Gian lận ở các xứ văn minh "tinh vi, cao cấp" hơn

From: Mike Wilson Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 8:12 AM
Subject: USA doanh nghiệp ngày nay

doanh nghiệp ngày nay vẫn còn gian lận và bóc lột

chỉ tinh vi hơn thôi !

Hai thí dụ :

1. Volkswagen gian lận khói thải máy dầu cặn xe auto

2. Hãng thuốc Turing Pharmaceuticals
bóc lột bằng cách mua lại bản quyền
thuốc chống sưng do kí sinh (parasitic infection drug)
rồi tăng giá bán 1 viên từ 13,50 USD lên 750 USD !

nth-fl

https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/09/paul-krugman-dewey-cheatem-howe.html

Paul Krugman: Dewey, Cheatem & Howe
Republicans can”t help but side with business, but there are very good reasons for the recent increase in regulatory oversight:

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:
The C.E.O. of Volkswagen has resigned after revelations that his company committed fraud on an epic scale, installing software on its diesel cars that detected when their emissions were being tested, and produced deceptively low results.

Item: The former president of a peanut company has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for knowingly shipping tainted products that later killed nine people and sickened 700.

Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals, which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing drugs and jacking up their prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750. ...

There are, it turns out, people in the corporate world who will do whatever it takes, including fraud that kills people, in order to make a buck. And we need effective regulation to police that kind of bad behavior... But we knew that, right?

Well, we used to know it... But ... an important part of America”s political class has declared war on even the most obviously necessary regulations. ...

A case in point: This week Jeb Bush, who has an uncanny talent for bad timing, chose to publish an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal denouncing the Obama administration for issuing “a flood of creativity-crushing and job-killing rules.” Never mind his misuse of cherry-picked statistics, or the fact that private-sector employment has grown much faster under President Obama”s “job killing” policies than it did under Mr. Bush”s brother”s (George W. Bush, the son) administration. ...

The thing is, Mr. Bush isn”t wrong to suggest that there has been a move back toward more regulation under Mr. Obama, a move that will probably continue if a Democrat wins next year. After all, Hillary Clinton released a plan to limit drug prices at the same time Mr. Bush was unleashing his anti-regulation diatribe.

But the regulatory rebound is taking place for a reason (remember the 2007-2010 Deep Recession ? nth-fl) . Maybe we had too much regulation in the 1970s, but we”ve now spent 35 years trusting business to do the right thing with minimal oversight — and it hasn”t worked (remember the 2007-2010 Deep Recession ? nth-fl) .

So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year”s election will tell.