on the market? Really? How many doctors would be prescribing them? How many people would be taking them? If robbery wasn’t prosecuted, how many people would there be robbing little old ladies on the street?

Why are these companies trying to make the next Viagra? To win a patent, that’s why. Do you even know what a patent is?

My God, man. You argue in circles. The government should subsidize companies when they invent Viagra, and they should subsidize them to develop a new antibiotic. A patent is a subsidy, for all intents and purposes. Just try to imagine what it would be like if there were no 10 year patents. Imagine if there were no sales reps pushing their products, that are patented, and then checking with the drug stores, to make sure the doctors are prescribing them.

Patents are the driving force. There should be no patents. None. Ask someone in your clinical trial world what it would be like with no patents. They’ll probably tell you that no drugs would ever be developed. Stick to clinical trials, leave economics up to those who know economics. There is no free market, only government intervention. Patents are government intervention. They allow drug companies to sell a product for whatever price they want, and sue anybody who tries to sell the same product. That doesn’t sound like a free market to me.

FF:

You live in a fantasy world.  Clinical trials wouldn’t occur if they weren’t forced to happen.  But Seldane and Vioxx would be on the market, still, killing people.

Until recently, in some Western European, all you had to do to get a drug approved was have two MDs sign off that it’s safe and effective.

You can babble how the free market would bring the “best drugs” out but it’s clear you don’t understand anything about the clinical trials process.

BTW, the free market is TOTALLY in control of the Pharma business.  This is why every Pharma company is seeking to match or better Pfizer’s Viagra, but none of them are working on developing new antibiotics.  In fact, they say if they are to work on new antibiotics to offset the resistant bacteria, the government should SUBSIDIZE THEM!

Yeah, we really, as a society need a plethora of erectile disfunction drugs while resistant strains of every bacteria are emerging. 

But the Free Market says it’s more profitable to make a drug that the patient has to take for the rest of his/her life for ED than one that can save their life in 2 weeks, and stop an epidemic.

So the Lipitors and the Diovans and the Viagras are pushed, but anti-biotics and very few vaccines are developed.

Because unlike the Hippocratic Oath, which says, first do no harm, the Corporate Oath says first make a profit for you stock holders.  I’m not saying that it’s “wrong”, I’m saying it clearly deviates from what is best for society, which is to have the medicines available that you need for diseases.  The Free Market doesn’t give a shit about that.

I live in the clinical trials world. I see it everyday.

ITW

Regarding the patent medicines of the 1890s. Many of those were fraudulent or misrepresented. No one I know of would support the repeal of the prohibition of fraud. Besides, they were exposed by the print media long before the government did anything, and all the government really did, at first, was require proper labeling. And that still hasn’t stopped them completely. We still have “natural”, or “herbal” remedies.

The pharma execs need to be held criminally responsible for placing dangerous drugs on the market. With the FDA, they have an excuse to not be held accountable. How many people went to jail over Vioxx or Seldane? How many should have gone to jail? If they were put in jail, what kind of message would that have sent to other manufacturers? No, instead the government protects these people, not consumers. They may tell you that by doing this they are indirectly protecting consumers. It’s all a big scam, just like the financial industry. The FDA provides “cover”.

ITW

First of all, I do not watch Fox News, and The GOP are not my buddies, but I guess in a world of false dichotomies, that’s the natural conclusion one might draw.

Now. How many of those Pharma companies are trying to get a product to market, and how many are trying to be awarded a patent? The market does not drive drug manufacturers, government imposed intellectual property does. That’s right, intellectual property is NOT a function of the free market. How many drugs have been patented that are simply a slight modification of a drug whose patent ran out? What is the difference between Nexium, and Prilosec? What is the difference between Wellbutrin CR, and Wellbutrin SR? Patent expiration, that’s all. If your health insurance plan has prescription drug coverage, a doctor will prescribe Nexium. If not, he will tell you to buy Prilosec OTC.

It is the government intervention of intellectual property that drives the pharma industry, not the free market. So, the system has been corrupted from the beginning, by the government. Of course, the government now needs to control that system.

Maybe if we didn’t have patents on drugs, many would not come to market, but the good ones, the needed ones would eventually make it.

Good post Inherit. 

I have always believed that a major function of government should be regulation of our food, medicines, water and air and the swift prosecution of those who wish to fuck it up.

These important safety ‘valves’ of public oversight are always underfunded, overworked and often manipulated.

The FDA doesn’t really protect you. How can you expect an organization to protect you, that can’t be held accountable for their decisions? How many FDA workers, or directors have been fired, fined or placed in jail for making the wrong decision? None. They are federal employees, and can not be held responsible, by law. Does the FDA really protect you, or just you a false sense of security?

On the other side, how many life saving drugs have been kept off the market?
*****************************

Spoken like someone who truly doesn’t know WTF he is talking about.  I’ve been in the Clinical Trials industry for 20 years and I can tell you, without a regulating agency like the FDA, pharma companies would dump EVERY kind of shit on the market, just like the old patent medicine days of the 1890’s.

Your GOP buddies forced through “fast-tracking” and budget cuts to try to prevent the FDA from actually evaluating properly results and…killer drugs hit the market like Vioxx.

I don’t know of any PROVEN life-saving drugs that have been kept off the market, but I’ve seen a lot that were CLAIMED to be life-saving yet couldn’t demonstrate it in proper clinical trials.  It’s really simple: If you don’t show that your primary efficacy indicator is significantly different than a placebo, you don’t get approval!

The incentive for pharma companies to cheat is beyond belief.  The cost for developing and bringing a new drug to market from beginning to end can from from $500,000,000 to over $1 billion…and if it doesn’t work, heads roll.  Market forces just don’t cut it when it comes to regulating this stuff, and patients dying then becomes information to suppress.

The big pharma companies, like GSK, Novartis, J&J, Schering-Plough, Roche-Genentech, Abbot, Bayer, Pfizer, Daichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi-Aventis are all like governments unto themselves.  Most are foreign-based and only see the USA as a market to be entered.  They employ hundreds of thousands of people and net billions in profits every year.  They are some of the biggest corporations in the world and ONLY take the precautions and care they do because they are FORCED TO!

They are willing to engage in SOME self-regulation, but again, that’s self-interest and they DO work with governments on this.  The International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) is all about getting both the big pharmas and the FDA, EU and equiv Japanese agencies to all use the same format for testing drugs. This has resulted in the new standard for submissions called the eCTD, for (electronic) Common Technical Document, structured differently from the traditional NDA submission.

This, of course, means that the big Pharmas can run their studies in a way that submissions to any of the Big 3 are structured the same for a GREAT reduction in costs. It also means the agencies will see submissions all coming in using the same format, making THEIR jobs easier and more efficient as well.

Yet, if you want to hear bitching and moaning just read up on 21 CFR Sect 11: Electronic submissions.  The entire industry has had to re-tool to meet these standards and the word the EVERYONE ignored 15 years ago “Validation” is now the most feared word.

I’ve met many FDA evaluators and they are dedicated, hard-working (and over-worked) scientists who KNOW that they may well have someone try to slide something by them.  They are specialized: Cancer specialists work in the Oncology section.

Go to the FDA web site and start reading. Before you sound off about what you got from Fox Noise.

I forgot to add, that that construction site insurance company inspector also has the authority to remove any individual, or private contractor, for any reason, at any time from the site, and permanently ban them.

felicity

Why must you be “stuck” with the government doing the testing? You may not have the lab equipment, but are there other organizations that do have it?

The FDA doesn’t really protect you. How can you expect an organization to protect you, that can’t be held accountable for their decisions? How many FDA workers, or directors have been fired, fined or placed in jail for making the wrong decision? None. They are federal employees, and can not be held responsible, by law. Does the FDA really protect you, or just you a false sense of security?

On the other side, how many life saving drugs have been kept off the market?

Do you think that maybe, a private, third-party with a vested interest could do a better job? Let me ask you a question. Last month there was an egg recall. How many of those eggs came from Kosher farms? “Free Range” farms?

No company wants to sell products that are going to hurt or kill people. That’s bad for business. But people make mistakes, and become complacent. That’s why businesses purchase insurance. The insurance company has a vested interest in whether or not the company’s products are safe. They can be sued. Their safety inspectors can be fired if they make a mistake. When the government creates an agency, like the FDA, they are only doing the job that the insurance company should be doing. So, basically, your tax dollars are being used to subsidize the insurance companies, and in turn, subsidize the business, because the now pay lower rates on insurance.

I’ve been on some very big construction jobs. Worker safety is a primary concern. Why? Because of the unions? Because of OSHA? No. Because of the insurance company. The insurance company sends an on-site safety inspector who has the authority to shut down the job for any reason, at any time. There is no need for OSHA. If there is an accident that could have been prevented, that safety inspector can be fired, or even prosecuted, if there was criminal negligence, and the insurance company can be held financially liable. If there are no accidents, he can receive a bonus. That’s a vested interest, which the government does not and can not have. Would you feel safer on a job site with an insurance company inspector, or an OSHA inspector? Now, apply that to the FDA.

Fat Freddy - Haven’t you noticed that, consistently,
the positive always includes a negative? The Nanny
state protects us AND, as yet, does favors for
special interests.  I need the former - for instance,
the FDA gives me some assurance that the food and
drugs I choose to ingest won’t kill me - but I don’t
want ‘special’ interests to take precedence over my
interests.

Unless I have access to my own sophisticated chem lab
to test every food and drug item for safety before I
ingest it, I’m ‘stuck’ with paying for the government
to do the testing. 

Special interests are favored because they have the
money to pay elected officials off to do their
bidding.  Maybe simplistic, but if we could take the
‘money’ factor out of politics, special interests
would no longer be special, would no longer have any
clout.  (Remember what Deep Throat told Woodward, to
follow the money.  He was talking about investigating
Nixon’s Watergate, but he could just as well have
been talking about how our entire political system
works these days.)

Still too simple? OK, let’s go big time. Real big. All the way to the very top.

If regulation is such a boon to corporations, why do they spend 100’s of millions of dollars on lobbyists to prevent regulation?

Not entirely correct. They spend the money to control the regulations.

You are familiar with the Financial Reform Bill, right? I haven’t read the entire 2,500 pages, or whatever it was, but I did read sections of it. Out of all of those pages there were about 15-20 pages that dealt with the reporting of derivative trading that was useful. The rest was bullshit, for the most part. If you go to the last section, it deals with the Federal Reserve Bank.

Background: As part of the “bailout”, the NY Federal Reserve (FRBNY) issued 13(3) loans. 13(3) refers to a section of the Federal Reserve Act, that authorizes the Fed to make loans to any business, individual or bank, with printed money, of course.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane.html

The 13(3) loans that the FRBNY made were to AIG, and JP Morgan (to help facilitate their absorption of Bear Stearns). If you go to the FRBNY’s website, you can find some of the details under Maiden Lane I, II, and III.

There were certain members of Congress who wished to eliminate all 13(3) loans, as part of a Federal Reserve reform. There was a compromise. In the Bill, the Fed is restricted to making 13(3) to all except those institutions that are….wait for it…..too big too fail. That’s right. Now only the big banks can qualify for those loans. Do you think those big banks had any influence over that decision?

No one is denying the need for reasonable regulations with real enforcement. Unfortunately, we have neither. What the Austrians say, is that if we return to a gold standard, and raise the reserve requirements of the banks (or eliminate the Federal reserve completely), most of the regulations we have, would not be necessary. Banks would be “forced” to operate honestly. It would be automatic, in essence. People like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan tried to eliminate those regulations without making the necessary changes, first. That was the problem.

If you eliminate, or limit what the government has to sell, there’s less for the corporations to buy. A return to honest money and sound banking would limit the ability of the government to do “favors” for those large institutions.

The US has been under a gold standard for most of its history. The first time we went off a gold standard was to fund the Civil War. The second time, was to fund WWII. Both of those times only lasted a few years. The third time was in 1971, as a result of the spending on the Vietnam War. We have yet to return to a gold standard. The longest a country has ever survived without a gold standard is 43 years, IIRC. We are going on 40, and currently facing a monetary collapse. Since 2008, and TARP, the price of gold has gone from $700 to almost $1,300. That should tell you something.

OK. I know that example was simplified, but I believe the premises to be true. So, let me give you a real world example. It’s almost Fall, and the apples and fresh apple cider in season.

In the State of Pennsylvania, all apple cider producers are required by law to heat pasteurize their apple cider. In NJ, they are not.

http://www.moodsfarmmarket.com/index.html

Mood’s Farm Market in NJ is a small family owned farm that produces mostly apples and peaches. In the Fall, they produce fresh, non-heat pasteurized apple cider, that is out of this world. Unpasteurized cider has the risk of being contaminated with bacteria, but generally, if you keep it properly refrigerated, the worst that might happen is a case of the runs.

I guess it was about 10 years ago (I’m going from memory), a man and his family sued them, claiming that they had become violently ill form cider they purchased there. They even tried to convince the State of NJ to enact new regulations requiring the heat pasteurization of all cider sold to the public for “safety concerns”. Well, it turned out, that the man was from Pennsylvania, and he specifically traveled to NJ to purchase unpasteurized cider, because they don’t sell it in his state. The people that were lobbying the state, were apple producers from Pennsylvania (tried to pull a fast one).

I don’t know why Pennsylvania enacted the pasteurization laws, but I suspect that they were lobbied for by the large apple producers to place a burden on the smaller farms. The reason I say that, is because, also, in Pennsylvania, hard (alcoholic) cider is tax exempt, in the state.

So, if consumers are aware of the risks involved in purchasing unpasteurized cider, shouldn’t they be given the choice? If the producer’s insurance company is willing to insure them, and the producer is willing to pay the extra money in premiums, shouldn’t they be allowed to sell it? Or do we need regulations to “protect” consumers from making bad decisions?

The question of the cider is now moot, because of new technology, cider can be “cold-pasteurized”, by exposing it to UV light without affecting the flavor. However, there are still questions about the effectiveness of cold pasteurization. But as long consumers are aware of those risks, shouldn’t it be their decision, and not some bureaucrat’s? Do we really need the Nanny State to protect us, and are they really protecting us, or just doing favors for special interests?

I don’t know how many times i have to repeat this. Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman were NOT Austrian economists. They were “Chicago School” monetarists. You are a progressive, right? I don’t expect some of those ultra right wingers to be able to open a book and read, but I do expect an “educated” progressive to at least be able to do a Wiki search.

I’ve always believed that government is our only defense against corporate excesses, and that elected government, without the influence of special interests, is the preferable method of governance.

How? Our governemnt only responds to special interests. It is not possible for our government to respond to individuals. The government is responsive. It can only respond, it can’t predict. There are 300 million people in this country, it can not respond to the needs of every individual, so it must respond to groups, or “special interests”. Your problem, is that you want government to only respond to the groups that you think are important. At one time AARP was the largest lobbying group in Washington. The Unions are also big lobbyists. It’s OK for those special interest groups to lobby the government, right?

I suppose if you live in some Mid-Western shithole, where there is only one factory that everybody in town works for, then yes, you probably need a union. But things are different now. Workers can move from town to town much more easily than they could 50 years ago. However, the NE was built on entrepreneurship. That means there were several employers where workers could bargain individually with owners.

Farmer A has a crop of peppers that needs to be picked and packed. So he offers more money to attract those workers.  Farmer B has a field of cabbage that also needs to be picked and packed. Farmer A and farmer B must compete for the local labor in order to get the workers needed to get their produce to market before it rots in the field. And let’s not forget about farmer C,D and E. But, if there is only one giant farmer, he can pay whatever he wants, and if the workers don’t like it, they can go suck ass. There’s your Feudalism. One Lord owns the fields. Serfs are not allowed to own property because there are no private property rights. They must take what the Lord gives them, and like it. Adam Smith changed that.

Back to present day. Farmer A sacrificed, and didn’t buy that big screen plasma TV or any other frivolous goods. He was able to save his money, and use it as a down payment to buy more land, or clear more of the forest. With the added land, he had more to “leverage”, and was able to borrow more from the bank. Now, he didn’t want to have to compete with Farmer B for workers. So, he used the leveraged money to lobby local politicians to enact special regulations. He knows that his competition doesn’t have the money that he does, so they are not as able to deal with new regulations as easily as Farmer A. Farmer B can’t afford to pay his workers as much as Farmer A, so he loses workers, and loses his crops. But, Farmer A has payments to make on the loans that he used to expand and buy more land and “bribe” the local politicians. So Farmer A goes back to the politicians and asks for special tax breaks, and gets them. Since the town’s revenues decline, due to the tax exemptions given to Farmer A, they must raise taxes on everybody else. So, you see, the bigger companies specifically lobby the government for special regulations and taxes in order to achieve a competitive advantage. At this point, Farmer B is forced to sell his land at a reduced price, and Farmer A leverages more of his assets, or sells shares of ownership, thanks to an expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve, and buys Farmer B’s property at a discounted price. This was all the result of government intervention. Now, all the workers are stuck having to work for Farmer A or starve.

Fat Freddy

Let’s see…? Progressives are responsible for Christine O’Donnell? Is that correct? It seems like a very weird kind of circular logic,  but I’ll keep an open mind on this deal.

Libertarians are pro-free markets, but they are not pro-business, right?

If regulation is such a boon to corporations, why do they spend 100’s of millions of dollars on lobbyists to prevent regulation? Is it that corporations are too stupid to see that they are benefiting from regulation? Hum..? Now, there’s a thought that never occurred to me.

Is it true that regulations that protect consumers and workers are harmful to consumers and workers? Are you saying we need to deregulate in order to get on a level playing field with China, and places like the Martial Islands?

Unfortunately, I lack the necessary libertarian logic to get a grasp on the edicts of the theoretical Austrian School of Economics, so these edicts are lost on me.

Is it true that individualism is more advantageous to communities than communal cooperation?

Being a progressive, It never occurred to me that I’m responsible for corporate excesses, I guess I’ve got a lot to learn. I’ve always believed that government is our only defense against corporate excesses, and that elected government, without the influence of special interests, is the preferable method of governance. Maybe neo-feudalism is the best method of organizing a society, is that what you believe?

So… under neo-feudalism, would libertarian policies be considered an economic philosophy, an ideological belief, or a religion? I must admit to suffering from trepidations right now. Should I be afraid of neo-feudalism? It seems a little cultish to me.

It’s a little disheartening to realize that I’m a whining bleeding heart douchebag, thanks for not shoving it in my face, (especially the douchebag part.)

Thanks for the instructive post. I’ve always thought that Libertarians were a bunch of goofy dingbats, like Greenspan, Friedman, and the rest. Thanks for setting me straight. I can see now that the Austrian School of dingbatry is a totally new form of dingbatry.

Excuse me! Am I still in the way? Sorry… sorry… no problem, I’ll get out of the way … ... Am I O.K. now?

felicity

I believe you are starting to “get it”. Small businesses and small farms have been making a comeback in recent years (before the Great Recession). The reason is what the call “Urban Enterprise Zones” (UEZ) and “Payment in Lieu of Taxes (property tax). UEZ businesses are allowed to charge 3 1/2% sales tax, instead of 7%. They also get special deferments on sales taxes incurred by the business. Small farmers have been receiving special breaks as well.

Yes, corporations specifically lobby the government for regulations and taxes that hurt small businesses.  That has been going on for a while, now. Ever hear of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)? The problem is, the governemnt sells it to the people as “consumer protection”, among other things, something that progressives love to shove in people’s faces. More regulations and more taxes favor big corporations, and hurt small businesses. That is all I ever read on this blog; people advocating more taxes, and more regulation, but yet they piss and moan about the evil corporations. Progressives love big corporations, as long as they do what they are supposed to do. Libertarians believe in the spirit and innovation of the entrepreneur.

All large corporations started out as small businesses. Every single one.

“As entrepreneurs innovate, they reap economic rewards. Production then expands and new forms of economic organization emerge, such as the modern firm, which grows to capture economic opportunities. As the size of the firm increases, so too does its bureaucracy. The functions of ownership and control gradually separate. Eventually, the owners find that their connection to, and knowledge of, the economic process has been severed. They lose the ability to see the necessity of social institutions, such as private ownership and voluntary contract - institutions without which there would be no economic progress. Isolated from economic reality, their sympathy for the capitalist system begins to wane, and, with it, the social support for the institutions that form the foundation of capitalism. These render the capitalist system open to attack from hostile parties.”

- Joseph Schumpeter, Austrian Economist

See also: Creative Destruction

Basically what Schumpeter is saying, is that the large corporate firm is a flawed business model, and can only really exist for an extended period of time with direct government intervention. But see, according to progressives, libertarians only want to protect the big corporations and rich people. There’s a difference between being pro-free market, and pro-business. Progressives are afraid of life without the governemnt to protect them. But the government only wants to protect the big corporations and don’t give a rat’s ass about some whiny, bleeding heart douchebag. Yes, that’s cruel and mean, but it’s the truth. Deal with it, or get out of the way. Otherwise, we’ll be stuck with even more whack jobs like Christine O’Donnell.

Fat Freddy - Like the Welch’s Grape Juice company
that went big when it became part of National Grape
Co-operative Association, Inc. most small businesses
when faced with having to close their businesses when
they’re not making a profit or joining forces and
becoming part of a corporation, choose the latter -
certainly in line with free-market capitalism.

Corporations have tremendous clout in government and
it’s a good guess that the changes which you have
experienced in your town have happened because, in
the end, they benefit the larger corporations in your
state.  ‘Progressives’ don’t necessarily favor ‘big
government’ but what they do not favor is government
run by large corporations.

If I had a nickel for every politician that said that they were going to help small businesses, and actually followed through on it, my small business wouldn’t be small. In fact, I would be able to retire, comfortably, now, at age 44.

Both sides of my family go back 4 generations in a town that was a Utopian vision of a man named Charles Landis. The foundation of this Utopia, was small business entrepreneurship. Fortunately, we have excellent soil, and an abundant artesian aquifer which is perfect for farming fruit and vegetables.  Dr Welch developed his formula for Welch’s Grape Juice here.

For over 100 years small and medium sized businesses thrived here. Now, they are all but gone. The only clothing manufacturer still here is a company that manufactures class A uniforms for the military. The only chicken farm left is a Kosher one. Something happened in the 1970s. Something changed. Hmmm? What could that be? Unions? This was never a real big “union” town. In 1971, Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard and enacted price and wage controls. The State of NJ enacted an income tax, and property taxes began to rise. Later, the State of NJ created the NJ-DEP, to clean up all of the shit in Northern NJ, and forced their excess regulations, that were necessary in N Jersey, on South Jersey, where we respected the land and aquifer, for the most part.  That was the beginning of the end of Mr Landis’s Utopian society. Government. Screw you, “progressives”.

Read about him, and the town here, and here, and learn something useful.

Its time for the banks to be funding projects with the bail out money they recieved.

The Washington D.C. area is going to bust loose with public and private projects soon.  The planning and permitting phase has bogged down implementation over the years and it sucks.

Felicity:
(gasp)!

You mean a VIRTUAL person that can live for hundreds of years, a corporation, should NOW have to pay taxes like a REAL person?

What are you, some kinda Commie?

Next you’ll demand that they obey the LAW like real people—and that will be the end of civilization and the Commies and Islamofascists will take over and rule us!

Did I read that right?  A small business is a
business with less than 500 employees?  By that
definition, most law practices, medical practices,
and my neighbor across the street, a mortgage broker
who’s a one-man business and makes mega-bucks qualify
as a small business. 

Perhaps we should base tax policy on income level? 
And how about a tax system where a corporation like
GE which pays no tax as does Exxon-Mobile which pays
no tax in the US could maybe start to pay at least a
little tax?  They couldn’t function in the US without
the rest of us paying for all the crap we pay for -
like infra-structure - so they can do business.

ofersince72

You said a mouthful. Survive! that is all we can expect to do in the coming US generations. The major corporations have us used to working harder for less. welcome to the third world.

Hunter Thompson described todays america best when he said, “in a world of swine, only pigs are upward mobile”.

Most small business I deal with and have also run one of my own, have 1 or 2 employees. If any other workers are needed it is usually a family member and not an outsider who is chosen to work. I make custom regalia for the people who attend Native American activities, a very small market and am the only person working it.

According to the IRS it is considered a hobby as it sometimes has a break even or a loss at the end of the year. When times were better it did better, however I could never afford to “hire” anyone to work as there is not enough money made to do so. This is the “small business” I have been involved with from buying my supplies in which to make custom items, to selling a finished product.

I still do it hoping the economy will pick up and at least get to the point of showing a small profit again, but mostly it is something I love to do, even though it will never make much money, sometimes there are reasons other than to make money for doing some things.
If it ever came to a point of needing to hire another person, I would probably hire family who need the work and are able to do it over an unknown person. This is the type of small business than many of these out-of-touch Repugs and others who think that the tax cuts for the rich create jobs and that small business makes more jobs than big corps. They need to open their eyes and get real, small businesses are not the answer to high unemployment.

Very perceptive. In a recession, small businesses fail first and at a far greater rate than large ones.  They start by making cutbacks in an attempt to survive.

This isn’t just theory—it’s personal experience.  I worked for a small company for many years.  We had about 50 people when the partners, wanting to retire, sold the firm to a VC.  18 months later they closed their doors.  Meanwhile the next company I worked for, also small and about 50 people, have reduced their workforce to 30 people.  So in less than two years, two firms employing over 100 people, have resulted in 70 people losing their jobs, many of whom have not found subsequent employment.

Drive up and down any main drag anywhere and you’ll see the empty stores encroaching, like a dying forest encroaching on the living one.

Well, I don’t believe that there can be much “small”

business startups without a larger manufacturing base

to give reason for it.  At that, Chamber of Commerse

is of little help to employees of these small firms.

Wages are at survival rates, usually not much in the way

of health care provided for family.  Few vacations.
We’re just screwed….I feel so sorry for the young.
I remember getting out of the service in the early
seventies.  There was much competition for labor.
Oh well, we will learn to survive.