"If the brutal history of capitalism is anything to go by, then we can easily (indeed, safely) conclude that this employee's experience is pretty standard."

I'm not sure how we can safely conclude this one person's IT problems accessing their employee benefit account are widespread. Charles hasn't found any other examples of Bartell's employees with similar issues, and elected to publish this screed without obtaining comment from Bartells.

@2: The entire purpose of all Charles’ writings on economics is to demonstrate how the description of economics as the “dismal science” contains an entirely unnecessary noun. ;-)

Charles takes great job in continually providing examples of where capitalism has failed an individual. What he never does is provide the counter example of how/when a similar situation would have been better under socialism/marxism. Capitalism is not perfect by any stretch but it still has done far more to life people out of poverty and misery than any other economic system. No system can protect workers against bad management unfortunately.

btw Charles has posted several times now about Bartells/CVS and their abandonment of the community for selfish reasons. It would seem like this is a great opportunity to open his own pharmacy business where one of these locations used to be and show them how its done.

Its a wonder to me how you can drop a quarter into these M.B.A. ghouls and the cliches come tumbling out. "Positive impact on society is valued" forsooth.

@4 Mudede isn't a Marxist - he says it over and over. But if pharmacies were run by the People's Bureau of Pharmacies, rather than a pack of vacant-eyed vampires, they'd never have got in debt when the board and c-suite looted the company. Whould they have?

@3,

"What he never does is provide the counter example of how/when a similar situation would have been better under socialism/marxism."

Please google "single payer health care"

Unfortunately, socialism usually leads to fascism. It can only work in a small country with a homogenous population. when there are too many people who are of different ethnicities, races, religions, and languages they tend to separate themselves. that's when trouble starts; old grudges and revanchisms form and civil war begins.

@7
BINGO.

see:
Scandinavia
'Civil' Wars &
other Fanta Seas.

@4, 5:
do NOT
confuse d13r
with Factual info:

it'll just go in
one eye and
right on out
the other.

it's
Sad.

@4 "Capitalism is not perfect by any stretch but it still has done far more to life people out of poverty and misery than any other economic system."

Actually, capitalism REQUIRES poverty to function. If you only look at the surface and at narrative, then you really don't understand economics.

why is it necessary for the previous owner to have the due diligence to see that the new buyer can afford the purchase?
they sold bartells to rite aid, after that they are out of the equation. not their job to ensure rite aid are fiscally responsible.
that's like selling your house and checking up on the new owner if they have been paying their mortgage. what?

@10 and the people are just mice in the house I guess

@6/9 You really need to break away from the Socialist Alternative book clubs a bit more.

@6 - first of all, SPH is an entitlement program, not an economic system. Even then it still has it's own version of winners/losers, it's just the government and bureaucrats making the decisions rather than market forces. In the UK many people now have private insurance because the NHS can not provide the standard of care they want/need: (https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/06/business/nhs-strikes-private-healthcare-uk/index.html) In Canada the staffing issues have become a full blown crisis (https://globalnews.ca/news/10224314/canada-healthcare-emergency-room-crisis).

@9 I never said Capitalism was perfect. I said it was better than the alternatives. Here's a spoiler alert for you, every economic system has poverty and inequality. If you look at capitalism though even those in poverty tend to do better than they would under socialism. The only thing socialism/communism/marxism ensures over time is that everyone is equally miserable. Here's just one paper for you on the subject (https://www.hoover.org/research/socialism-capitalism-and-income-0) along with a quote

"The general evidence suggests that both across countries and over time within a country, providing more economic freedom improves the incomes of all groups, including the lowest group. As countries liberalize their economic environment, incomes, including those of the lowest decile, grow. "

@8 you should stick with your pro Hamas propaganda

@12,

"In Canada the staffing issues have become a full blown crisis."

This argument always blows my mind. Like, if there's not enough staff to treat the individuals seeking care, that's not a fault of the healthcare model. That's because there's simply not enough providers to meet your citizens needs! And it's a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed, but the conservative/capatilist argument to address the crisis is "Well, let's just not give citizens access to insurance and/or healthcare and that'll cut down on demand for services. Problem solved!"

A more humane and egalitarian solution would be to urgently incentivize and train enough people to go into healthcare to meet your societies needs, but I guess simply letting poor, uninsured sick people die off without care is another method that now needs to be considered.

Just wanted to note that a gender-specific pronoun made it into the article in the last sentence of the third paragraph, since it looked as though you were trying to avoid those.

Did anyone read the headline as "How the Demise of Bartell Drugs Is over an Employee" (with the fucking added for emphasis)?

@13 You are not asking the right question. Why aren't there enough providers? One of the primary reasons is because of the artificial constraints the government has placed on healthcare. People are making choices about how to maximize the return for their labor and in Canada's case they are deciding a career in healthcare is not worth what Canada will allow them to earn so they are going elsewhere. Now Canada is stuck because if they try to recruit by raising salaries they will also have to raise taxes to pay for them. This isn't a case of not wanting to give people healthcare, of course people should have healthcare. This is what happens when you put artificial controls on a market. The market adapts and you end up with shortages. It's no different than the massive grocery shortages Venezuela experienced when the government place price controls on commodities there.