Exactly my thoughts. I am not convinced that 35% of consumers want a smart phone, let alone want an Iphone. What percentage of consumers don't even want a cellphone of any kind?
First of all, the ballots were only screwed up in one county. There were not enough Buchanan votes in that one county to change the outcome in Florida. Finally, the person who made the ballot that you are complaining about was a Democrat. What caused the problem in Florida in 2000 was that the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush was inside what a poll using the exact same numbers would have called the margin of error for the poll.
If you think there was something irredeemably wrong with the way the votes were cast/counted in Florida, there are two possible legitimate resolutions. The first is that the Florida legislature passes a bill selecting the Electors for the state of Florida, such a bill would have resulted in Florida's electoral votes going for George W. Bush. The other solution was for Florida's electors to not be seated. This would have resulted in the election being decided by the House of Representatives, which would have resulted in George W. Bush being sworn in as President in January of 2001.
The Constitution provides for a resolution to the sort of problem that you are contending existed in Florida in the 2000 election. Following that procedure would have resulted in George W. Bush being President. The Florida Supreme Court inserted itself into a situation where it had no Constitutional authority. This lead the U.S. Supreme Court to insert itself into the same situation and to make a ruling that exceeded its Constitutional authority. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court had made a ruling consistent with its Constitutional authority, the outcome would have been the same.
What are you talking about? Several media organizations that favored Al Gore conducted their own independent recount and concluded that by any reasonable standard George W. Bush won the Florida vote in 2000. Additionally, even though Al Gore received more total counted votes nationwide than George W. Bush this does not take into account that states stop counting absentee ballots when the number of remaining ballots is less than the current difference between the candidates. The reports I have seen indicate that nationwide there were significantly more absentee ballots not counted than the difference between the national vote count for Al Gore and George W. Bush. The absentee ballots in the 2000 election favored George W. Bush by a significant margin. What this means is that we do not know what the actual number of nationwide votes for either Al Gore or George W. Bush were in the 2000 election, because no one counted all of the votes.
Well, the fact that he lifted a good portion of his "manifesto" from the Unabomber's manifesto and large portions of the rest of it from other sources makes one suspect that he was just a nutjob on the order of the Tucson shooter. That is, someone whose political belief stem more from being a nutjob than from either the right or the left.
Actually, one of the things I have seen that makes me most curious is that his online trail seems to be almost entirely innocuous until just a couple of months ago when all of a sudden it started developing into the background for someone who would do something like this. I can think of two reasons for this. The first, and most likely, is that is when his sanity left him. The second is that that was when he decided to lay a false trail as to his motivations for this. The second is something I would only accept if some sort of evidence were to arise to indicate a discrepancy between his actual motivations and his stated motivations (one example of such evidence would be if reports surfaced that he had been attending a mosque for several years, another would be that he was involved with a group like the Baader-Meinhof Red Army Faction). As I said, the most probable explanation is that he truly lost his nut a couple of months ago and that is when he started posting things that reflect his distorted worldview.
Google succeeded because it was at the right time at the right place. Nothing else.
No, it was not "Nothing else." Google got it right (or close enough to right). Taking advice from Google would be a mistake because they are already dominant in the industry where there advice is most applicable. However, listening to how they chose to go against the "received wisdom" of business might help you to see how it might pay you to go against the "received wisdom" in your industry and be more successful.
Treating the pronouncements from a successful businessman from a different industry (probably even from the same industry) as "from on high", is foolish. Unfortunately, all too many people do so anyway. On the other hand if one looks at what they say about why they succeeded carefully can reveal insights that can lead to success.
Ultimately, I agree with you that many people give the statements by the guys from Google, or Jeff Bezos from Amazon, or many others too much credence. On the other hand, your post goes too far the other way in dismissing the wisdom to be gleaned from what these guys say (the key being the word glean:to gather slowly and laboriously, bit by bit.).
No, It don't believe corporations will save us. I have noted that as people like you have demanded more regulations to rein in the power of corporations, corporations have become more powerful. Then I looked at what happens when the government creates new regulations and I discovered that whenever the government creates new regulations in an industry it is always followed by a consolidation in that industry with there being fewer, bigger corporations each with more power in whatever industry these regulations are supposed to control. So, to summarize, I have observed that increased government regulation, rather than reining in corporate power, leads to ever more powerful corporations. This leads me to suspect that the way to reduce corporate power is to reduce government regulation.
It basically comes down to the principle that the way to increasing individual power is not to give more power to some group, but instead to reduce the amount of power that groups have. Since the only group that I have any direct influence on the amount of power it has is the government, I figure that is the place to start.
The reason that corporations have more power as government regulations increase is because government regulations make it harder for smaller businesses to compete. Companies have to pay someone to fill out the paperwork that says they are in compliance with the regulations.
Good grief, you use minimum wage as an example of government regulations that limit corporate power. Minimum wage is a perfect example of a government law that helps larger companies at the expense of smaller companies and the unskilled. Look at unemployment of teens. Every time minimum wage goes up the number of jobs available for teens goes down.
Look at banking, every time a new set of regulations over the banking industry are introduced, they are immediately followed by a spate of smaller banks being swallowed up by larger banks. I will repeat, people have been saying since the 1800s that more government regulation is needed to rein in the power of corporations and more government regulations have been repeatedly passed. Yet, corporations today are more powerful than ever...maybe the reason that corporations are so powerful today is because all of the smaller businesses that would have limited their power have been forced out of business by government regulation.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. People have been calling for more government regulation of business to reduce the power of business for generations and getting more government regulation. Yet each generation sees corporations as even more powerful than ever before. Maybe it is time to try something different? Increasing government regulation has not only failed to reduce the power of corporations, but has seen it increase.
Your original point was the Corporate America was an example of how the less government there is the more people have freedom to screw you. My point is that Corporate America illustrates the opposite of that: the more government there is the more corporations have the power to screw you. Nothing you have posted since has in any way countered that. As government regulation has increased, corporate power has increased. Your solution to corporations having too much power seems to be more of what gave them that power in the first place.
So, where is the alternative? What are the Democrats proposing? Where is the plan you are willing to get behind? It is all well and good to point out the deficiencies in the Republican plan, but what do you propose doing instead?
Stop telling me what the Republicans are doing wrong and tell me what they should be doing instead. Include specifics.
If the Democratic Party wants to "fund things" why haven't they proposed a budget (besides the one that Obama presented back in April that the Senate voted down 97-0)?
Where is the Democratic Party plan? It is all well and good to point out the flaws in the Republican plans, but what alternatives are there? What is the plan that you are backing? Something with specific numbers, not just speeches filled with platitudes. Lay out a plan and we can discuss its merits and failings vs the merits and failings of the Republican plan. But right now, the only plan out there is the Republican one. The closest thing to a Democratic plan was Obama's budget from April, is that the one you want to go with? The U.S. government cannot keep spending more and more and more and borrowing to make up the difference. At some point, there won't be enough money to borrow.
Yah - and the Republican answer is to gut Social Security; effectively defaulting on THOSE treasury bonds so that we can continue spending AND pay off on the Treasury bonds we sold to the Chinese. Bottom line: to the Republicans, Chinese investors are more important than US citizens in need.
Your basis for saying that the Republicans plan is to "gut Social Security" is based on what? What exactly is the Democratic Party plan? Oh yeah, that's right, keep on spending until no one will lend us any money anymore. The last plan a Democrat presented was the budget that Obama sent to Congress in April. That budget called for increasing deficits as far as the eye could see.
Social Security is going to run out of money. The only thing that is debated is when. When it does, the Federal government is going to have to borrow money to make payments on it. At current spending rates, where is that money going to come from? Current projections indicate that the U.S. government will be spending somewhere on the order of 50% of the world's GDP by the middle of this century unless something changes.
So, you are saying that because Neal Stephenson writes really good fiction that makes it a legitimate basis for a real world thesis about how we should teach children?
I agree that Neal Stephenson is a really good author, who is insightful about the human condition. However, all this author has done is take something Neal Stephenson postulated in one of his novels and said, "this is the way forward" without giving any real world evidence that it might indeed work that way. What has this guy added to the discussion that Neal Stephension did not already say in "Diamond Age"?
Ok, let me put it another way, if the U.S. defaults it will be the Treasury Department's fault (and the Treasury Department answers to the President), just like it was in 1979. If you look at what happened in 1979, while the failure to raise the debt ceiling contributed to what happened, the primary cause of the default was a failure of the computer systems at the Treasury Department. It is unlikely that a similar computer failure would occur today, but if it were to occur, it would be the fault of Timothy "I don't need to pay no taxes" Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury because there has been ample warning that plans need to be made as to what government spending not to spend if the debt ceiling is not raised (Constitutionally, paying off T-bills is not one of those things that can be chosen to not pay).
Despite the rhetoric being spun out there, the U.S. is unlikely to default any time soon. The U.S. government brings in enough revenue each month to service its existing debt. What will happen if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling is that the U.S. will not be able to do some of the things that money (that isn't there) was appropriated for in the last spending bills that Congress passed. Another option would be for Congress to actually authorize the issuance of some specific bonds (which is the way the Framers envisioned it working and the way it worked until 1917 when instead of passing a law authorizing each new bond issuance, Congress gave the Treasury authorization to issue whatever bonds Treasery thought necessary up to a certain maximum).
Basically, if Congress does not authorize an increase in the debt ceiling (or to be specific, the Senate at this point, since the House has passed a bill authorizing the increase in the debt ceiling, but the Senate refused to vote on it--along party lines), Obama will get the government shutdown he has been trying to engineer all year.
I understand the point. However, developing a pancreatic replacement requires the ability to grow new organs. Once that has been perfected, there will be years of research to develop the ability to replace the pancreas. There is a lot of research being done on growing new organs. The other thing about diabetes is that most of the most effective treatments for diabetes have been developed in the past 20 years.
The idea that pharmaceutical companies would rather treat illnesses than cure them is based on the assumption that they are working in collusion to not develop a cure. If Pfizer develops a cure for diabetes, not only is Merck not going to make money off of that cure, they are no longer going to make money off of their treatments. As soon as a promising avenue for a cure for one of these diseases is thought of, many of the pharmaceutical companies will be trying to develop it. There are two reasons why a pharmaceutical company would want to develop a cure for something like diabetes. One, they will make money off of it that they will not make if a competitor develops it instead. And they all want the PR from developing a cure for it.
You forgot to mention that they are supported by Thomas Friedman of the NYT. That's sort of like an "opposition" party being formed in the old Soviet Union and being promoted by a columnist for Pravda.
What are you talking about? I have yet to hear Fox New do something like MSNBC did. You know where they showed a shot of a guy at a protest against Obama carrying a gun and the news anchor talked about "whites coming out to protest Obama carrying guns". Latter it was discovered that the guy being shown carrying a gun at that protest was black, but MSNBC showed a shot of him that did not show his skin color.
First of all, Viagra was developed to treat hypertension and heart disease. During Phase I testing it was discovered to cause penile erection. Only after it was concluded to have limited effect on heart disease did Pfizer decide to market it as an erectile dysfunction treatment. The other erectile dysfunction drugs were originally developed for treating heart disease as well (although they did not get as far into testing as Viagra before being re-purposed as erectile dysfunction treatments).
Additionally, there have been major breakthroughs in treating many major illnesses in the last 20 years. Unfortunately, most major illnesses of the developed world do not readily lend themselves to a cure. Diabetes is a perfect example of this. Type I diabetes is a result of the pancreas not functioning properly. Until such a time as medical science develops the ability to grow new organs, it will not be curable.
Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of pure research. I work as at a pharmaceutical company in IT support for just the research labs. Of the labs my department support only a tiny portion do any development work. Almost all of the development work is done by labs in other divisions than the one supported by my department (actually this is changing as due to recent changes in corporate structure those divisions are finding out about us and starting to request our support).
No, it has nothing to do with free market capitalism and everything to do with government regulation. The reason that there are few diesel powered passenger vehicles in the U.S. is because of emissions standards set by the EPA.
This is not something oil producers or car makers would have spent money or influence on. The absence of diesel engines in the U.S. can be laid at the door of "environmentalists" (I use quotes because it is arguable whether this particular group actually cares about the environment), who insisted that diesel engines in automobiles meet essentially the same emissions standards as gasoline engines. Oil producers would happily sell diesel to U.S. motorists.
Interpreting opposition to further expanding government regulation as being because one thinks "government is bad" is the sort of sloppy thinking that has gotten the U.S. into the problem it is in today. You apparently are one of those people who thinks that the solutions to problems created by government regulation is more government regulation. I am sure you are a fan of the Dodd-Frank law which says that the solution to the problems resulting from "too big to fail" banks is to make them bigger and force smaller banks out of business, when those "too big to fail" banks were created by government regulation in the first place.
I don't know about where you live, but around here no one forces you to do business with Walmart. You could shop at Target, or any one of a number of smaller stores depending on what you want. As for the power company, no one forces me to have electricity, I can choose to do without. And the only reason I only have one choice of who to get my electricity from is because the government won't let anyone else deliver it to me. Finally, I don't have to have phone service, but if I want it I have the choice of what provider I want to use. While that choice is limited, that limit is once again the result of government action.
Corps get more power as the government expands its regulatory reach.
Where did I say it was? However, an organization that I can voluntarily choose to work with or not( a private organization) is to be trusted over one which I must work with, whether I wish or not (a government agency).
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly my thoughts. I am not convinced that 35% of consumers want a smart phone, let alone want an Iphone. What percentage of consumers don't even want a cellphone of any kind?
First of all, the ballots were only screwed up in one county. There were not enough Buchanan votes in that one county to change the outcome in Florida. Finally, the person who made the ballot that you are complaining about was a Democrat. What caused the problem in Florida in 2000 was that the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush was inside what a poll using the exact same numbers would have called the margin of error for the poll.
If you think there was something irredeemably wrong with the way the votes were cast/counted in Florida, there are two possible legitimate resolutions. The first is that the Florida legislature passes a bill selecting the Electors for the state of Florida, such a bill would have resulted in Florida's electoral votes going for George W. Bush. The other solution was for Florida's electors to not be seated. This would have resulted in the election being decided by the House of Representatives, which would have resulted in George W. Bush being sworn in as President in January of 2001.
The Constitution provides for a resolution to the sort of problem that you are contending existed in Florida in the 2000 election. Following that procedure would have resulted in George W. Bush being President. The Florida Supreme Court inserted itself into a situation where it had no Constitutional authority. This lead the U.S. Supreme Court to insert itself into the same situation and to make a ruling that exceeded its Constitutional authority. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court had made a ruling consistent with its Constitutional authority, the outcome would have been the same.
What are you talking about? Several media organizations that favored Al Gore conducted their own independent recount and concluded that by any reasonable standard George W. Bush won the Florida vote in 2000. Additionally, even though Al Gore received more total counted votes nationwide than George W. Bush this does not take into account that states stop counting absentee ballots when the number of remaining ballots is less than the current difference between the candidates. The reports I have seen indicate that nationwide there were significantly more absentee ballots not counted than the difference between the national vote count for Al Gore and George W. Bush. The absentee ballots in the 2000 election favored George W. Bush by a significant margin. What this means is that we do not know what the actual number of nationwide votes for either Al Gore or George W. Bush were in the 2000 election, because no one counted all of the votes.
Well, the fact that he lifted a good portion of his "manifesto" from the Unabomber's manifesto and large portions of the rest of it from other sources makes one suspect that he was just a nutjob on the order of the Tucson shooter. That is, someone whose political belief stem more from being a nutjob than from either the right or the left.
Actually, one of the things I have seen that makes me most curious is that his online trail seems to be almost entirely innocuous until just a couple of months ago when all of a sudden it started developing into the background for someone who would do something like this. I can think of two reasons for this. The first, and most likely, is that is when his sanity left him. The second is that that was when he decided to lay a false trail as to his motivations for this. The second is something I would only accept if some sort of evidence were to arise to indicate a discrepancy between his actual motivations and his stated motivations (one example of such evidence would be if reports surfaced that he had been attending a mosque for several years, another would be that he was involved with a group like the Baader-Meinhof Red Army Faction). As I said, the most probable explanation is that he truly lost his nut a couple of months ago and that is when he started posting things that reflect his distorted worldview.
Google succeeded because it was at the right time at the right place. Nothing else.
No, it was not "Nothing else." Google got it right (or close enough to right). Taking advice from Google would be a mistake because they are already dominant in the industry where there advice is most applicable. However, listening to how they chose to go against the "received wisdom" of business might help you to see how it might pay you to go against the "received wisdom" in your industry and be more successful.
Treating the pronouncements from a successful businessman from a different industry (probably even from the same industry) as "from on high", is foolish. Unfortunately, all too many people do so anyway. On the other hand if one looks at what they say about why they succeeded carefully can reveal insights that can lead to success.
Ultimately, I agree with you that many people give the statements by the guys from Google, or Jeff Bezos from Amazon, or many others too much credence. On the other hand, your post goes too far the other way in dismissing the wisdom to be gleaned from what these guys say (the key being the word glean:to gather slowly and laboriously, bit by bit.).
No, It don't believe corporations will save us. I have noted that as people like you have demanded more regulations to rein in the power of corporations, corporations have become more powerful. Then I looked at what happens when the government creates new regulations and I discovered that whenever the government creates new regulations in an industry it is always followed by a consolidation in that industry with there being fewer, bigger corporations each with more power in whatever industry these regulations are supposed to control. So, to summarize, I have observed that increased government regulation, rather than reining in corporate power, leads to ever more powerful corporations. This leads me to suspect that the way to reduce corporate power is to reduce government regulation.
It basically comes down to the principle that the way to increasing individual power is not to give more power to some group, but instead to reduce the amount of power that groups have. Since the only group that I have any direct influence on the amount of power it has is the government, I figure that is the place to start.
The reason that corporations have more power as government regulations increase is because government regulations make it harder for smaller businesses to compete. Companies have to pay someone to fill out the paperwork that says they are in compliance with the regulations.
Good grief, you use minimum wage as an example of government regulations that limit corporate power. Minimum wage is a perfect example of a government law that helps larger companies at the expense of smaller companies and the unskilled. Look at unemployment of teens. Every time minimum wage goes up the number of jobs available for teens goes down.
Look at banking, every time a new set of regulations over the banking industry are introduced, they are immediately followed by a spate of smaller banks being swallowed up by larger banks. I will repeat, people have been saying since the 1800s that more government regulation is needed to rein in the power of corporations and more government regulations have been repeatedly passed. Yet, corporations today are more powerful than ever...maybe the reason that corporations are so powerful today is because all of the smaller businesses that would have limited their power have been forced out of business by government regulation.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. People have been calling for more government regulation of business to reduce the power of business for generations and getting more government regulation. Yet each generation sees corporations as even more powerful than ever before. Maybe it is time to try something different? Increasing government regulation has not only failed to reduce the power of corporations, but has seen it increase.
Your original point was the Corporate America was an example of how the less government there is the more people have freedom to screw you. My point is that Corporate America illustrates the opposite of that: the more government there is the more corporations have the power to screw you. Nothing you have posted since has in any way countered that. As government regulation has increased, corporate power has increased. Your solution to corporations having too much power seems to be more of what gave them that power in the first place.
So, where is the alternative? What are the Democrats proposing? Where is the plan you are willing to get behind? It is all well and good to point out the deficiencies in the Republican plan, but what do you propose doing instead?
Stop telling me what the Republicans are doing wrong and tell me what they should be doing instead. Include specifics.
If the Democratic Party wants to "fund things" why haven't they proposed a budget (besides the one that Obama presented back in April that the Senate voted down 97-0)?
Where is the Democratic Party plan? It is all well and good to point out the flaws in the Republican plans, but what alternatives are there? What is the plan that you are backing? Something with specific numbers, not just speeches filled with platitudes. Lay out a plan and we can discuss its merits and failings vs the merits and failings of the Republican plan. But right now, the only plan out there is the Republican one. The closest thing to a Democratic plan was Obama's budget from April, is that the one you want to go with? The U.S. government cannot keep spending more and more and more and borrowing to make up the difference. At some point, there won't be enough money to borrow.
Yah - and the Republican answer is to gut Social Security; effectively defaulting on THOSE treasury bonds so that we can continue spending AND pay off on the Treasury bonds we sold to the Chinese. Bottom line: to the Republicans, Chinese investors are more important than US citizens in need.
Your basis for saying that the Republicans plan is to "gut Social Security" is based on what? What exactly is the Democratic Party plan? Oh yeah, that's right, keep on spending until no one will lend us any money anymore. The last plan a Democrat presented was the budget that Obama sent to Congress in April. That budget called for increasing deficits as far as the eye could see.
Social Security is going to run out of money. The only thing that is debated is when. When it does, the Federal government is going to have to borrow money to make payments on it. At current spending rates, where is that money going to come from? Current projections indicate that the U.S. government will be spending somewhere on the order of 50% of the world's GDP by the middle of this century unless something changes.
So, you are saying that because Neal Stephenson writes really good fiction that makes it a legitimate basis for a real world thesis about how we should teach children?
I agree that Neal Stephenson is a really good author, who is insightful about the human condition. However, all this author has done is take something Neal Stephenson postulated in one of his novels and said, "this is the way forward" without giving any real world evidence that it might indeed work that way. What has this guy added to the discussion that Neal Stephension did not already say in "Diamond Age"?
Ok, let me put it another way, if the U.S. defaults it will be the Treasury Department's fault (and the Treasury Department answers to the President), just like it was in 1979. If you look at what happened in 1979, while the failure to raise the debt ceiling contributed to what happened, the primary cause of the default was a failure of the computer systems at the Treasury Department. It is unlikely that a similar computer failure would occur today, but if it were to occur, it would be the fault of Timothy "I don't need to pay no taxes" Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury because there has been ample warning that plans need to be made as to what government spending not to spend if the debt ceiling is not raised (Constitutionally, paying off T-bills is not one of those things that can be chosen to not pay).
Despite the rhetoric being spun out there, the U.S. is unlikely to default any time soon. The U.S. government brings in enough revenue each month to service its existing debt. What will happen if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling is that the U.S. will not be able to do some of the things that money (that isn't there) was appropriated for in the last spending bills that Congress passed. Another option would be for Congress to actually authorize the issuance of some specific bonds (which is the way the Framers envisioned it working and the way it worked until 1917 when instead of passing a law authorizing each new bond issuance, Congress gave the Treasury authorization to issue whatever bonds Treasery thought necessary up to a certain maximum).
Basically, if Congress does not authorize an increase in the debt ceiling (or to be specific, the Senate at this point, since the House has passed a bill authorizing the increase in the debt ceiling, but the Senate refused to vote on it--along party lines), Obama will get the government shutdown he has been trying to engineer all year.
I understand the point. However, developing a pancreatic replacement requires the ability to grow new organs. Once that has been perfected, there will be years of research to develop the ability to replace the pancreas. There is a lot of research being done on growing new organs. The other thing about diabetes is that most of the most effective treatments for diabetes have been developed in the past 20 years.
The idea that pharmaceutical companies would rather treat illnesses than cure them is based on the assumption that they are working in collusion to not develop a cure. If Pfizer develops a cure for diabetes, not only is Merck not going to make money off of that cure, they are no longer going to make money off of their treatments. As soon as a promising avenue for a cure for one of these diseases is thought of, many of the pharmaceutical companies will be trying to develop it. There are two reasons why a pharmaceutical company would want to develop a cure for something like diabetes. One, they will make money off of it that they will not make if a competitor develops it instead. And they all want the PR from developing a cure for it.
You forgot to mention that they are supported by Thomas Friedman of the NYT. That's sort of like an "opposition" party being formed in the old Soviet Union and being promoted by a columnist for Pravda.
What are you talking about? I have yet to hear Fox New do something like MSNBC did. You know where they showed a shot of a guy at a protest against Obama carrying a gun and the news anchor talked about "whites coming out to protest Obama carrying guns". Latter it was discovered that the guy being shown carrying a gun at that protest was black, but MSNBC showed a shot of him that did not show his skin color.
First of all, Viagra was developed to treat hypertension and heart disease. During Phase I testing it was discovered to cause penile erection. Only after it was concluded to have limited effect on heart disease did Pfizer decide to market it as an erectile dysfunction treatment. The other erectile dysfunction drugs were originally developed for treating heart disease as well (although they did not get as far into testing as Viagra before being re-purposed as erectile dysfunction treatments).
Additionally, there have been major breakthroughs in treating many major illnesses in the last 20 years. Unfortunately, most major illnesses of the developed world do not readily lend themselves to a cure. Diabetes is a perfect example of this. Type I diabetes is a result of the pancreas not functioning properly. Until such a time as medical science develops the ability to grow new organs, it will not be curable.
Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of pure research. I work as at a pharmaceutical company in IT support for just the research labs. Of the labs my department support only a tiny portion do any development work. Almost all of the development work is done by labs in other divisions than the one supported by my department (actually this is changing as due to recent changes in corporate structure those divisions are finding out about us and starting to request our support).
No, it has nothing to do with free market capitalism and everything to do with government regulation. The reason that there are few diesel powered passenger vehicles in the U.S. is because of emissions standards set by the EPA.
This is not something oil producers or car makers would have spent money or influence on. The absence of diesel engines in the U.S. can be laid at the door of "environmentalists" (I use quotes because it is arguable whether this particular group actually cares about the environment), who insisted that diesel engines in automobiles meet essentially the same emissions standards as gasoline engines. Oil producers would happily sell diesel to U.S. motorists.
Interpreting opposition to further expanding government regulation as being because one thinks "government is bad" is the sort of sloppy thinking that has gotten the U.S. into the problem it is in today. You apparently are one of those people who thinks that the solutions to problems created by government regulation is more government regulation. I am sure you are a fan of the Dodd-Frank law which says that the solution to the problems resulting from "too big to fail" banks is to make them bigger and force smaller banks out of business, when those "too big to fail" banks were created by government regulation in the first place.
I don't know about where you live, but around here no one forces you to do business with Walmart. You could shop at Target, or any one of a number of smaller stores depending on what you want. As for the power company, no one forces me to have electricity, I can choose to do without. And the only reason I only have one choice of who to get my electricity from is because the government won't let anyone else deliver it to me. Finally, I don't have to have phone service, but if I want it I have the choice of what provider I want to use. While that choice is limited, that limit is once again the result of government action.
Corps get more power as the government expands its regulatory reach.
I have never heard of a Muslim theologian who claimed that the Koran teaches nonviolence. If you have, please give me a reference.
Where did I say it was? However, an organization that I can voluntarily choose to work with or not( a private organization) is to be trusted over one which I must work with, whether I wish or not (a government agency).