Malnutrition Deaths in Indian Tea Farms

India has among the worst malnutrition rates in the world - 47% for children under 5. One in every two children in India is malnourished and this is not due to lack of food in India or lack of money (sub-saharan africa is far poorer but only 33% malnutrition). And the rates and starvation deaths for citizens above age of 5 is not known neither is it highlighted by the media. But the numbers are shocking ... See this particular story on BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7022794.stm

t's just after dawn on the Ramjhora estate in northern Bengal. In this remote region, not far from India's border with Bhutan, tea has been the bedrock of the local economy for more than 150 years.

But five years ago this estate was shut down when the owner packed up abruptly leaving unpaid salaries and no alternative employment.

Weeds are now infesting the tea bushes, buildings are abandoned, and estate workers say that they have been slowly dying because they are not eating enough food.

Exact numbers are hard to pin down. But one study released recently estimates that more than 700 people have died in this region in little more than a year from malnutrition.

Starvation/Cholera Deaths

In many rural, especially tribal parts, starvation deaths have been increasing for the last few years. Very few ever get reported as these areas are remote and more importantly corporate media does not care. This story is from Orissa tribals. A very disheartening story.

People were eating leaves for several months. Imagine .....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6981548.stm

Are children are left behind by design?

Focus on test scores and evaluating schools and teachers based on these criteria alone has caused poorly performing and highly performing students to be left behind. No child left behind seems to work only for those students who are near proficiency levels as per this article.

Grading test-scores: Are children are left behind by design? | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from Europe's leading economists: "Many U.S. Children are Left Behind by Design"

Toy Recall Story

There have been two big toy recalls for toys made in China - both by Mattel (the company which sells them under its brand). And guess what who is to blame (as per the US media) - its the Chinese sub-contractor. Not Mattel which according to me would be the party responsible as its the one which is selling the thing under its brand - so bears responsibility of testing and manufacturing. But no one is blaming Mattel. It doesnt matter how much Mattel pushed the contractors on lower pricing, how lax it was on testing & standards, no questions asked on these aspects. The media is buying into what Mattel says which said "It provided the lead-free paint but subcontractor sold it and used other one" - so media repeats the same. Anything new?

Just change this case. If the same toys were sold but not in authorized store and royalties didnt go to Mattel but its name was used as Brand. Who would be to blame?. The Chinese sellers who copied Mattel's design and used its brand and sold it.

So Mattel earns most of the profit but no blame and enjoys. So welcome to the world of globalized manufacturing where the brand earns the money but no blame. What do u think?

Independence from What?

On the 60th Anniversary of Independence of India & Pakistan, I have this question:

Independence from what ?

Malnutriution: Both countries have among the highest malnutrituion rates in the world (even beating poor sub-saharan Africa). 50%. Just imagine 1 in 2 children in India are malnourished. At young age their oppurtunity to acheive anything is life is almost taken away ...

Women's Discrimination: South Asia has the worst record in the world on this account. It has among the lowest (less than 50%) female literacy rate, difference in number of school years between boys and girls is highest among the world, women's health is absymal, job opportunities are worse (most of the unorganized sector is composed of women).

Dalit Discrimination: Middle class has a tendency of saying that India does not discriminate now and reservations are all wrong. In a recent survey of discrimination in rural India it was found that

"Almost
27.6 per cent dalits are prevented from entering
police stations and 25.7 from ration shops; 33 per cent
public health workers refuse to visit dalit homes, and
23.5 per cent dalits still do not get letters delivered
to their homes. Segregated seating for dalits was found
in 30.8 per cent self-help groups and cooperatives, and
29.6 per cent panchayat offices. In 14.4 per cent
villages, dalits were not permitted to enter the
panchayat building. They were denied access to polling
booths, or forced to form separate lines in 12 per cent
of the villages surveyed." (Refer to article below for more details)

I can go on and on .... There are so many aspects we are unfree. Its a shame ....

Agreed that India's GDP growth is more than 8% for past two years, poverty has reduced (though who knows how much), we have the highest number of millionaries/billionaries in Asia (Economic times report), we are knowledge centers of world and what not. But does this all matter and hold infront of these other facts above. To me thats a definate NO.

What do you think?


===================
Attaching an excellent article by Harsh mander:

Cry Freedom!

Harsh Mander

In a dilapidated slum shanty near the banks of the Ganga
in Patna is settled a group of families whose profession
is to clean dry toilets with their bare hands, and to
carry human waste on their heads to throw into the
forgiving waters of the mighty river. I found that not a
single child studied in the government school, which, as
it happened, was located literally just across the road
from the scavenger colony. It took a while to coax from
the guardians the reason for their steady resolve to
keep their children away from school. It transpired that
they had indeed sent their children to the school
initially. It is a custom in many government schools for
the teacher to send children on errands. The upper-caste
children were assigned tasks such as to fetch tea. The
children from the scavenger colony were asked to wash
the toilets, or to clean up after a dog had soiled the
school premises. The children could not bear the shame,
and refused to return to the school.

Of the many forms of untouchability that persist in
modern India, unarguably the most unconscionable is the
wide prevalence of discrimination against dalit children
within schools. Children in rural India, and even parts
of the cities, learn early the rules of caste, which
survive unremittingly through their lifetimes, even as
their country races into the 21st century. A survey of
practices of untouchability undertaken in 565 villages
in 11 major states of India reveals shockingly that in
as many as 38 per cent government schools, dalit
children are made to sit separately while eating. In 20
per cent schools, dalit children are not even permitted
to drink water from the same source.

As the outcome of a major direction of the Supreme Court
of India, millions of children in most government
primary schools in the country are being provided hot,
cooked, mid-day meals everyday. The mid-day meal
programme not only strengthens the nutrition of children
in government schools, many of whom are poor and do not
have access to sufficient and nutritious food in their
homes, it also encourages enrolment into schools,
retention and regular attendance.

But an equally important outcome is that since children
of all castes and classes sit together and eat, it
teaches them caste equality. Traditionally, caste and
communal barriers are expressed most in the refusal to
eat together; therefore, people of diversity sitting
together gently can shatter a range of iniquitous social
practices, and what better place for this to happen than
the school?

However, there are disturbing field studies of caste
discrimination within schools. Caste discrimination in
mid-day meals is seen in various ways. The first is
defiance of the Supreme Court orders to appoint cooks
from dalit backgrounds. In states like Tamil Nadu only
14 per cent of the cooks are dalit.

In many places where, although, dalit cooks have been
appointed, upper-caste parents retaliated by not
allowing their children to eat the meal, threatening to
withdraw, putting pressure to replace the cook with an
upper-caste cook and so on.

The other forms of discrimination are where children
are not allowed to sit together and eat. Dalit children
are required to sit apart from the dominant caste
children; sometimes apart within the same space, other
times outside of the school building while the dominant
caste children sit inside, or on a lower level than
their dominant caste peers. Some studies have also
shown that dalit children are required to bring their
own plates and/or are given less quantity of food,
refused a second serving, not allowed to drink water
from the public taps and hand pump at the school and
so on.

The recently released report of perhaps the first
nationwide survey of the continued prevalence of
untouchability, jointly authored by social scientists
Ghanshyam Shah, Sukhadeo Thorat, Satish Deshpande,
Amita Baviskar and myself
(Untouchability in Rural India, Sage), finds such
untouchability in all local state institutions. Almost
27.6 per cent dalits are prevented from entering
police stations and 25.7 from ration shops; 33 per cent
public health workers refuse to visit dalit homes, and
23.5 per cent dalits still do not get letters delivered
to their homes. Segregated seating for dalits was found
in 30.8 per cent self-help groups and cooperatives, and
29.6 per cent panchayat offices. In 14.4 per cent
villages, dalits were not permitted to enter the
panchayat building. They were denied access to polling
booths, or forced to form separate lines in 12 per cent
of the villages surveyed. Despite being charged with a
constitutional mandate to promote social justice, local
institutions of the Indian State facilitate
untouchability.

Dalit settlements are often segregated from the main
village, and these traditions are reproduced even by
the government, when building Indira Awaas housing
colonies for dalits or by NGOs, post-2001 earthquake
reconstruction in Gujarat. In nearly half the surveyed
villages (48.4 per cent), dalits were denied access to
water sources. In over a third (35.8 per cent), dalits
were denied entry into village shops. They had to wait
some distance from the shop, the shopkeepers kept the
goods they bought on the ground, and accepted their
money similarly without direct contact. In teashops, in
about one-third of the villages, dalits were denied
seating and had to use separate cups.

In more than 47 per cent villages, bans operated on
wedding processions on public (arrogated as upper-caste)
roads. In 10 to 20 per cent villages, dalits were not
allowed to wear clean or bright clothes or sunglasses.
They could not ride their bicycles, unfurl their
umbrellas, wear chappals on public roads, smoke or even
stand without head bowed.

We found that restrictions on entry by dalits into Hindu
temples were as high as an average of 64 per cent in 11
states, ranging from 47 per cent in UP to 94 per cent in
Karnataka. Such restrictions endured even after
conversion of dalits to egalitarian faiths. As many as 41
of the 51 villages surveyed in Punjab reported separate
gurudwaras for dalit Sikhs, and even where dalits
worshipped in gurudwaras frequented by upper caste jats,
they were served in separate lines at the langar, and
were not permitted to prepare or serve the sacred food.
In Maharashtra, despite mass conversions of Mahars to
Buddhism, dalits were denied temple entry in 51 per cent
villages. Reports from Kerala and Andhra Pradesh
chronicled divisions in the church between dalit converts
and others, even discrimination against ordained dalit
priests.

Untouchability persists even into death; in half the
villages (48.9 per cent) dalits were debarred from access
to cremation grounds. In Maharashtra, even where dalits
have their segregated cremation grounds, these are
permitted only on the eastern side of the village, so
that upper castes are not polluted by the winds that pass
from west to east.

The study reports discrimination against dalits even in
the labour market. Although normally dalits are coerced
into agricultural labour in unfavourable conditions,
sometimes even of bondage, they are excluded in the lean
agricultural season when work is scarce, and therefore
upper-caste workers are preferred. In 25 per cent of the
villages, dalits were paid lower wages than other workers.
They were subjected to longer working hours, delayed wages,
verbal and physical abuse, not just in 'feudal' states
like Bihar but notably in Punjab. In 37 per cent of the
villages, dalits were paid wages from a distance, to avoid
physical contact. The study found evidence of
discrimination between non-dalit and dalit workers,
evidence of caste surmounting proletarian solidarity.

Although the large majority of dalits are landless, even
in the fewer cases where dalits were landowners, they were
denied access to water for irrigation in more than
one-third of the villages. In 21 per cent villages, they
were denied access to grazing lands and fishing ponds, and
violent upper caste opposition was reported when dalits
were allotted government lands for cultivation or even
housing.

Untouchability extended even to consumer markets with
dalit producers in 35 per cent villages barred from
selling their produce in local markets. They were forced
to sell in the anonymity of distant urban markets where
caste identities blur, but this additional burden of costs
and time reduced their competitiveness. Caste taboos apply
particularly to products like milk, so that in 47 per cent
of the villages with cooperatives, dalits were not allowed
to sell milk to the co-operatives or even private buyers.
In a quarter of the villages, they were prevented from
buying milk from cooperatives. Dalits are not only
disproportionately burdened with poverty to start with,
caste discrimination in labour and consumer markets
condemn them to lower wages with harder work in uncertain
employment, and restrictions on their access to natural
resources as well as markets for their products.

With untouchability persisting unashamedly in State
institutions like schools and police stations, in public
spaces like temples and shops, in farms and markets, and
in homes and hearts, the dalit still lives in India
waiting hopelessly, and sometimes in anger, for the long
betrayed dawn of equality.

The writer is a former civil servant and Convener, Aman Biradari

Book Reviews & Discussion: Economic Development & Policies

Good Discussion after the review of the books. Chang's response is great.

FT.com / Books / Non-Fiction - The growth of nations

Novartis & Patents

In a case filed by Novartis in an Indian court in Chennai, it had challenged ruling by a court which had rejected its patent. As per Indian Patent Law, patents are given only for "substantially innovative' new drugs and not for "incremental" improvements in older drugs. This novartis was claiming was against the WTO rules. The Indian court rejected it. Initial reports said that court said it had no juridistion to rule about WTO compliance of the Patent law.

In most of the countries Novartis has obtained patent for the drug in question as Patent rules are different in other countries. The case was of importance because if court had ruled the other way it would have stopped generic drug companies in India producing various drugs for the developing world (especially the AIDS drugs).

The "incremental" patents which drug companies seek are a way to increase the patent life time of the older drugs and maintain monopoly power. In most countries as pharmaceutical industry has huge lobbying power they have being able to get these patents - through chaning laws. But in India, I am guessing mostly due to public protest and Generic drug lobby this was not in the patent law.

Atleast for now drug companies lose. But who knows what techniques they come up with to subvert these rules .....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/business/worldbusiness/07drug.html?hp

Bottled Water: PepsiCo to come clean on Aquafina water source

Finally at least Pepsi will state that water is bottles is coming from a public tap (which you can use for free and is enviornment friendly). BTW New York City tap water is supposed to be the cleanest you will find in the country and exceeds highest quality standard.

reportonbusiness.com: PepsiCo to come clean on Aquafina water source

Generics, Non-profits & Corporations

An excellent article which indicates how drug companies have used non-profit organizations as front to lobby for legislation in various states to stop generic drugs (epilepsy drugs in this example) on the grounds that generics can be harmful/not effective as compared to branded drugs, even though pro-industry FDA has denied any such claims and they have no proof. If you read through you will understand the various intricacies corporations go through and how blatantly it all takes place. Mind you this is from the pro-corporation Wall Street Journal, so tough to deny even for mainstream folks saying its hog-posh. Teaches you one clear lesson, dont buy what non-profits say without going into depth into their funding sources.
This is not first time non-profits are being used. Walmart funds some non-profits which have praised the "good" qualities of walmart and fought in lobbying for walmart. Exxon funds non-profits and uses them for different purposes. Corporate funding of non-profits ....
Just one of the several examples of corporations "work" ...


PILL PUSH
Industry Fights Switch
To Generics for Epilepsy
Big Drug Makers Help
Patient Groups Lobby;
More Attention to States
By SARAH RUBENSTEIN
July 13, 2007; Page A1

In state legislatures across the country, the Epilepsy Foundation has been campaigning for bills that would make it harder for pharmacists to switch patients to inexpensive generic epilepsy pills. The effort is getting behind-the-scenes support from drug companies -- a sign of how the industry, long a potent lobbying force in Washington, is increasingly looking to states to achieve its goals.

The foundation, a nonprofit group supported by the drug industry, says switching to generics could cause dangerous seizures. The Food and Drug Administration says it hasn't seen persuasive evidence for that, and it believes each generic is equivalent to the brand-name drug it copies.

Four major brand-name drugs used for epilepsy are expected to lose patent protection and face generic competition between next year and 2010. Those four drugs generated $5 billion in U.S. sales last year, according to IMS Health, meaning the state legislation could have a significant bottom-line impact. Some of the $5 billion figure reflects sales of the drugs for other ailments.

Generic drugs are the centerpiece of efforts to tame growth in America's prescription-drug bill, which topped $270 billion in 2006. When a doctor writes a prescription for a brand-name drug, pharmacists are usually permitted in most states to make an automatic switch to a generic judged equivalent by the FDA.

The epilepsy legislation would carve out an exception to that rule, with many of the bills requiring that doctors explicitly approve such a switch. Tennessee has passed a weaker version that requires doctor notification but not consent. Around 25 other states have considered some form of restriction in the past year.
ON THE TABLE

[model legislation]
Model legislation the national Epilepsy Foundation has provided to state affiliates to address concerns about epilepsy-drug substitution:
A pharmacist may not interchange an anti-epileptic drug or formulation of an anti-epileptic drug, brand or generic, for the treatment of seizures (epilepsy) without prior notification of and the signed informed consent of such interchange from the prescribing physician and patient, or patient's parent, legal guardian or spouse of such person.
Source: Epilepsy Foundation

It isn't the only health issue where states have been the central battleground. Earlier this year, Merck & Co. drew fire for lobbying states to require that preteen girls receive its cervical-cancer vaccine to attend school. Merck stopped its direct lobbying in February, but a group of female state legislators that has received funding from the drug maker continue to push for the laws.

States often move faster than Congress, says Jan Faiks, who runs state policy for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the drug industry's trade group. State legislation can move "from idea, to passage, to governor's signature in 90 days, sometimes faster than that," she says. "So the action is in the states."

Campaign contributions to state candidates by pharmaceutical manufacturers and their employees rose to about $8.8 million for 2006 from about $4.6 million for 2000, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Drug makers spent more than $44 million on state lobbying in 2003 and 2004, the last years for which figures are available, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

In state legislatures, as in Congress, the drug industry often enlists nonprofit health and patient-advocacy groups to advance its agenda. In the epilepsy case, the Epilepsy Foundation's state affiliates, rather than the companies, are taking the most prominent part in the lobbying.

The foundation and its state affiliates receive funding from the epilepsy-drug makers. GlaxoSmithKline PLC and UCB SA donated $500,000 to $999,999 each in fiscal 2006 to the national foundation, according to its annual report. Abbott Laboratories and a Johnson & Johnson unit each contributed $100,000 to $499,999. Representatives of four drug companies sit on the foundation's board, as does PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin.
[Top Treatments]

The foundation and its affiliates had about $77 million in revenue in 2005, about $48 million of which came from state and federal grants.

The foundation says its diverse funding base shields it from undue drug-company influence, and the industry executives on its board didn't participate in discussions of the drug-switching issue. Foundation leaders note that the state bills would generally require doctor permission for several kinds of switches, including when a patient goes from a generic to a brand.

"These are people's lives that we're talking about -- nothing about stock options and stock value and how this would affect [companies'] bottom line. That would be insulting to us to have discussions like that," says Sindi Rosales, the head of a foundation affiliate in Texas, one of the states that weighed legislation this year. She says pharmaceutical companies are "fabulous partners" and their help in several areas "has been amazingly tremendous," but the companies leave it to the foundation to call the shots.

For their part, company executives describe their lobbying role as limited and say the bills were primarily an initiative of the foundation, although they acknowledge in certain cases that company officials have gotten directly involved. Executives say the aim of these activities is to protect the health of patients. "Our issue is not selfish toward our individual product," says Richard Denness, a vice president at Belgium-based UCB. "It's a real concern in the minds of prescribers.... All it takes in the scheme of things are one or two patients to have a tragic event."

In the late 1990s, the national Epilepsy Foundation, based in Landover, Md., raised concerns about anecdotal reports that some patients experienced seizures and side effects after switching epilepsy drugs. Some of the episodes involved patients who had been switched to a generic from a branded drug. The foundation also worried about cases in which patients were switched from one generic version of a drug to another generic version of the same drug.

When the FDA approves generics, it requires manufacturers to show in human studies that their copycat pills deliver a similar amount of active ingredient to the bloodstream as the brand-name original. However, the agency doesn't require exact equivalence. That would be an impossible bar to clear, because there is always a slight variation in the way people absorb drugs.

The foundation theorized that some generic pills had a meaningful difference from the brands. This difference, it postulated, meant patients were getting more or less of the drug in their blood, causing some of them to have seizures or side effects. Foundation officials floated the idea in a 1999 meeting with the FDA.

The FDA's response: "Show us the data," recalls Sandy Finucane, who oversees state and federal policy for the foundation. The agency, unpersuaded by what it saw, stood firm in its long-held position that the difference was too small to have a tangible impact on patients.
[chart]

Coming up with the kind of evidence the FDA sought would have required a major clinical trial to demonstrate that the seizures were a direct result of the switches, Ms. Finucane says. The foundation thought it would be difficult to enroll patients for such a trial, and the costs were prohibitive, she says. For years the foundation didn't push the matter, beyond developing policy statements and encouraging patients and doctors to report problems to the FDA.

In early 2006, the issue re-emerged as legislation requiring doctor permission for switches was proposed in Illinois. That's the home state of Abbott Laboratories, which makes Depakote, a leading epilepsy pill that is expected to face generic competition next year. The bill passed, but in watered-down form. An Epilepsy Foundation official in Illinois says Abbott helped fund lobbying for stronger provisions that were considered this year but didn't pass. Abbott said it supports some foundation initiatives but declined to give specifics.

In May 2006, the national Epilepsy Foundation convened a committee of medical experts to examine the question. The committee found a lack of authoritative studies showing that such drug switches cause problems, says its chairman, Steven Schachter, a Harvard Medical School neurologist. Nonetheless, it recommended that doctors give explicit approval for switches, citing anecdotal reports of seizures and noting that such attacks can be serious.

Last fall, the American Academy of Neurology issued a statement making a similar recommendation. The academy says it receives funding from drug makers for educational programs but not for developing medical guidelines.

At a meeting last September, the national foundation told its local affiliates that if they wanted to push for legislation regulating switches, the foundation would provide model legislation and support, Ms. Finucane says. It also told them to "maintain independence from any company that's going to be interested in this issue," she adds. The 50-plus affiliates operate largely autonomously.

The sponsor of a bill in Georgia, state Rep. Charlice Byrd, says a UCB official was the first person to raise the epilepsy-drug switching issue with her. The Belgian company makes the epilepsy drug Keppra. Ms. Byrd says she was sympathetic because her late mother had epilepsy.

Charlotte Thompson, who joined the foundation's Georgia affiliate as executive director last September, says she became aware of the bill after hearing about it from UCB. "When we realized [Rep. Byrd] was introducing this and looked at it and studied what it was, then we jumped on the bandwagon," Ms. Thompson says. Six lobbyists for three companies joined a committee created by the Epilepsy Foundation to work on the legislative process, she says.

Ms. Byrd says several pharmaceutical-company lobbyists offered their support. Abbott lobbyist Guy Mosier "was extremely helpful working with legislators to help them understand the importance and that this piece of legislation was strictly for patient protection," Ms. Byrd says. Mr. Mosier declined to comment.

Ms. Byrd introduced the bill in the Georgia House in January of this year. At a Feb. 7 hearing of the House's health committee, Lasa Joiner, executive director of the Georgia Psychiatric Physicians Association, testified in support. Ms. Joiner was at the time also a Glaxo lobbyist, which she didn't mention at the hearing. In an interview, she said she didn't raise her tie to Glaxo because the company hadn't asked her to lobby for the bill.

Two days later, epilepsy patients and parents of patients visited lawmakers' offices to ask them to support the bill. The Epilepsy Foundation's Ms. Thompson says drug-company lobbyists accompanied the visitors.

Kimberly Oviedo says her 6-year-old daughter had seizures last year after being switched to a generic version of the epilepsy drug Zonegran. She says she supported the bill because she wouldn't "want any other person to have to go through what we've been through with our kids." Ms. Oviedo also has a son who suffers from epilepsy.

The bill passed the Georgia House in a 161-0 vote on Feb. 28, but it stalled in the Senate after groups representing pharmacists and generic-drug makers mounted heftier opposition to it in that chamber. Pharmacies often earn bigger profit margins on generics than on branded drugs.

Ms. Thompson says the foundation plans to meet with the Georgia Senate leadership this summer to try to gather its support for next year.

In Texas, two local Epilepsy Foundation affiliates decided to approach an Abbott official after they resolved to push for a bill, says Ms. Rosales, the head of one of the affiliates. Abbott and other drug makers helped fund the foundation's Texas lobbying, she says.

Ms. Rosales, whose daughter used to have seizures, says she felt deeply about the bill but worried about being perceived as a "mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry." She nonetheless hired Santos Alliances, a firm that also represents PhRMA, as her affiliate's lobbyist. Ms. Rosales says it's difficult to find a health-care lobbyist with no drug-maker clients. Frank Santos, head of the lobbying firm, says PhRMA was "absolutely 100% not involved" with the bill.

At a March hearing in the Texas Senate, Ron Hartmann, a lobbyist for a generic-drug maker owned by Novartis AG of Switzerland, testified against the bill. He said he suspected the bill was "less focused on the citizens of Texas than on protecting the market share of a few brand-name drugs that are scheduled to go off-patent in the next few years."

State Sen. Kyle Janek, the bill's sponsor, responded that Mr. Hartmann had "impugned my motivations," and added that, if Mr. Hartmann would "abstain from doing that," then he would abstain from calling Mr. Hartmann a "high-priced shill." Mr. Hartmann apologized. In 2006, Sen. Janek received about $19,000 in campaign contributions from drug makers. He says he sponsored the bill because it was in the best interests of patients.

The bill passed the state Senate in April, but failed to come up to a vote in the House after debate in that chamber's health committee. Three of the committee's members said in interviews later that they were skeptical of the bill because they thought it was being pushed by drug companies. Generic-drug makers and pharmacists lobbied heavily against the bill.

Meanwhile, some doctors are pushing harder for a study that would settle the matter. Michel Berg, a neurologist who is chairman of an American Epilepsy Society task force examining the switching issue, has opened discussions with the FDA about what kind of trial would be necessary.

For now, Gary Buehler, the director of the FDA's office of generic drugs, says the agency is skeptical that the drug switches cause seizures. "The only way you can somehow pin this down is to do a good study," says Mr. Buehler.

"Relief" Packages - Farmers / Exporters

Do you remmember the Vidharba Farmer's relief package (well to be honest it was not a worthwhile package to give any "relief")?. Well it came after several years of farmer suicides numbering thousands and was withdrawn after one year by Maharastra govt. Actually it gave money mostly to banks who didnt implement most of the package.

But Exporters within six months of Ruppee Appreciating by 10% got a "relief Package". Its a pretty big package & comparable in sheer size to farmer relief package.

Just compare: the suffering - loss in profits for expoerters to loss in lives for farmers, the swiftness with which this package was passed vs years of inaction by PM on farmer suicide package, the media demand for the export package (there have been many front page articles by mainstream media demanding export package and finance/commerce/PM have had several meetings with exporters on this vs. very few articles for relief packages demand for farmers and well virtually no attention until the end given by any ministry - not even the agricultural ministry headed by Sharad Pawar who hails from Maharastra.

And will I see any mainstream economists raising their voices against this clearly anti-market government intervention (atleast in their opinion). I doubt it. All this exporters relief just to maintain our export numbers, is it worth it?. Obviously not. But the comparison with farmer's package really disgusts me.

Exporters get Rs 1400 cr compensation package
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=11&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=25359

Rewriting American Law to Pro-corporations

Contiuning in its ruling the conservative majority Supreme court today overturned two lon-standing decisions made by older Supreme courts. In its current session Supreme court has ruled on four anti-trust cases where it has sided with defening party (corporations). So now as a result of these rulings its very difficult to sue a bank/investment bank for fraud when they sell IPO's, its far tougher for investors to sue corporate management for alleged fraud, its not illegal if corporations join together and set minimum prices for products (basically nobody can sell below those prices so "competition"). Its difficult to sue corporations for wage discrimination (you have to sue within 180 days after you receive the pay, no matter that you come to know of discrimination years later)

Further it opened a big loophole in campaign finance law by which interest groups can advertise on behalf of candidates even just before elections, schools cant increase diversity in schools (Seattle school case) by taking race as a factor.

Most decisions set aside previously given decisions by Supreme Court, overruling earlier rulings. Most of them are blantantly unfair and biased, you dont need to be a law student/lawyer to understand that in these decisions. These decisions were not a matter of technicality but clearly ideologically lead.

Media Reaction: Well as far as New York times goes it has reported on the cases but if you look carefully in opinion pieces very few (almost none) of the pro-corporate decisions have being given lot of coverage or criticism. they have criticised te campaign finance thing and some other but nothing in which investment banks were left free even if they commit fraud. Not surprising given the state of the media. Also Wall Street Journal obviously hasnt criticised pro-corporation decisions. I havent looked in detail to other mainstream media outlets but expect similar reaction.

This Supreme court on domestic issues can rewrite US laws and it has a long term (given most conservative judges are young and they server till they die usually).

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Schools-Race.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Kays-Kloset.html?hp

Rewriting American Law to Pro-corporations

Contiuning in its ruling the conservative majority Supreme court today overturned two lon-standing decisions made by older Supreme courts. In its current session Supreme court has ruled on four anti-trust cases where it has sided with defening party (corporations). So now as a result of these rulings its very difficult to sue a bank/investment bank for fraud when they sell IPO's, its far tougher for investors to sue corporate management for alleged fraud, its not illegal if corporations join together and set minimum prices for products (basically nobody can sell below those prices so "competition"). Its difficult to sue corporations for wage discrimination (you have to sue within 180 days after you receive the pay, no matter that you come to know of discrimination years later)

Further it opened a big loophole in campaign finance law by which interest groups can advertise on behalf of candidates even just before elections, schools cant increase diversity in schools (Seattle school case) by taking race as a factor.

Most decisions set aside previously given decisions by Supreme Court, overruling earlier rulings. Most of them are blantantly unfair and biased, you dont need to be a law student/lawyer to understand that in these decisions. These decisions were not a matter of technicality but clearly ideologically lead.

Media Reaction: Well as far as New York times goes it has reported on the cases but if you look carefully in opinion pieces very few (almost none) of the pro-corporate decisions have being given lot of coverage or criticism. they have criticised te campaign finance thing and some other but nothing in which investment banks were left free even if they commit fraud. Not surprising given the state of the media. Also Wall Street Journal obviously hasnt criticised pro-corporation decisions. I havent looked in detail to other mainstream media outlets but expect similar reaction.

This Supreme court on domestic issues can rewrite US laws and it has a long term (given most conservative judges are young and they server till they die usually).

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Schools-Race.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Kays-Kloset.html?hp

Inequality increase in US

Summers on Inequality

Some interesting data points from the article:

"...from Congressional Budget Office data that, since 1979, changes in income distribution had raised the pre-tax incomes of the top 1 per cent of the population by $664bn or $600,000 per family – an increase of 43 per cent."

"The lower 80 per cent of families are $664bn poorer than they would be with a static income distribution, which works out to $7,000 less in income per family or a 14 per cent loss."

These data clearly shows as argued in the article that policies just focussing on economic growth are not enough. No concrete policy alternatives are provided in the article.

Why are child malnutrition levels not improving?

Malnutitution levels in India are among the worst in the world. Nearly 50% of Indian children are malnourished!!!!

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Why are child malnutrition levels not improving?: "Why are child malnutrition levels not improving?

India’s tardy performance can be traced to the limited progress in providing basic health care."

SEZ Saga continues .....

Background on what are SEZ: SEZ's can be viewed as islands within India where infrastrucutre is provided by SEZ owner - the corporation and various industries are set up. In return companies within SEZ's dont have to pay income tax for atleast 5 years and then part income tax. The other benefits are no custom duties and excise duty (SEZ is considered foreign for these tax purposes). The condition on SEZ is that they have to be a net exporter. Net atleast $1 should be the foriegn currency earned out of SEZ (which is a relatively simple requirment). Estimated cost of this policy to the nation over 10 years is Rs. 1,00,000 Crore in lost tax revenue or more as per the Finance Ministry of India.

After Nandigram SEZ approvals throughout the country were put on a hold till further notice. It was said that there is a "National Rehabiltation Policy" which is being discussed and once thats finalized SEZ's approvals will start.

Fast Forward 4 months and the "National Rehabilitaion Policy" is still draft version in the ministries, but SEZ approvals have started. Infact around more than 100 more SEZ's have got approval after that. Well there was one series of changes in the SEZ policy which were announced. Those were

1. size of SEZ is being restricted to 5000 hectares or sth. (Reality: To get around it corporations are now breaking up SEZs so that in contigous its more than 5000 hectares but any single SEZ is not large.
"Though RIL initially planned a single SEZ in Navi Mumbai, sources said it later decided to split the zone into four projects in order to bypass the contiguity issue and avoid procedural roadblocks." )

2. Now earlier 75% of SEZ land could be used for housing/retail - basically non-industry and only rest 25% land must be used for industry. That limit was increased to 50%. on 50% of SEZ land its housing and real estate.

Also now govt doesnt acquire the land it asks corporations to deal with it directly with farmers (though state govt. usually put in restrictions for sale of land other than to the SEZ owner - that was the case in Maharastra case atleast a few months back).

So basically nothing substantially changed in SEZ policy. There was noise for some time but now everything is hunky-dorry. The left parties also dont protest now as they are doing the same in West.

Notice I have not even raised the issue of land acquisitions and how bad they get. Even leaving that aside that, this is a CORPORATE SUBSIDY. More later on "flawed" rationale for SEZ's.

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=167987

US Supreme Court & Corporations

In the last two weeks or so US supreme court has given 4 judgements pro-corporations against investors/consumers. And they are very plainly pro-corporation - you dont require to stretch your imagination to any degree. All make tougher to sue corporations for things like plain fraud to wage dicrimination to
1. Supreme Court sides with business again
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/21/PM200706211.html
An 8-1 Supreme Court ruling will make it more difficult for investors to bring class action lawsuits that allege they've been ripped off by companies committing securities fraud.

2.
Supreme Court sides with banks
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/18/PM200706182.html
Supreme Court justices have ruled that Wall Street investment banks and stock brokers are immune from antitrust lawsuits that challenge the banks' and brokers' cooperation when they float IPOs.

3.
A big day for business at the Supreme Court
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/11/PM200706111.html?refid=0
The Supreme Court released four, unanimous business-related opinions today. There was some bad news for Big Tobacco. And, as Steve Henn reports, it wasn't such a good day for unions either.


4.
High Court Vs. Working Women
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/09/1765/
On May 29, the Bush Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts delivered what could be a devastating blow to women experiencing discrimination in pay and promotion.

All due to pro-corporate justices choices made over the years.

Private sector shining, govt tarnished ??

Another article showing how free marketers twist things around. India shining has been twisted to saying "Private sector shining, govt tarnished". It basically gives some numbers criticizing the govt. schemes are praises private sector.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Private_sector_shining_govt_tarnished/articleshow/2076743.cms

Notice the people who are thought to be responsible for this -

" But 90% of civil servants are clerks and chaprasis, and less than 10% are Class I and II officers. Will the Congress reverse the ratio? Will it sack chaprasis and clerks while increasing the number of officers, judges, teachers and other badly needed staff? "

"Will the Congress empower parents' committees or panchayats to withhold salaries of errant teachers?"

" Subsidies remain at 14% of GDP.."

No mention in this of the more than Rs. 1 Lakh Crore of SEZ corporate subsidy and the other subsidies given in form of land transfers and other benefits in the article. No mention of Rs. 10,000 crore in export incentive. No mention of the lowest tax-GDP ratio India has (~10%) [ in Europe it is ~40%, in US its 25% ] which India has, no mention of farmer suicides or their distress due to govt's penchant to open up agricultural sector. No mention of Mid-day meal scheme's success or the growing inequality or of the not-yet-passed Right to Education Bill (6 years and still pending).

I agree with some points in the article on how some of the subsidies are structured (LPG or Petrol subsidies, fertilizer subsidy) but most other points are just selective looking at numbers (looking at numbers which dont show the complete picture like GDP growth rate or teacher absentism without looking at why). Anyway be careful with these numbers they can deceive very easily.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Private_sector_shining_govt_tarnished/articleshow/2076743.cms

Pinkyshow: Interresting short clips on things that matter

Other videos: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=pinkyshow

US Income Inequality & Potrayal in Mainstream

Income inequality is considered a non-issue in the laize faire world. There are several arguments given against taking it seriously. One of the arguments which this article tries to make is - it does not matter. equality brings instability it seems. Also its a difficult thing to get hold of so lets not bother with it. (economic text/professors treat it that way mostly)

The first para shows the income & productivity divide (showing that capital owners are earning more % as compared to labor). But in next para this is sort of looked over by the author saying it doesnt matter because economy iss more stable now.

"

Pay gains diverged. In early postwar decades, compensation increases crudely paralleled productivity gains -- improvements in efficiency. From 1950 to 1973, productivity rose 97 percent. Over the same period, median compensation of male high school graduates aged 35-44 rose 95 percent (after inflation); for college graduates 35-44, the increase was 106 percent. Those in the top one-half of 1 percent received only a 37 percent gain. From 1980 to 2005, productivity increased 71 percent. Median compensation for high school graduates dropped 4 percent, and compensation for college graduates rose only 24 percent. For those in the top one-half of 1 percent, it jumped 89 percent.

Comparisons such as these evoke images of greedy CEOs and hedge fund managers. But the story is more complicated. On the whole, the economy that produces these growing inequalities outperforms the one that created more statistical equality. The norms and practices highlighted by Levy and Temin collapsed mainly because they no longer worked. The idea that everyone's wages should reflect inflation plus a few percentage points worsened both inflation and stability. There were four recessions between 1969 and 1981; by then, inflation was 10 percent and mortgage rates 15 percent. Productivity growth had plunged.

Greater competition -- from imports, deregulation, new technologies -- also doomed pattern wage-setting. Companies with lax pay practices lost sales and profits. Consider GM, Ford and Chrysler as Exhibit A.

Economic inequality is an intellectual quagmire, because its origins and consequences are so murky. Contrary to popular belief, for example, it has not prevented most Americans from getting ahead. Consider families with children. A study by the Congressional Budget Office finds that from 1991 to 2005 income gains averaged 35 percent for the poorest fifth of these households, 19 percent for the middle three-fifths and 53 percent for the richest fifth. [ Put here the fact that now far more families have both parents working and longer than before ] But their gains have decreased slightly since 2000. Here's another twist to the discussion: Today's immigration aggravates inequality, because so many new immigrants are poor and unskilled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060501765.html

National family Health survey - India

Though I believe statistics dont necessarily show the true picture - because means and averages(and other measures) remove the sense of effect on the most suffering groups - these statistics are pretty bad even when discounting the above fact. Not that I have seen them first time but each time you see them they somehow get more and more shocking. Though some things show that problems are not unsolvable - there seems to be high correlation between education of women and their age of marriage, fertility rates, time of their first child (other factors also do contribute to that but still relationship is strong). At the same time two factors malnutrition and gender bias (especially in terms of nutrition for women compared to men) are very strong and disheartening. I think there is no use in "Right to Education" if we still have such high percentage of underweight/malnourished kids and that too in formative years.

Now on some absolute terms India has made some improvements reduced malnutrituion by 2% or so, but over 56.2 per cent married women in the age group between 15 and 49 were anaemic in 2006 as against 51.8 per cent in 1999. Its an absolute increase of almost 5%.
More so: 79.1 per cent of children between the ages of three to six years were anaemic in 2006 as against 74.2 per cent in 1999.

Also these are India wide numbers - there are a whole set of disparities within India at State levels and even within States, so in short the picture can look worse than what these numbers show in some areas. You can take a look at particular states here: http://www.nfhsindia.org/factsheet.html


The India wide fact sheet is here: http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/IN.pdf

Some tit-bits which show logic doesnt necessarily work:

1. In our rich states: " While the immunisation cover has dropped by 19.6% in Maharashtra, a decline of 12.7% has been noted in the case of Andhra and 12% in Punjab."

2. Though Media gives us a picture that Ethopia is poor, its atleast better than India (which is among fastest growing and middle income country):
Indian Children Suffer More Malnutrition than in Ethiopia

And Indian economy is referred to as developing at an average rate of >6% over last five years? Really?.

News stories related to this:
http://www.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1113811383

Wal-Mart to pay $33 million in back wages

This was due to the incorrect mechanism walmart had for counting overtime and missed breaks. These are serious violations from the biggest private employer in US. Walmart agreed to pay the sum after many lawsuits were brought against it. I think this was not just an error on part of walmart but a widespread policy which walmart had which violated labor standards. To avoid this in future and so that corporations learn walmart should be fined heavily, otherwise corporations will continue these policies in hope that nobody catches them and the cost of being caught is not huge as they just have to pay the salary which was anyway due.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=WMT:US&sid=avnZRDjVKWOk

Walmart - Health Insurance for employees

Some important things to note:

"Wal-Mart Stores Inc. released health insurance enrollment rates for its employees Thursday, highlighting that more than 90 percent of its workforce is insured.

At the same time, the nation's largest private employer, based in Bentonville, Ark., also noted that less than half of its 1.3 million workers -- 47.4 percent -- are enrolled in Wal-Mart's own health program, despite recent changes that offer broader eligibility and low-cost policies.

More than 22 percent of Wal-Mart employees get their health care through their spouse's employer, 8.7 percent are covered through government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid or the military, and nearly 10 percent go without any health insurance, based on the fall 2006 enrollment period."

"Wal-Mart's employee enrollment figures buck national averages, which show upward of 84 percent of employees accept coverage offered by their employers."

"The company has seen employee enrollment rates increase from 41 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2005 t0 46 percent in 2006. In the past year, enrollment increased just over one percentage point."

The thing to note is that last year walmart after lot of media backlash intorduced new plans which were advertised as far better, but they increased coverage by only 1% - shows the rhetoric of Walmart. And also depicits the point that even after media pressure without regulation corporations on their own wont do anything which seriously impacts their bottom line.

Article:
Most workers at Wal-Mart insured; half avoid its plan
Many get health coverage through spouse or government, but nearly 10% go without it

Friedman: Free to Choose Part 1

The video is part 1 of documentary series "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman, followed by a discussion between Friedman and others about free markets/capitalism/government intervention/corporate power/freedoms. The discussion is good and brings up lots of points in the debate as compared to the documentary which shows only part of view points.

In the documentary Friedman purports various benefits of free markets. He stresses the point that free markets provide economic freedom to everybody and even though in sweat shops the conditions maybe bad, people choose it over other options and they move on to better futures after the hard work. Here he is making a big assumption that people are free to choose which is debatable. In my opinion people who "choose" sweatshop labor have a very constrained set of choices - maybe between a tyrannical government or sweatshops. The goal should not be to find which is the better option among these choices but rather to find policy options to broaden and enchance the set of options in order to make a truly "free" choice.

He goes over the neo-classical economic theories of "Magic of Prices" and how they provide incentives. He seems to be a great beleiver that free markets lead to more freedoms both political and social and for this he uses example of Hong Kong which has almost zero tariffs, low or non-existent government regulation but which is thriving. But the fact is that HK with all the prosperity has huge disparities in income with the inequality index of 0.46 in 1996.

I would question his premise the free markets help everybody and is the solution to poverty. Free markets are not level playing fields and dont provide equal freedom to all. They are highly skewed in favor of the rich who get more votes - in terms of voting with their checkbooks - while poor get less votes as they have only so much to spend. Free Markets are definately good for the rich as they get more votes, their voices are heard. Like for example pharamecutical industry comes up with drugs for the illnesses of the rich but rarely comes with new drugs for the illnesses of the billions of poor like malaria etc as shown by recent new medicines introductions.


He is a strong proponent of reducing government regulation. He says govt regulation tends to work for the industralist and government anyway cant do anything good so its better when they intervene the lease. He tends to believe government regulation restricts indiviual freedom. Again this point is highly debetable. Absence of government regulation in my opinion instead of freeing the poor, empower the rich as they have more voting power in this new setup. I understand over government regulation stifles innovation and leads to a bureucratic power strucutre where again the rich seek benefits. But this does not mean complete de-regulation and no government oversight as that leads to corporations exploitation of labor, communities, enviornment. There needs to be a balance between the two and only government where - one person, one vote holds true to a large degree can represent interest of the poor.

The discussion which follows brings up series of interesting points. Though in theory if everybody has equal power than free markets will benefit everybody but power strucutres are too squewed towards corporations & the rich for a free market setup to benefit everybody. The challenge I think is to device government regulation and control upto extent where the less powerful are represented, without giving the rich additional powers. I would highly recommend the documentary, especially the discussion.

Case Study: City of Atlanta Water Privatization

This case study of city of Atlanta water privatization analyzes the reasons for the failure of water privatization in Atlanta and lessons to be learned from the failure for other cities which are considering privatizing their water services. It was done in collaboration with a bunch of folks.

Case Study @ http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddnrwjjv_7f5msvf

New Worker Scheduling at Walmart - Another way to exploit workers and be more "efficient"

WSJ in an article described the new worker scheduling system which walmart will roll out in all its stores this year. The new computerized system schedules workers based on number of customers in store, receipts from counter, past record and such parameters as loading time for stock etc. This system will lead to unpredictable schedules for workers and they would be asked to be on hold at various times and if system demands they would be on work. This makes workers life a hell as they dont know at what times they will work and schedule for picking up kids, doing other chores goes berserik. This system will also help in not scheduling more hours for part time workers who are reaching full time status as that rquires walmart to provide more benefits. Also current full time workers will be asked to work at random points making life difficult for them and forcing them to leave. (Full time have to be paid more benefits but dont have very high productivity as compared to part timers according to walmart. So the company prefers part time employees).

This will lead to increased efficiency for walmart customers and the managers. But what about workers?. They are not unionized and organized so its easy for Walmart to get these draconion rules through. Walmart has feverntly opposed any form of unionization in its stores and infact closed stores where it was threatened with unions. Another example of corporate explotation without concern for employees for more "efficiency" aka profits.

Corporations: Human Lives vs Profit? Winner: Profit

In a classic example of how the basic nature of corporations - pathological greedy, explotative person - comes into play in day-to-day decisions they make, the Abbott case demonstrates that corporations will go to a huge extend for their profits without caring even about human lives. In this piece from the Wall Street Journal, Abbott - a pharmaceutical giant - was faced with question of how it should increase sales of its new AIDS drug, Kaletra, which were decreasing as a result of its own older AIDS drug, Norvir, which when used in combination with drugs from competitiors was working well for patients. The options considered were

"removing Norvir pills from the U.S. market and selling the medicine only in a liquid formulation that one executive admitted tasted like vomit. The taste would discourage use of Norvir and competitors' drugs, the executives reasoned, and Abbott could claim it needed Norvir pills for a humanitarian effort in Africa. Another proposal was to stop selling Norvir altogether.

A third proposal carried the day: quintupling the price of Norvir. One internal document warned the move would make Abbott look like a "big, bad, greedy pharmaceutical company." But the executives expected a Norvir price hike would help Kaletra sales, and they bet any controversy would eventually die down.

They were right. Kaletra sales in the U.S. rose 10 percent over the next two years"

These all plans are captured in emails and internal presentatios:

"A slide presentation titled "HIV Communications Plan" and dated Sept. 24, 2003, reviewed the two options and added a third: pulling all formulations of Norvir from the global market. This radical step, the presentation said, would remove "pricing from public debate" and render moot any discussion of the liquid's taste. However, it noted that Abbott's "corporate reputation" would suffer. As for the price-increase scenario, the document listed as a "Pro" that health insurers might stop covering Norvir, which would hurt sales of other protease inhibitors and force patients to use Kaletra."

This was done even though most of Norvir's intial research was funded by a grant from government - which is typical of all major drugs.

(John Erickson, a former Abbott scientist who did much of the research work on Norvir) "testified that it was unlikely Abbott would have funded Norvir's early development without a $3.5 million grant it received from the NIH in 1988."

Drug companies usually fund the drug at a later stage when chances of its approval are more certain like at the clinical trial stage when Abott spent $300 million. Though NIH had legal right to grant rights for generic production of drugs it didnt do so - in a world where corporations control and lobby the government this would have been too much to expect.

And the decision taken by Abott was this:

"In December 2003, Abbott implemented its final decision: a 400 percent price increase. Norvir's U.S. wholesale price rose to $257.10 from $51.30 for 30 100-milligram capsules. The move made Kaletra a cheaper option for American AIDS patients. It raised the cost of using a Reyataz/Norvir regimen by $2,504 to $11,187 a year. In the case of regimens requiring more than once-daily Norvir boosting, the cost rose by $5,000 or more a year. Kaletra at the time cost about $7,000 a year."

So it used its monopoly power in norvir to increase sales of Kalitra, sales have incresed 27% since then without a iota of concern or thought about the patients who would have to pay higher costs - in terms of higher deductible costs or those who would not be able to afford the drug at all. All throughout the decision making the most important concern for Abbott executives was about company image not about patients.

This is a not an isolated case of corporate power play, it happens almost daily on some level because corporations are designed to care only about profits. I will try to demonstrate through various case studies the patters of such behavior. As Milton Friedman puts it "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits". Corporations try to talk about "social responsibility" and that is only as a brand/image building excercise as shown in news release on Abbott's website, which talks about new program for reducing AIDS amonf blacks which at the same time when decision time comes Abbott favors profits.