Yes I accept that the headline, necessarily short, is not necessarily totally logical. But the move is unlikely to be good for the tobacco companies. It restricts their range of action as monopolies. And your own argument that they are diversifying indicates they expect their ability to raise surplus value in tobacco products will be reduced. What it undoubtedly is, is a move against the unfettered private ownership of the means of production, admittedly in a rather specialised area, of considerable concern for public health issues.
I accept that in the US case the move against tobacco companies can be seen as an attempt to socialise the cost of treatment. But in the UK the cost of treatment is fully socialised under the NHS already. You could argue that it is a form of state capitalist management of the the health budget: for the relatively small outlay of 50 million pounds they hope to economise on the vast health costs deriving from tobacco related diseases, but people have got to die of something, so I am not sure how far health economists would really take that argument.
The New Labour agenda is one of managing capitalism in a way that is both populist and managerially skilled. I am not trying to promote illusions on this. But I do not understand your assertion that the government has cravenly given into the demand not to have a welfare state. Certainly it is accepting there has to be rationing. Nor do I see that paying for particular expensive drugs is a test of whether it is socialist or not.
It does not claim to be socialist but it is making moves to socialise the market.
Chris Burford
London.
At 08:47 AM 12/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>chris,
>
>i don't get this at all. the state bans advertising, subsidizes patches, and
>trots out a policy statement and somehow this counts as a move against
>profits? how? in order to believe this, you also have to believe that (a)
>profits derive from advertising (as opposed to, say, labor or positions in
>financial markets)--that is, that reduced advertising will reduce sales and
>reducing the number of units sold will necessarily crimp profits; (b) that
>tobacco companies don't also own lots of other stuff (phillip morris owns
>kraft foods, post, oscar meyer, maxwell house among others)--with which to
>compensate for any moves "against" their tobacco products; in short, you
>have to believe that moving "against" tobacco profits is somehow
>meaningful when new labor has otherwise endorsed the value of current
> corporate organizations of everything, and the profit motive in general.
>
>so, sure, i'll bet tobacco companies are crying crocodile tears, but why
>wouldn't they? they have everything to gain by doing so.
>
>as in the united states, this move seems less guided by a "social" model of
>health as a desire to socialize the costs of treatment (i.e. to generate
>revenue): since new labor has cravenly given into the ideological demand not
>to have a genuine welfare state, it now claims to want to promote public
>health. but, although that seems more like an ideal on the horizon in the uk
>than the usa, you have to wonder, if that's true, why they aren't
>subsidizing or paying for people's AIDS cocktails, among other things.
>
>best
>christian
>
>
>
>
>