SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Are U.S. taxpayers getting stiffed? Pfizer, Viagra's
daddy, is using money from taxpayer-bailed-out banks to help buy major
pharmaceutical competitor Wyeth in a $68
billion deal. That won't help taxpayers or consumers. Nor is it designed
to. It will harm the companies' workers, 20,000 of whom will likely be
laid off. It's even likely to hurt
small bio-tech companies, drying up potential sources of capital and leaving
fewer potential major investors or purchasers.
The deal may be good for Pfizer, helping the company recover
from a $2.3 billion legal settlement over misleading marketing on the pain
reliever Bextra, and helping them amplify the clout of the $3 million they recently
spent lobbying against the right to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But it
won't help the rest of us.
So why are banks bailed out with taxpayer dollars furnishing
the $22.5 billion of debt financing for this deal? On NPR, a financial analyst crowed
about how wonderful it was that major banks were lending this kind of money in
the current economy. But it troubles me that among the deal's prime
financial backers--Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman
Sachs and J.P. Morgan/Chase--all but the British-owned Barclays received money
from the Congressional bailout. So the funds they lent to this merger won't
be available to help smaller (or larger) companies keep their doors open
producing and selling products--ideally ones that
actually benefit society--and not just to consolidate control over their
industry. This seems one more case of public subsidies for private gain.
I'm no economist. For all I know, maybe in some Henry
Paulson-Alan Greenspan dream world this will end up boosting America's physical
and fiscal health. Perhaps the new combined entity will come up with some
miracle drug that neither company would have created on their own. But mostly, it
seems just one more example of how a bailout without strong government control,
or even oversight, just feeds the same greed-driven abuses that have gotten us
into our current predicament. It's going to take more than Viagra to strengthen
our economy once more.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Are U.S. taxpayers getting stiffed? Pfizer, Viagra's
daddy, is using money from taxpayer-bailed-out banks to help buy major
pharmaceutical competitor Wyeth in a $68
billion deal. That won't help taxpayers or consumers. Nor is it designed
to. It will harm the companies' workers, 20,000 of whom will likely be
laid off. It's even likely to hurt
small bio-tech companies, drying up potential sources of capital and leaving
fewer potential major investors or purchasers.
The deal may be good for Pfizer, helping the company recover
from a $2.3 billion legal settlement over misleading marketing on the pain
reliever Bextra, and helping them amplify the clout of the $3 million they recently
spent lobbying against the right to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But it
won't help the rest of us.
So why are banks bailed out with taxpayer dollars furnishing
the $22.5 billion of debt financing for this deal? On NPR, a financial analyst crowed
about how wonderful it was that major banks were lending this kind of money in
the current economy. But it troubles me that among the deal's prime
financial backers--Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman
Sachs and J.P. Morgan/Chase--all but the British-owned Barclays received money
from the Congressional bailout. So the funds they lent to this merger won't
be available to help smaller (or larger) companies keep their doors open
producing and selling products--ideally ones that
actually benefit society--and not just to consolidate control over their
industry. This seems one more case of public subsidies for private gain.
I'm no economist. For all I know, maybe in some Henry
Paulson-Alan Greenspan dream world this will end up boosting America's physical
and fiscal health. Perhaps the new combined entity will come up with some
miracle drug that neither company would have created on their own. But mostly, it
seems just one more example of how a bailout without strong government control,
or even oversight, just feeds the same greed-driven abuses that have gotten us
into our current predicament. It's going to take more than Viagra to strengthen
our economy once more.
Are U.S. taxpayers getting stiffed? Pfizer, Viagra's
daddy, is using money from taxpayer-bailed-out banks to help buy major
pharmaceutical competitor Wyeth in a $68
billion deal. That won't help taxpayers or consumers. Nor is it designed
to. It will harm the companies' workers, 20,000 of whom will likely be
laid off. It's even likely to hurt
small bio-tech companies, drying up potential sources of capital and leaving
fewer potential major investors or purchasers.
The deal may be good for Pfizer, helping the company recover
from a $2.3 billion legal settlement over misleading marketing on the pain
reliever Bextra, and helping them amplify the clout of the $3 million they recently
spent lobbying against the right to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But it
won't help the rest of us.
So why are banks bailed out with taxpayer dollars furnishing
the $22.5 billion of debt financing for this deal? On NPR, a financial analyst crowed
about how wonderful it was that major banks were lending this kind of money in
the current economy. But it troubles me that among the deal's prime
financial backers--Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman
Sachs and J.P. Morgan/Chase--all but the British-owned Barclays received money
from the Congressional bailout. So the funds they lent to this merger won't
be available to help smaller (or larger) companies keep their doors open
producing and selling products--ideally ones that
actually benefit society--and not just to consolidate control over their
industry. This seems one more case of public subsidies for private gain.
I'm no economist. For all I know, maybe in some Henry
Paulson-Alan Greenspan dream world this will end up boosting America's physical
and fiscal health. Perhaps the new combined entity will come up with some
miracle drug that neither company would have created on their own. But mostly, it
seems just one more example of how a bailout without strong government control,
or even oversight, just feeds the same greed-driven abuses that have gotten us
into our current predicament. It's going to take more than Viagra to strengthen
our economy once more.