Jamie Dimon (or most anyone else in finance) would tell you that they are facilitating transactions that make it possible for people to buy homes, start businesses, plan for retirement, etc. Unless you hide your money under the mattress and pay cash for everything, then Jamie Dimon (or someone like him) is providing a service that you depend on. Elon Musk initially acquired his wealth through a very similar company (PayPal).
The problem with your criteria, even rhetorically, is that every successful business exists to fill a need and serve the public good. I think you would be hard pressed to find any successful company that doesn't mean your criteria.
You're being flip, but the problem is that even the most simplest biological systems cannot be simulated. Its not that we don't know the math, but the math in intractable. Just calculating a simple physical property, like solubility of a particular protein, will bring the fastest supercomputers to their knees.
You didn't follow the link. You didn't read the results. The whole point of IR spectroscopy is that you can measure the absorption in a mixture of chemicals, liquid or gas. It wouldn't be useful otherwise.
You are right about one thing, I am kind of stupid for continue this conversation. You are at the level of a flat-earther. I should let you go about your ignorance, because your arguments are actually your own side look worse.
Natgas is based on fracking, which means injecting refinery wastes into the ground and hoping they don't pollute the water table.
Can you quantify that risk and compare it to the benefit? How many people are harmed per unit of natural gas that is fracked versus how many people are harmed versus unit of CO2 emitted?
You don't count advancing space flight technology as beneficial to the human race?
It is beneficial, but can you quantify the benefit? How much does advancing space flight compare to advancing deep ocean exploration technology?
If you're doing even 1/10th of the public good as Elon does, then you deserve your billions.
Interesting metric. But how exactly do you quantify the public good that Elon Musk has done?
There have been a little over 150,000 Telsas produced. If each Telsa offsets the average CO2 emisssions per ICE vehicle (5 metric tons/year), then Musk has reduced the total global CO2 output by about 750,000 metric tons per year. 1/10 of that is 75,000 metric tons per year. Compared to the 36 Billion metric tons of CO2 output per year, that doesn't even amount to a rounding error. The Koch brothers have done far more by pushing for the switch from coal to natural gas.
Maybe lets try SpaceX. SpaceX has launched 13 rockets under NASA contract. The Falcon 9 costs $60M to launch compared to the equivalent ULA launch cost of $380M. Altogether, Elon Musk has save the US tax payers a total of about $4 Billion dollars. That's $32.70 per taxpayer. 1/10 of that public good is $3.27 per tax payer. Again, I'm not sure that amounts a public good worth mentioning.
It's worth noting that both SpaceX and Tesla were started as private companies (and SpaceX is still private) precisely because Elon knew he could never get away with such risky behavior as a public corporation.
It's worth noting that since becoming a public company, Tesla stock has been vastly overpriced precisely because the public overestimates the impact it is having.
Yet, the overall suicide rate in the US is not particularly high. And there are many countries that have higher suicide rates than the US where are guns are virtually banned.
Forget about "deserve" or "earn". All empirical evidence shows that it is less expensive per capita to provide universal single payer healthcare. We are collectively wasting more money trying to sort out who deserves what healthcare than it would cost just to provide healthcare for everyone. So besides a sense of moral superiority, what do you have to gain by supporting the current system?
Then your either a liar or your university should have its accreditation suspended. If you tell me which university you went to, I can probably look up the the exact lab that you should have performed this experiment for yourself. Its standard first year material. But in the mean time:
I'm watching shit go up in smoke alright. You guys just elected a race baiting, birther conspiracy d-list celebrity who can't even write a coherent tweet. What's going to happen when there is a real crisis and a WWE guest star is in charge? You think the country is going to back to normal after that?
You elected a President who routinely promoted mob violence during his campaign. Including explicitly used the 2nd amendment as threat of violence with Clinton had won.
I have yet to see the experiments where they quantify CO2's absorption at different concentrations and in the presence of different concentrations of other gasses.
Did you go to college? Did you study any STEM field? The experiments that you describe are routine first year undergraduate chemistry that should be a prerequisite for any STEM degree.
In the leftist world view, property is a collective agreement. Ownership of property can only exist within the structure of a well-functioning society. In Mad Max anarchy, you have no right to property beyond what you can personally defend. You might be able to personally defend your own small homestead, but property beyond that is yours only by virtue of the state that you live in. So, to the leftist, the question is not about who "deserves their property" or not, its about allocation of resources to maintain and sustain the social order that make ownership of property possible in the first place.
I actually agree that protests are an ineffective means promoting political change. And I'll probably steal that cargo cult line for future use. But if we can agree that protests are not effective, then "soap box" option has been exhausted.
At what point do the look at the leftists...put two and two together and ask, "Oh...we're the baddies?
About the same Republicans take responsibility for every attack on abortion clinics, black churches, or the muslin community.
It's not about Democrats versus Republicans. Its about whether people have confidence that their government represents them. Well over 50% of the country doesn't hold with either major party. They completely lack representation at any level of government. And entrench powers have stacked the deck against any viable alternatives.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
By your same logic I'm sure if you took a detailed look at our country in 1820 you could have concluded that slavery was never going away as long as the US stands as a country, and you would be equally wrong.
I think the comparison is apt. But you underestimate just how close the US come to unraveling completely. Another such conflict in a modern context would be even more devastating.
Germany, Italy, and Spain survived their political problems
In a political sense, those countries did not survive. The governments that those countries have today are not continuations of those that existed at the beginning of the 20th century. Germany doesn't even have the same territorial borders. And those are three of the European countries that fared better in the 20th century. The Austrian empire, the Ottoman empire, Russian empire, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc. all failed under the pressures of the 20th century. The 21st century is still fresh, so betting that any country will still be intact in 100 years is a coin toss. If you take the long view of history, the average life expectancy of geographically expansive political entities is roughly 200 years. And the US is past its expiration date.
A recent and unpopular amendment that was quickly overturned versus a culturally entrenched institution that has existed since the founding of the country. Do you really think that is a comparable situation?
Even if you manage to shove through an amendment, do you really think that 100 million gun owners are doing to peacefully and voluntarily surrender their arms? The only comparable historical antecedent is slavery. And that required a civil war to abolish. The US would not survive a modern civil war.
At what point should the first two options be considered exhausted? If record setting protests are perpetually ignored, do you keep using the soap box? If one party keeps winning office, despite losing the popular vote, can you still count on the ballot box?
Let's start with the legal reality: all three branches of the federal government are controlled by republicans. If Trump gets another Supreme Court appointment (highly likely), the Supreme Court will be in hardline conservative hands for a generation.
Then there is the physical reality: There are roughly 300 million guns in private ownership in this country. No new law or court case can wave a magic wand and make those disappear. So what are you doing to do? Go house to house, kicking in doors?
"never" is a long time. But "as long as the US stands a country" may not be so very long. This country is rapid deteriorating along irreconcilable lines. I fully expect that the US will politically collapse long before there a chance to pass meaningful gun control.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with your criteria, even rhetorically, is that every successful business exists to fill a need and serve the public good. I think you would be hard pressed to find any successful company that doesn't mean your criteria.
You're being flip, but the problem is that even the most simplest biological systems cannot be simulated. Its not that we don't know the math, but the math in intractable. Just calculating a simple physical property, like solubility of a particular protein, will bring the fastest supercomputers to their knees.
Lots of salts are organic. Sodium chloride just isn't one of them.
The high prices are part of the appeal. Keeps the riff-raff out so you don't have to spend time in line with peasants.
You are right about one thing, I am kind of stupid for continue this conversation. You are at the level of a flat-earther. I should let you go about your ignorance, because your arguments are actually your own side look worse.
http://www.lmfgtfy.com/?q=left...
Natgas is based on fracking, which means injecting refinery wastes into the ground and hoping they don't pollute the water table.
Can you quantify that risk and compare it to the benefit? How many people are harmed per unit of natural gas that is fracked versus how many people are harmed versus unit of CO2 emitted?
You don't count advancing space flight technology as beneficial to the human race?
It is beneficial, but can you quantify the benefit? How much does advancing space flight compare to advancing deep ocean exploration technology?
If you're doing even 1/10th of the public good as Elon does, then you deserve your billions.
Interesting metric. But how exactly do you quantify the public good that Elon Musk has done? There have been a little over 150,000 Telsas produced. If each Telsa offsets the average CO2 emisssions per ICE vehicle (5 metric tons/year), then Musk has reduced the total global CO2 output by about 750,000 metric tons per year. 1/10 of that is 75,000 metric tons per year. Compared to the 36 Billion metric tons of CO2 output per year, that doesn't even amount to a rounding error. The Koch brothers have done far more by pushing for the switch from coal to natural gas.
Maybe lets try SpaceX. SpaceX has launched 13 rockets under NASA contract. The Falcon 9 costs $60M to launch compared to the equivalent ULA launch cost of $380M. Altogether, Elon Musk has save the US tax payers a total of about $4 Billion dollars. That's $32.70 per taxpayer. 1/10 of that public good is $3.27 per tax payer. Again, I'm not sure that amounts a public good worth mentioning.
It's worth noting that both SpaceX and Tesla were started as private companies (and SpaceX is still private) precisely because Elon knew he could never get away with such risky behavior as a public corporation.
It's worth noting that since becoming a public company, Tesla stock has been vastly overpriced precisely because the public overestimates the impact it is having.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Forget about "deserve" or "earn". All empirical evidence shows that it is less expensive per capita to provide universal single payer healthcare. We are collectively wasting more money trying to sort out who deserves what healthcare than it would cost just to provide healthcare for everyone. So besides a sense of moral superiority, what do you have to gain by supporting the current system?
https://www.google.com/search?...
I'm watching shit go up in smoke alright. You guys just elected a race baiting, birther conspiracy d-list celebrity who can't even write a coherent tweet. What's going to happen when there is a real crisis and a WWE guest star is in charge? You think the country is going to back to normal after that?
Look what happens on the college campuses - no one gets arrested for the violence
False. http://www.dailycal.org/2017/0...
https://www.insidehighered.com...
http://komonews.com/news/local...
Liberal media pretty much ignoring the violent left protests
Also false. See prior links.
Politicians regularly using heated rhetoric
Like how Trump endorsed violence throughout his campaign?
Name others.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
The right does not disavow their crazies, you elected one as President.
I have yet to see the experiments where they quantify CO2's absorption at different concentrations and in the presence of different concentrations of other gasses.
Did you go to college? Did you study any STEM field? The experiments that you describe are routine first year undergraduate chemistry that should be a prerequisite for any STEM degree.
In the leftist world view, property is a collective agreement. Ownership of property can only exist within the structure of a well-functioning society. In Mad Max anarchy, you have no right to property beyond what you can personally defend. You might be able to personally defend your own small homestead, but property beyond that is yours only by virtue of the state that you live in. So, to the leftist, the question is not about who "deserves their property" or not, its about allocation of resources to maintain and sustain the social order that make ownership of property possible in the first place.
At what point do the look at the leftists...put two and two together and ask, "Oh...we're the baddies?
About the same Republicans take responsibility for every attack on abortion clinics, black churches, or the muslin community.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
I had in mind the protests against the invasion Iraq or climate change protests. The violence you are now seeing has been incubating for a long time.
By your same logic I'm sure if you took a detailed look at our country in 1820 you could have concluded that slavery was never going away as long as the US stands as a country, and you would be equally wrong.
I think the comparison is apt. But you underestimate just how close the US come to unraveling completely. Another such conflict in a modern context would be even more devastating.
Germany, Italy, and Spain survived their political problems
In a political sense, those countries did not survive. The governments that those countries have today are not continuations of those that existed at the beginning of the 20th century. Germany doesn't even have the same territorial borders. And those are three of the European countries that fared better in the 20th century. The Austrian empire, the Ottoman empire, Russian empire, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc. all failed under the pressures of the 20th century. The 21st century is still fresh, so betting that any country will still be intact in 100 years is a coin toss. If you take the long view of history, the average life expectancy of geographically expansive political entities is roughly 200 years. And the US is past its expiration date.
Even if you manage to shove through an amendment, do you really think that 100 million gun owners are doing to peacefully and voluntarily surrender their arms? The only comparable historical antecedent is slavery. And that required a civil war to abolish. The US would not survive a modern civil war.
At what point should the first two options be considered exhausted? If record setting protests are perpetually ignored, do you keep using the soap box? If one party keeps winning office, despite losing the popular vote, can you still count on the ballot box?
Then there is the physical reality: There are roughly 300 million guns in private ownership in this country. No new law or court case can wave a magic wand and make those disappear. So what are you doing to do? Go house to house, kicking in doors?
"never" is a long time. But "as long as the US stands a country" may not be so very long. This country is rapid deteriorating along irreconcilable lines. I fully expect that the US will politically collapse long before there a chance to pass meaningful gun control.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
Reap what you sow.