Hmm. Breaking a patent sends shockwaves into the system. Making a habit of breaking patents is the equivalent of sending a tsunami into the system.
When a government takes it upon itself to break or threaten to break a patent (any type of patent), the industry takes note. From s short term perspective, breaking a patent to sell the drug for less seems really cool. I mean, who wouldn't want cheaper drugs? Who doesn't want cheaper software? Who doesn't want cheaper products?
From a long term perspective, it undermines the trust that the affected industry places in both the government and its people. Respect for intellectual property is treated as an absolute, something that you can hedge on. It's why startups with patents can gain a lot of capital, and why investors do not worry about throwing money at a company. They know that they will be paid back.
Breaking or threatening to break a company means investors think twice about investing. Which means less money flows into those systems, because their outcome is in doubt.
"You could argue that they don't deserve medicine if they can't afford it, which is a completely legitimate arguement,"
True, and I would. Because respect for property is the basis for any group of humans living together. What is mine is mine, what's yours is yours. It's the whole point behind government, respecting poerty rights.
"just like me arguing that I HAD to shoot that hobo in the face, because he was just going to apply for welfare or leech off of productive members of society by begging anyway"
You could argue that, but you would be incorrect. The hobo has no right to your money, but then you do not have a right to kill him. If he steals your money, you have a right to get it back (typically via the justice system). And welfare is stealing from the productive members of society. However, we have a fucked up justice system. Something to ponder.
However, back to the original point, what do you think is going to happen to the company or guy who invents a cure for AIDS? Every country out there (undeveloped) will gladly steal it. The inventor could be penniless, working half his life on the cure, but they don't care. They're thieves. And if there is any justice in this world, someone will create a drug that cannot be replicated without the inventor's approval.
Bah, Legend of the Rangers sucks. Watched it completely, hated it. It was so...typically Star Trek-esque, I mean "explore new worlds, encounter new species, blah". That gets old.
What you need is a stationary place for things to develop. DS9 was ok in this regard, but Babylon 5 was great. I mean, things developed. I want nothing more than to see an episode of Babylon where Lita (augmented telepath) returns, removes the mind block from Garibaldi, and watch as Garibaldi does something truly evil to Bester. I mean, at the end, you are just gagging for Bester to get it.
That said, Garibaldi and Bester were hilarious. Franklin was great, his drama acting really shows. Sheridan and Delenn were great in there own way. But every time Bester showed up, you knew there was going to be some back and forth.
Third Space (Babylon 5 movie) is where they come across a piece of Vorlon technology, which seems to open greater gateways than that of hyperspace. You find out that it does open to another dimension, but there's something evil waiting on the other end.
Eh, they're not black-hats. Black hats, while they do use your computer for their needs, implies some sort of skill. Hmm. I.e. they crack a system, and you never know you were hit. Spammers and spyware authors, while step above script kiddies in terms of skill, and a step below towards more evil, are not on the same plane as a black hat.
I mean, look at it this way. A black hat gets into your financial database, he owns every credit card and bank account in there. And chances are, you won't know this happened until a lot of money has disappeared from those accounts.
Now, while spammers and spyware authors can make money, it's not on the same scale. Most spammers and spyware authors make (on average) $60,000 yearly. And that's if they are trying.
If you call bargaining putting a gun against the pharmaceuticals collective heads, and telling them that if they won't sell the drug at some {arbitrary cost}, you will break their patents and get other, generics companies to sell it.
It's called having your cake and eating it.
Now, if it were not so easy to copy (clone, not mass produce) drugs (getting the right sequence (i.e. something that works, and won't kill you) is where most of the R&D money goes), other countries would be screwed when it comes to this stuff.
Re:Mixed feeling
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I tend to think that anyone who is infected with HIV is unfortunate. Or cancer. Or any other nasty disease.
"I got a feeling that only those wealthy people can afford to get fixed up"
Well, think of the wealthy as gamers who want the latest rig. They have the money, and are willing to shell out for the cure when it is new and relatively rare. When R&D costs are paid off, or manufacturing costs drop (they begin mass producing the cure), then the masses will join them.
"but most of them caught HIV due to their irresponsible action."
Possibly, but then this holds true for most people {rich, poor, middle class). Most HIV infections are caused by people being irresponsible. But I think you'll find that in terms of percentage by class that are infected with HIV, the rich and poor share a similar proportion.
"Yet innocent victims who caught the disease, for instance by birth, may never see the light."
Nobody's innocent, but that's my cynasism showing. And I'm sure a number of the rich have caught HIV via birth or blood transfusions.
You do realize that unlike many things in life, diseases do not discrimate by class.
But the great thing about having a number of the rich (or very rich) sharing a similar plight is that you can bet your house that they are paying someone to find a cure. You have a job, you go to work, you deal with the disease as it fits in your schedule. The rich do not: which frees up time for them to really crack the whip over the researchers heads. Imagine Bill Gates coming down with HIV. No matter how you view him personally, you know he would move (literally) mountains to find a cure. I can just see it now, Bill Gates sitting at his desk, calling a medical research team (and buying them), then simply telling them to "Find a cure NOW".
Something sad would be if only the poor caught a disease, not the rich. No one would bother to find a cure (no money to research, no money to be made).
"It seems like most medical findings are "open-source", that you can read about them in journals, but the actual cost to produce a medicine is usually very prohibitive."
It is very prohibitive. We are talking about a bunch of proteins being injected directly into your blood stream. Now, if we include the fact that the human body is incredibly complex (impurities in a vaccine can kil you), and that a gene sequencing machine probably costs a ton (of gold bricks), you realize why it costs so much.
And medical journals serve two purposes: 1.) to alert medical professionals that there is a new treatment out there, and 2.) to show data backing up these claims.
Curious. Is the energy of the earth's core renewable? According to most science textbooks, the core is made up of nickel and iron. Short the Sun somehow is constantly charging the core via radiation (not likely) or gravity (possible), we have a finite amount of energy. I faintly remember that the earth had to cool a lot before it could support life. This seems to imply we have a finite amount.
Of course, the is another theory that the core is nuclear (fission type), with a bit of Uranium actually supplying the heat. That would be scary. The thought of sitting on top of a giant nuclear reactor is not something to contemplate.
The last person to say "He thinks that this will, somehow, ruin X?" was the same guy who thought that giving USENET access to AOL users was a good idea. Technology in the hands of the masses (yes, I know I sound somewhat elitist) is not necessarily a good thing. Further proof? The kids in the back of the movie theatre who shine their laser pointers during the movie.
Granted, Bit Torrent is a tad more difficult to mess up (they need a tracker, and unpopular files tend to die), but I can see the day (probably next Wednesday, at this rate), where you are searching for "slackware iso" and find a thousand (dead) torrents for totally unrelated files. I can't think of how they can munge the above search (slackware), but then I'm not feeling particulary creative right now.
Look, blogs (weblogs) suck ass. Their only use is to stroke the egos of a bunch of narcissistic losers ("A webpage about me! YAAAAAAAY! Let's tell the entire world about me, because they care. I'm such a wonderful person, let me give you 100000 reasons why! And then I can tell you about my day!").
Blogs fuck up Google. I get 100 irrelevant hits from blogs, and about 10 relevant hits. They just increase the noise to signal ratio. It's like spam, just make it stop!
And now, you want to ruin Bit Torrent by making it easy for bloggers to use it? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!
Doing 80 on a 55 MPH road isn't the smartest thing (at least, when you're trying not to attract attention). The general rule is that you can go up to 15 MPH over the speed limit without getting pulled over, 20 MPH if the cops aren't assholes, but 25 MPH over you will, unless the cop is the one doing the speeding (in front of you, with his lights off).
I think I have a new rule: lightknights #2 law: one illegal thing at a time (called pacing yourself). Speed or smuggle drugs, not both. If you are going to speed, do 35 PMH over. If you are going to smuggle drugs across town, do 10MPH over (like everyone else).
It's like the bank robber, who on his way to the bank, shoplifts a pack of gum from a 7-11. He gets to the bank, and the police are waiting for him.
You know, I've been thinking about this for a while. Greed isn't what gets you in the end. It's stupidity. Think about it.
Main Entry: greed Pronunciation: 'grEd Function: noun Etymology: back-formation from greedy : excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness : AVARICE
Main Entry: 1stupid Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü- Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be astonished -- more at TYPE 1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH 2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID 3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS 4 a : lacking interest or point b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING
Main Entry: intelligence Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS 2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind 3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION 4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information 5 : the ability to perform computer functions
Greed + Intelligence = Money, and lots of it. Ask Bill Gates. Hell, any number of people who work at MS. Not everyone can walk away from the DoJ with the equivalent of a wrist-slap.
Greed + Stupidity = No Money (or money, but you lose it). Ask anyone at Enron.
The funny part is, if you compare Enron and MS, is that at the end of the day, MS has a lot of money in the bank, and can pay out for any mistake. Enron did not have any money in the bank, and paid out their company for their mistakes.
Disable the alarm system, break in at night. Be sure to replace all used ink cartridges and paper. Then steal something stupid, like a stack of AOL discs. The police and employees will forget about it (no one will pursue a criminal who steals AOL discs, Kinkos has a dozen more boxes and the police don't like being laughed at).
Wait several months, then start buying stuff. But under no circumstances should you live above your means. The IRS, unlike the police, do not assume innocence, and are pure evil.
Neither would I. But think about it. They do not have nuclear weapons. But they may have chemical or biological weapons. Chemical weapons are nasty, but require deploying everywhere, which would draw some attention. You could poison the water supplies, little things like that, but they aren't very effective, and throwing some scrubbers on the system would clean it up. The populace would just have to drink bottled water for a few days (for those without wells).
As for biological weapons, they are easier, but not very. Bacteria can be treated with some hardcore anti-biotics, and do not spread very easily (but they do). Viral agents, on the other hand, spread very easily (especially airborne), but mutate quickly. Hell, the US government has tried for years to convert Ebola and several other strains into weapons, but no matter how they try, after several generations, the agents lose their touch (mutate into something benign). The shephard's crook keeps winding differently.
Deployment would have to have many vectors. Perhaps most of the airports out there. On the same day.
"Is Bill Gates actually "weathier" at $67 billion than at $30 billion in any meaningful sense?" -> Yes, by about $37 billion. Unless you find $37 billion to be a trifling amount.
"Now, this system does oversimplify a few things." Yes, by about $37 billion. Unless you find $37 billion to be a trifling amount.
" Is Bill Gates seriously focusing his "personal expert skills" on putting that $30 billion to most efficent use for real creation?" -> Yes. He's proven that (world's wealthiest man). And even on a bad day, I'd rather have BG working on creating jobs, money, etc. than the federal government.
"As far as I am aware Bill Gates has retired and is no longer actively involved in creating any more wealth." -> I wasn't aware that BG sold all of his MS stock. When did this happen?
"When Bill Gates spends his money, is he really going to pay any attention on how efficently it gets spent? Inneficiency wastes or destroys total wealth." -> Yes. But he doesn't need to spend his money to raise total wealth. Unless you define spending as investing.
"Wouldn't nearly 300 million consumers and small business owners invigorate the entire economy by spending that extra $100 each in a cost-consious manner on consumer goods and on much needed and productive small business expansion? That spending IMMEDIATELY converts into revenues for the businesses efficently supplying those goods." -> I'm sure that having an extra $100 would help things out, but not if you have to take $100 from someone else to do it. It's his money (property), like it or not. You can sit here pontificating about how you would spend someone else's money, or how it would do great "public good", but the fact remains: people earning money spurs growth, giving people money does not.
"I certainly do not begrudge our most productive and sucessful people becoming insanely wealthy. Under the progressive tax system they can and do become amply insanely wealthy. It's just silly for people to quibble over a few percentage points when they are making a million+ dollars." -> Yeah, and I'm sure if you had cancer, it would be silly to quibble over losing a few toes.
"The progressive tax system is not about taking money from one person and giving it to another." -> Yes, it is, unless you are no longer supporting welfare or any government program. At which point, I drop my argument: your system sounds fairer than the one we currently have!
"It is about how you distribute that tax burden in the first place. Placing a tax burden on the poorest people in the country is counter productive as they *will* be desperate need that of exactly that much more help one way or another. It makes it that much harder for exeptional people who happen start at the bottom to become huge wealth creators for us all." -> Acutally progressive taxes + government programs makes climbing the ladder harder. Think about it: the further up you climb, the harder it is to get to that next level. You are marginalizing the lower classes by 1.) giving them other people's money and 2.) making it harder for them to grow upwards!
"Not only are the wealthiest most able to bear that share of the tax burden, but they are also the once who reap the most rewards in society and who have the the most to lose from an underfunded/failed government." -> What rewards? Show me on my tax return where the "rewards section" is. What are they getting by paying $$$ millions? What service costs that much? Security? They would lose money is the government collapses? I think BG has enough money to raise and maintain his own private ARMY, at less of a cost than paying his tax bill.
"In general there should be a gentle pressure towards the middle class. A society with polarizing pressure towards concentration of wealth and towords poverty is an unstable and inefficient and wealth destroying society." -> And that's why the middle class is growing. Oh wait, it isn't? A society that rewards wealth creation and punishes wealth destruction is not only a stable society, but one where there is constant pressure upwards (not just to middle class).
1.) No salary: only the rich will try for the position. If you get people wealthy enough into these positions, at least they will be above bribery (which isn't to say that Thereasa Kerry or Bill Gates wouldn't have their own agenda, but no one else is going to try to pull their strings: I mean, to bribe Gates, you need what, a couple billion?).
2.) Salary. Let the common folk in. Sounds more democratic, but you have a new problem. Any one person can be propped up and controlled by a single entity: the person occupying the office is a shell for a special interest. A second more serious problem manifests itself here: common folk have no experience managing vast amounts of money, which can breed corruption (all that power!) and/or stupidity (sure, let's fund a dozen studies on the lifecycle of the french fry).
I never said the poor stay poor, and I agree that wealth is not static: it's dynamic, constantly being created or destroyed (don't ask). And yes, the definition does suck, but it's true. People still drone on about the poor today, despite the fact that we have the richest poor in the world.
"Actually according to your own position I don't see why you advocate a flat tax percentage, why not a flat tax BILL for every person? Why should someone making $10,000 per year pay any less than someone making $100,000 per year? Isn't THAT taking money from one person and giving it to another? As you said " Why are the rich paying more? " Shouldn't they each be paying (approximately) $8,000 equally?
I admit that is not your position, but I really can't see why it isn't or shouldn't or couldn't be your position."
Why not? Let's charge everyone for something reasonable: a citizenship tax, like in the ancient greek (or was it roman) days. Where it was voluntary, but everyone wanted to pay it, because 1.) you actually got something for it (being a citizen) and 2.) it was an honour.
I'd set it at, say, $200. Yearly. We have, what, 290 million citizens? $58 billion should work out just fine. That's more than a federal government should ever need.
Of course this means stripping out all the pork i.e. welfare, social security, defense, medicare, medicaid, any faith-based programs I do not know about, etc. I say that we grab people from both sides of the aisle, tell them that they have a chance to clip the other's budget, and see what they cut. Since they will go after each other's pork (because they want to allocate it for more "important" projects), we can easily identify what needs to go.
"How will someone making $10,000 per year likely use $1,000? They will search out the least expensive and most efficently mass-produced clothing. They will buy the least expensive and most efficently produced food. They will spend it raising and investing in their children They will spend it on health care, including much needed preventitive health care, both of which have a huge return of invenstment in yeilding healthy productive members of society (as does the their investment in their children). They will squeeze ALL of that and more into that $1000."
That's all great and everything, but it's a drain. Remember my original argument: the wealth of the total system increases the fastest when capital is controlled by the most efficient people.
The whole thing is recursive. Say Bill can make $40,000 for every $5,000 he invests, and James can make $6,000 for every $5,000 he invests.
Total Wealth of System (1) = 40,000 + 6,000 = 46,000 Total Wealth of System (2) = 320,000 + 6,200 = 326,200 Total Wealth of System (3) = 2,560,000 + 7,440 = 2,567,440
Now, let's apply a $1,000 wealth redistribution tax (for every $40,000 Bill earns, a 2.5% income tax):
Total Wealth of System (1) = 40,000 + 6,000 = 46,000 Total Wealth of System R(1) = 39,000 + 7,000 = 46,000
Total Wealth of System (2) = 312,000 + 8,400 = 320,400 Total Wealth of System R(2) = 304,200 + 16,200 = 320,400
Total Wealth of System (3) = 2,433,600 + 19,440 = 2,453,040 Total Wealth of System R(3) = 2,372,760 + 77,040 = 2,453,040
At this point, a whole $100,000 has disappeared. And this is with a modest income tax of 2.5%!
Now, this system does oversimplify a few things. The actual tax rate is a lot higher, but the returns on investing are about half to a quarter (assuming a smart investor). I assumed that both put 100% of their previous income into the next round of investing. And this is putting aside interest and various market fluctuations.
But the point stands. There is a net bad effect to redistributing people's income (rich or poor). They have that amount for a reason, and interfering, even to "help someone eat" can garuantee that a hundred people do not eat down the line.
From a medical standpoint, you do not "need" two kidneys. Why not donate one, who "needs" one?
It's a very slippery slope. I mean, originally, the income tax was designed to go after the rich (they have all that money, they don't "need" it). But it was never indexed to inflation. So as the dollar inflated, and middle class income rose, they started getting a taste of the shaft. But then, those upper income brackets ($80,000+) do not "need" that extra money, so they continue to enjoy the shaft.
I'm all for helping the poor, but of my own volition. I like Bill Gate's charity (boo, hiss cries the slashdot crowd): they keep track of what's going on. I admit that some people are down on their luck, but the number is in disproportion to those gaming the system. It's one thing to reach into your own pocket, and give your money freely. It's another when someone else does it.
I could state a number of cliches (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.), but I'll refrain.
Two things though:
1.) The poor will never go away. As long as someone is rich, someone will be poor.
2.) Like it or not, their money is their money. Telling yourself that you have better ideas for it is precisely the reason you do not have it. And if they act stupid (ultra-philathropist, spending the family's fortune), they too will soon join the ranks of the poor.
What most people who claim the moral high ground suffer from is a different evil: jealousy. They want the power that goes with the money, but haven't earned it.
And most of the people out there (the rich ones), earned their money. Some inherited it, but most earned it (nouveau riche). Bill Gates qualifies for this, Ballmer, Dell, etc. And they respresent the majority of the wealth on those lists. (Funny thing too. Seems most people who inherit wealth squander it.)
lightknight's law: the first person to use the phrase "morality" as a factor in economics, is the one who is about to make an irrational argument (effectively dividing by 0), which this person believes has more value than any rational argument.
Morals are ephemeral things: the values held by an older generation are not the same as a younger generation. They have a tendency to change as often as the wind. Hence, an economic system should not be based on morals, or "need".
"In terms of raw dollars, is there any difference between giving someone who makes $10,000/year another $1000 and giving someone who makes $100,000/year another $1000?"
In terms of strictly raw numbers, no. But that's not what we are arguing here. What I'm arguing is taking $1000 from the guy making $100,000/year and giving it to the guy making $10,000/year.
1.) Having committed no crime (of life, liberty, or property against another), a man is entitled to his wealth.
2.) Capitalism rewards people who efficiently allocate resources. Sure, giving that man $1000 will help him out in the short run, but it also has the effect of sapping $1000 from the other guy, which means the efficiency of the whole system drops by (a minimum of) $2000. The end effect is that by continuing to divert resources from the most efficient allocaters to less efficient allocaters, the total wealth of the system grows more slowly. In effect, you fuck the rich, you are fucking yourself.
That's kind of why Europe's growth sucks. And it's also why China is picking up (letting more people keep their money). Little tricks like inflation can appear to change things in the short run (for the better), but in the long run, they do more damage then they are worth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that was a while back. Nvidia has been picking up the slack (on cheating) ever since.
Hmm. Breaking a patent sends shockwaves into the system. Making a habit of breaking patents is the equivalent of sending a tsunami into the system.
When a government takes it upon itself to break or threaten to break a patent (any type of patent), the industry takes note. From s short term perspective, breaking a patent to sell the drug for less seems really cool. I mean, who wouldn't want cheaper drugs? Who doesn't want cheaper software? Who doesn't want cheaper products?
From a long term perspective, it undermines the trust that the affected industry places in both the government and its people. Respect for intellectual property is treated as an absolute, something that you can hedge on. It's why startups with patents can gain a lot of capital, and why investors do not worry about throwing money at a company. They know that they will be paid back.
Breaking or threatening to break a company means investors think twice about investing. Which means less money flows into those systems, because their outcome is in doubt.
"You could argue that they don't deserve medicine if they can't afford it, which is a completely legitimate arguement,"
True, and I would. Because respect for property is the basis for any group of humans living together. What is mine is mine, what's yours is yours. It's the whole point behind government, respecting poerty rights.
"just like me arguing that I HAD to shoot that hobo in the face, because he was just going to apply for welfare or leech off of productive members of society by begging anyway"
You could argue that, but you would be incorrect. The hobo has no right to your money, but then you do not have a right to kill him. If he steals your money, you have a right to get it back (typically via the justice system). And welfare is stealing from the productive members of society. However, we have a fucked up justice system. Something to ponder.
However, back to the original point, what do you think is going to happen to the company or guy who invents a cure for AIDS? Every country out there (undeveloped) will gladly steal it. The inventor could be penniless, working half his life on the cure, but they don't care. They're thieves. And if there is any justice in this world, someone will create a drug that cannot be replicated without the inventor's approval.
Bah, Legend of the Rangers sucks. Watched it completely, hated it. It was so...typically Star Trek-esque, I mean "explore new worlds, encounter new species, blah". That gets old.
What you need is a stationary place for things to develop. DS9 was ok in this regard, but Babylon 5 was great. I mean, things developed. I want nothing more than to see an episode of Babylon where Lita (augmented telepath) returns, removes the mind block from Garibaldi, and watch as Garibaldi does something truly evil to Bester. I mean, at the end, you are just gagging for Bester to get it.
That said, Garibaldi and Bester were hilarious. Franklin was great, his drama acting really shows. Sheridan and Delenn were great in there own way. But every time Bester showed up, you knew there was going to be some back and forth.
Third Space (Babylon 5 movie) is where they come across a piece of Vorlon technology, which seems to open greater gateways than that of hyperspace. You find out that it does open to another dimension, but there's something evil waiting on the other end.
Third Space? Excellent movie. They made the Third Space aliens look horrible (floating manta rays, essentially), but that aside, it really grips you.
Eh, they're not black-hats. Black hats, while they do use your computer for their needs, implies some sort of skill. Hmm. I.e. they crack a system, and you never know you were hit. Spammers and spyware authors, while step above script kiddies in terms of skill, and a step below towards more evil, are not on the same plane as a black hat.
I mean, look at it this way. A black hat gets into your financial database, he owns every credit card and bank account in there. And chances are, you won't know this happened until a lot of money has disappeared from those accounts.
Now, while spammers and spyware authors can make money, it's not on the same scale. Most spammers and spyware authors make (on average) $60,000 yearly. And that's if they are trying.
If you call bargaining putting a gun against the pharmaceuticals collective heads, and telling them that if they won't sell the drug at some {arbitrary cost}, you will break their patents and get other, generics companies to sell it.
It's called having your cake and eating it.
Now, if it were not so easy to copy (clone, not mass produce) drugs (getting the right sequence (i.e. something that works, and won't kill you) is where most of the R&D money goes), other countries would be screwed when it comes to this stuff.
I tend to think that anyone who is infected with HIV is unfortunate. Or cancer. Or any other nasty disease.
"I got a feeling that only those wealthy people can afford to get fixed up"
Well, think of the wealthy as gamers who want the latest rig. They have the money, and are willing to shell out for the cure when it is new and relatively rare. When R&D costs are paid off, or manufacturing costs drop (they begin mass producing the cure), then the masses will join them.
"but most of them caught HIV due to their irresponsible action."
Possibly, but then this holds true for most people {rich, poor, middle class). Most HIV infections are caused by people being irresponsible. But I think you'll find that in terms of percentage by class that are infected with HIV, the rich and poor share a similar proportion.
"Yet innocent victims who caught the disease, for instance by birth, may never see the light."
Nobody's innocent, but that's my cynasism showing. And I'm sure a number of the rich have caught HIV via birth or blood transfusions.
You do realize that unlike many things in life, diseases do not discrimate by class.
But the great thing about having a number of the rich (or very rich) sharing a similar plight is that you can bet your house that they are paying someone to find a cure. You have a job, you go to work, you deal with the disease as it fits in your schedule. The rich do not: which frees up time for them to really crack the whip over the researchers heads. Imagine Bill Gates coming down with HIV. No matter how you view him personally, you know he would move (literally) mountains to find a cure. I can just see it now, Bill Gates sitting at his desk, calling a medical research team (and buying them), then simply telling them to "Find a cure NOW".
Something sad would be if only the poor caught a disease, not the rich. No one would bother to find a cure (no money to research, no money to be made).
"It seems like most medical findings are "open-source", that you can read about them in journals, but the actual cost to produce a medicine is usually very prohibitive."
It is very prohibitive. We are talking about a bunch of proteins being injected directly into your blood stream. Now, if we include the fact that the human body is incredibly complex (impurities in a vaccine can kil you), and that a gene sequencing machine probably costs a ton (of gold bricks), you realize why it costs so much.
And medical journals serve two purposes: 1.) to alert medical professionals that there is a new treatment out there, and 2.) to show data backing up these claims.
Curious. Is the energy of the earth's core renewable? According to most science textbooks, the core is made up of nickel and iron. Short the Sun somehow is constantly charging the core via radiation (not likely) or gravity (possible), we have a finite amount of energy. I faintly remember that the earth had to cool a lot before it could support life. This seems to imply we have a finite amount.
Of course, the is another theory that the core is nuclear (fission type), with a bit of Uranium actually supplying the heat. That would be scary. The thought of sitting on top of a giant nuclear reactor is not something to contemplate.
Think about it.
The last person to say "He thinks that this will, somehow, ruin X?" was the same guy who thought that giving USENET access to AOL users was a good idea. Technology in the hands of the masses (yes, I know I sound somewhat elitist) is not necessarily a good thing. Further proof? The kids in the back of the movie theatre who shine their laser pointers during the movie.
Granted, Bit Torrent is a tad more difficult to mess up (they need a tracker, and unpopular files tend to die), but I can see the day (probably next Wednesday, at this rate), where you are searching for "slackware iso" and find a thousand (dead) torrents for totally unrelated files. I can't think of how they can munge the above search (slackware), but then I'm not feeling particulary creative right now.
Dear God, no.
Look, blogs (weblogs) suck ass. Their only use is to stroke the egos of a bunch of narcissistic losers ("A webpage about me! YAAAAAAAY! Let's tell the entire world about me, because they care. I'm such a wonderful person, let me give you 100000 reasons why! And then I can tell you about my day!").
Blogs fuck up Google. I get 100 irrelevant hits from blogs, and about 10 relevant hits. They just increase the noise to signal ratio. It's like spam, just make it stop!
And now, you want to ruin Bit Torrent by making it easy for bloggers to use it? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!
Doing 80 on a 55 MPH road isn't the smartest thing (at least, when you're trying not to attract attention). The general rule is that you can go up to 15 MPH over the speed limit without getting pulled over, 20 MPH if the cops aren't assholes, but 25 MPH over you will, unless the cop is the one doing the speeding (in front of you, with his lights off).
I think I have a new rule: lightknights #2 law: one illegal thing at a time (called pacing yourself). Speed or smuggle drugs, not both. If you are going to speed, do 35 PMH over. If you are going to smuggle drugs across town, do 10MPH over (like everyone else).
It's like the bank robber, who on his way to the bank, shoplifts a pack of gum from a 7-11. He gets to the bank, and the police are waiting for him.
You know, I've been thinking about this for a while. Greed isn't what gets you in the end. It's stupidity. Think about it.
Main Entry: greed
Pronunciation: 'grEd
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
: excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness : AVARICE
Main Entry: 1stupid
Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be astonished -- more at TYPE
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS
4 a : lacking interest or point b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING
Main Entry: intelligence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions
Greed + Intelligence = Money, and lots of it. Ask Bill Gates. Hell, any number of people who work at MS. Not everyone can walk away from the DoJ with the equivalent of a wrist-slap.
Greed + Stupidity = No Money (or money, but you lose it). Ask anyone at Enron.
The funny part is, if you compare Enron and MS, is that at the end of the day, MS has a lot of money in the bank, and can pay out for any mistake. Enron did not have any money in the bank, and paid out their company for their mistakes.
Disable the alarm system, break in at night. Be sure to replace all used ink cartridges and paper. Then steal something stupid, like a stack of AOL discs. The police and employees will forget about it (no one will pursue a criminal who steals AOL discs, Kinkos has a dozen more boxes and the police don't like being laughed at).
Wait several months, then start buying stuff. But under no circumstances should you live above your means. The IRS, unlike the police, do not assume innocence, and are pure evil.
Hahaha, that's hilarious. At least, I hope your joking.
Yes, it's called a "Petition to Make Special". Look it up, you need an extensive prior art search + $130 for the USPTO.
Neither would I. But think about it. They do not have nuclear weapons. But they may have chemical or biological weapons. Chemical weapons are nasty, but require deploying everywhere, which would draw some attention. You could poison the water supplies, little things like that, but they aren't very effective, and throwing some scrubbers on the system would clean it up. The populace would just have to drink bottled water for a few days (for those without wells).
As for biological weapons, they are easier, but not very. Bacteria can be treated with some hardcore anti-biotics, and do not spread very easily (but they do). Viral agents, on the other hand, spread very easily (especially airborne), but mutate quickly. Hell, the US government has tried for years to convert Ebola and several other strains into weapons, but no matter how they try, after several generations, the agents lose their touch (mutate into something benign). The shephard's crook keeps winding differently.
Deployment would have to have many vectors. Perhaps most of the airports out there. On the same day.
Curious, you find money and improvements in life to be mutually exclusive?
I always thought they went hand in hand. People find a "need", and fill it. Some do it for free, most do it for profit.
Damn slashcode. Should read:
"Is Bill Gates actually "weathier" at $67 billion than at $30 billion in any meaningful sense?" -> Yes, by about $37 billion. Unless you find $37 billion to be a trifling amount.
You can read, right?
"Now, this system does oversimplify a few things." Yes, by about $37 billion. Unless you find $37 billion to be a trifling amount.
" Is Bill Gates seriously focusing his "personal expert skills" on putting that $30 billion to most efficent use for real creation?" -> Yes. He's proven that (world's wealthiest man). And even on a bad day, I'd rather have BG working on creating jobs, money, etc. than the federal government.
"As far as I am aware Bill Gates has retired and is no longer actively involved in creating any more wealth." -> I wasn't aware that BG sold all of his MS stock. When did this happen?
"When Bill Gates spends his money, is he really going to pay any attention on how efficently it gets spent? Inneficiency wastes or destroys total wealth." -> Yes. But he doesn't need to spend his money to raise total wealth. Unless you define spending as investing.
"Wouldn't nearly 300 million consumers and small business owners invigorate the entire economy by spending that extra $100 each in a cost-consious manner on consumer goods and on much needed and productive small business expansion? That spending IMMEDIATELY converts into revenues for the businesses efficently supplying those goods." -> I'm sure that having an extra $100 would help things out, but not if you have to take $100 from someone else to do it. It's his money (property), like it or not. You can sit here pontificating about how you would spend someone else's money, or how it would do great "public good", but the fact remains: people earning money spurs growth, giving people money does not.
"I certainly do not begrudge our most productive and sucessful people becoming insanely wealthy. Under the progressive tax system they can and do become amply insanely wealthy. It's just silly for people to quibble over a few percentage points when they are making a million+ dollars." -> Yeah, and I'm sure if you had cancer, it would be silly to quibble over losing a few toes.
"The progressive tax system is not about taking money from one person and giving it to another." -> Yes, it is, unless you are no longer supporting welfare or any government program. At which point, I drop my argument: your system sounds fairer than the one we currently have!
"It is about how you distribute that tax burden in the first place. Placing a tax burden on the poorest people in the country is counter productive as they *will* be desperate need that of exactly that much more help one way or another. It makes it that much harder for exeptional people who happen start at the bottom to become huge wealth creators for us all." -> Acutally progressive taxes + government programs makes climbing the ladder harder. Think about it: the further up you climb, the harder it is to get to that next level. You are marginalizing the lower classes by 1.) giving them other people's money and 2.) making it harder for them to grow upwards!
"Not only are the wealthiest most able to bear that share of the tax burden, but they are also the once who reap the most rewards in society and who have the the most to lose from an underfunded/failed government." -> What rewards? Show me on my tax return where the "rewards section" is. What are they getting by paying $$$ millions? What service costs that much? Security? They would lose money is the government collapses? I think BG has enough money to raise and maintain his own private ARMY, at less of a cost than paying his tax bill.
"In general there should be a gentle pressure towards the middle class. A society with polarizing pressure towards concentration of wealth and towords poverty is an unstable and inefficient and wealth destroying society." -> And that's why the middle class is growing. Oh wait, it isn't? A society that rewards wealth creation and punishes wealth destruction is not only a stable society, but one where there is constant pressure upwards (not just to middle class).
Love Austrian Economics (Mises, Rothbard, etc.).
Yes. You have two choices:
1.) No salary: only the rich will try for the position. If you get people wealthy enough into these positions, at least they will be above bribery (which isn't to say that Thereasa Kerry or Bill Gates wouldn't have their own agenda, but no one else is going to try to pull their strings: I mean, to bribe Gates, you need what, a couple billion?).
2.) Salary. Let the common folk in. Sounds more democratic, but you have a new problem. Any one person can be propped up and controlled by a single entity: the person occupying the office is a shell for a special interest. A second more serious problem manifests itself here: common folk have no experience managing vast amounts of money, which can breed corruption (all that power!) and/or stupidity (sure, let's fund a dozen studies on the lifecycle of the french fry).
I never said the poor stay poor, and I agree that wealth is not static: it's dynamic, constantly being created or destroyed (don't ask). And yes, the definition does suck, but it's true. People still drone on about the poor today, despite the fact that we have the richest poor in the world.
"Actually according to your own position I don't see why you advocate a flat tax percentage, why not a flat tax BILL for every person? Why should someone making $10,000 per year pay any less than someone making $100,000 per year? Isn't THAT taking money from one person and giving it to another? As you said " Why are the rich paying more? " Shouldn't they each be paying (approximately) $8,000 equally?
I admit that is not your position, but I really can't see why it isn't or shouldn't or couldn't be your position."
Why not? Let's charge everyone for something reasonable: a citizenship tax, like in the ancient greek (or was it roman) days. Where it was voluntary, but everyone wanted to pay it, because 1.) you actually got something for it (being a citizen) and 2.) it was an honour.
I'd set it at, say, $200. Yearly. We have, what, 290 million citizens? $58 billion should work out just fine. That's more than a federal government should ever need.
Of course this means stripping out all the pork i.e. welfare, social security, defense, medicare, medicaid, any faith-based programs I do not know about, etc. I say that we grab people from both sides of the aisle, tell them that they have a chance to clip the other's budget, and see what they cut. Since they will go after each other's pork (because they want to allocate it for more "important" projects), we can easily identify what needs to go.
"How will someone making $10,000 per year likely use $1,000? They will search out the least expensive and most efficently mass-produced clothing. They will buy the least expensive and most efficently produced food. They will spend it raising and investing in their children They will spend it on health care, including much needed preventitive health care, both of which have a huge return of invenstment in yeilding healthy productive members of society (as does the their investment in their children). They will squeeze ALL of that and more into that $1000."
That's all great and everything, but it's a drain. Remember my original argument: the wealth of the total system increases the fastest when capital is controlled by the most efficient people.
The whole thing is recursive. Say Bill can make $40,000 for every $5,000 he invests, and James can make $6,000 for every $5,000 he invests.
Total Wealth of System (1) = 40,000 + 6,000 = 46,000
Total Wealth of System (2) = 320,000 + 6,200 = 326,200
Total Wealth of System (3) = 2,560,000 + 7,440 = 2,567,440
Now, let's apply a $1,000 wealth redistribution tax (for every $40,000 Bill earns, a 2.5% income tax):
Total Wealth of System (1) = 40,000 + 6,000 = 46,000
Total Wealth of System R(1) = 39,000 + 7,000 = 46,000
Total Wealth of System (2) = 312,000 + 8,400 =
320,400
Total Wealth of System R(2) = 304,200 + 16,200 =
320,400
Total Wealth of System (3) = 2,433,600 + 19,440 = 2,453,040
Total Wealth of System R(3) = 2,372,760 + 77,040 = 2,453,040
At this point, a whole $100,000 has disappeared. And this is with a modest income tax of 2.5%!
Now, this system does oversimplify a few things. The actual tax rate is a lot higher, but the returns on investing are about half to a quarter (assuming a smart investor). I assumed that both put 100% of their previous income into the next round of investing. And this is putting aside interest and various market fluctuations.
But the point stands. There is a net bad effect to redistributing people's income (rich or poor). They have that amount for a reason, and interfering, even to "help someone eat" can garuantee that a hundred people do not eat down the line.
Fair enough. But who determines need?
From a medical standpoint, you do not "need" two kidneys. Why not donate one, who "needs" one?
It's a very slippery slope. I mean, originally, the income tax was designed to go after the rich (they have all that money, they don't "need" it). But it was never indexed to inflation. So as the dollar inflated, and middle class income rose, they started getting a taste of the shaft. But then, those upper income brackets ($80,000+) do not "need" that extra money, so they continue to enjoy the shaft.
I'm all for helping the poor, but of my own volition. I like Bill Gate's charity (boo, hiss cries the slashdot crowd): they keep track of what's going on. I admit that some people are down on their luck, but the number is in disproportion to those gaming the system. It's one thing to reach into your own pocket, and give your money freely. It's another when someone else does it.
I could state a number of cliches (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.), but I'll refrain.
Two things though:
1.) The poor will never go away. As long as someone is rich, someone will be poor.
2.) Like it or not, their money is their money. Telling yourself that you have better ideas for it is precisely the reason you do not have it. And if they act stupid (ultra-philathropist, spending the family's fortune), they too will soon join the ranks of the poor.
What most people who claim the moral high ground suffer from is a different evil: jealousy. They want the power that goes with the money, but haven't earned it.
And most of the people out there (the rich ones), earned their money. Some inherited it, but most earned it (nouveau riche). Bill Gates qualifies for this, Ballmer, Dell, etc. And they respresent the majority of the wealth on those lists. (Funny thing too. Seems most people who inherit wealth squander it.)
lightknight's law: the first person to use the phrase "morality" as a factor in economics, is the one who is about to make an irrational argument (effectively dividing by 0), which this person believes has more value than any rational argument.
Morals are ephemeral things: the values held by an older generation are not the same as a younger generation. They have a tendency to change as often as the wind. Hence, an economic system should not be based on morals, or "need".
"In terms of raw dollars, is there any difference between giving someone who makes $10,000/year another $1000 and giving someone who makes $100,000/year another $1000?"
In terms of strictly raw numbers, no. But that's not what we are arguing here. What I'm arguing is taking $1000 from the guy making $100,000/year and giving it to the guy making $10,000/year.
1.) Having committed no crime (of life, liberty, or property against another), a man is entitled to his wealth.
2.) Capitalism rewards people who efficiently allocate resources. Sure, giving that man $1000 will help him out in the short run, but it also has the effect of sapping $1000 from the other guy, which means the efficiency of the whole system drops by (a minimum of) $2000. The end effect is that by continuing to divert resources from the most efficient allocaters to less efficient allocaters, the total wealth of the system grows more slowly. In effect, you fuck the rich, you are fucking yourself.
That's kind of why Europe's growth sucks. And it's also why China is picking up (letting more people keep their money). Little tricks like inflation can appear to change things in the short run (for the better), but in the long run, they do more damage then they are worth.