Without profit, companies wont do the research necessary to create the drugs. Without profits companies won't create the manufacturing systems necessary to make drugs widely available. Without capitalism doctors won't make heart transplants a routine occurrence.
Providing care for sick people with commodity solutions at the tax payer's expense may be reasonable, however without profit then our children will be no better off then us.
"if you have cancer, you have absolutely no choice but to get some diagnostics and try to get some treatment before you die."
Okay, but what if the proven treatment is a million dollars or more, and there are 100 available doses versus several thousand in need. Yeah, its essential, but it may be literally impossible to distribute fairly. Should the government be the one who decides who get it at a fixed low price? Or should we create a profit motive such that more of it is produce and in the future it will be widely available?
The problem with fixing prices and killing profit motive is that it prevents the normal and good progression of forces that makes an expensive rare thing cheap and widely available. You condemn future generations to the same aggregate limitations. Greed is good when it motivates creation.
Does anyone know what actually anarcho-libertian economics would look like? Cause its not the heavily regulated and subsidized healthcare system we had in the U.S. prior to the ACA.
Moryath is as idiotic as the Tea Party trolls who call Obama a communist.
Health insurance companies couldn't drop people when the customer gets sick prior to the ACA. The change is that they now can't deny coverage for previously existing conditions.
Its good for some little guys, however its bad for the majority of little guys. Some people will get coverage who otherwise would not have. The rest of us will have higher premiums.
They don't. Free Markets address the problem of people being free to do what they choose with their person and property. Thats it.
The problem isn't that markets are too free, they are that they aren't free enough. If we didn't have patent law, then how often would a widely necessary drug be manufactured by only one company? How would artificially high prices be maintained?
Why should a company be forced to cover someone they don't want to? Are they not entitled to choose when and if to enter in to a contract? Are they not entitled to do with their property as the choose? If the people think that there is an ethical imperative to cover someone, then they should do so themselves. Telling others what to do with their property is unethical.
I don't like the people behind this however: (1) They broke a very minor regulation in an exceptionally complex set of campaign finance laws. Its actually criminal, just against regs. There was no felony. (2) They are actually trying to hit one of the orgs involved for $15m in addition to the $1m. (3) Its probably not even unethical. Even when the people involved are assholes, I have a real problem with criminalizing, regulating or punishing people for political speech
I definitely have a problem with the existence of an intentional complex and opaque regulatory code being created to deter political organizations and political speech. More often then not, it won't be used against Koch, but against little guys.
"The game industry does not work like this because "the talent" does not get a big enough share of the profit - when was the last time you heard of a head creative or a head developer making 20 million on a game - it doesn't happen."
Actually it does happen, though ironically only for those who go to indie shops. Make a great game that does serious revenue, and you WILL be acquired by one of the big shops for an astronomical sum. I think this is better then hollywood. Rather then having to sell out to the big commercial stuff, game makers have to go indie and do something new.
It also can be cheaper. I don't use office normally, but a company I consult for uses msft cloud. They had some word and ppt docs they wanted me to read. Instead of buying a multi hundred dollar license, it was $15 for the month.
You can't put the plumber in the room if you can't pay him. The plumber can't fix shit if he doesn't have the capital to buy tools.
The economy grows when banks and investors give money to people with ideas. Take away either and everything stops. Large parts of the economy are effectively stalled right now because of massive inefficiencies in the banking system. Many of these inefficiencies are a direct result of some government regulations.
The Fed has basically made money free for banks, however individuals and small business can barely get loans. Want to know why? Regulations have made the cost of lending too high for banks to make a profit on small loans. The fair banking act has made evaluating non fico type data basically illegal for the banks, so risk cannot be be priced people who would otherwise be very credit worthy. This has made loans impossible to get for many, more expensive for most.
Your plumber now can't hire or expand or buy tools.
I lol'd at that. Yes. Lets get rid of the market makers. That would make things SOOOO much cheaper and fairer right?
For fucks sake, this would almost certainly lead to tons more insider deals, as everything would have to be a direct placement. Want Goldman to get prices 20% lower then a retail investor? Try this out.
"The difference here is that the U.S. is not formally at war with any country" (1) So its not possible for the U.S. to be "formally at war", however there is no denying we are at war with a very real threat. Absent a state actor to declare war on, you are saying espionage is automatically wrong? (2) Plenty of GREAT intelligence came out of Poland intercepting and decrypting radio transmissions well before war was declared, with british support and involvement. Was this acceptable despite the fact that their was only the threat of war? Keep in mind that the magnitude of the coming war was totally unkown. (3) Are you really going to argue that espionage is automatically wrong without a declaration of war?
"It's important to look at where this started and it was the ends justify the means free for all that the Bush administration let loose immediately after Sept 11th".
I agree, and a whole lot of what he did and what Obama has done is completely unacceptable. However, I don't think that cracking TOR is wrong. Storing records or continuing listening once a U.S. citizen is communicating is clearly illegal, but cracking TOR seems to be completely consistent with the NSA's historical role. It IS used by very real enemies to communicate. Cracking and looking for them there seems no different then what has traditionally been done by state cryptologists over the last thousand years, weather they are at war or at peace. Congress should make it criminal for them to store or listen on u.s. citizens without a warrant, but by all means crack away.
Honest question. During WW2 Bletchley Park and OSS routinely listened in on all radio communication. Private, Public, Foreign, Domestic. They also tried to decrypt all encrypted signals, enemy and ally alike.
"don't employ someone for that role because it is not worth it for society to do so." "Acceptable minimum to me includes healthcare, pension and ability to support a basic family."
Nice. So if someone has no interest in supporting a family, it doesn't matter you are going to force the job to not exist through price controls?
The real problem with the minimum wage is that you are restricting an individuals ability to price their own labor. Someone without a family should have the ability to compete on price with someone who does. Stopping them is immoral.
However he clearly does not have the chops to be an entrepreneur.
There is currently no shortage of money aggressively chasing startups and video game studios. If he can't generate interest despite the successful Kick-starter campaign, then he should really re-evaluate his business plan, his pitch and his fund raising strategy. Failure to generate any interest at all is a great indicator that you are doing something very wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Without profit, companies wont do the research necessary to create the drugs. Without profits companies won't create the manufacturing systems necessary to make drugs widely available. Without capitalism doctors won't make heart transplants a routine occurrence.
Providing care for sick people with commodity solutions at the tax payer's expense may be reasonable, however without profit then our children will be no better off then us.
Capitalist healthcare leads to the commoditization of rare things, turning them into widely available affordable resources enjoyed by all.
Without capitalism aspirin would only be available to kings.
"if you have cancer, you have absolutely no choice but to get some diagnostics and try to get some treatment before you die."
Okay, but what if the proven treatment is a million dollars or more, and there are 100 available doses versus several thousand in need. Yeah, its essential, but it may be literally impossible to distribute fairly. Should the government be the one who decides who get it at a fixed low price? Or should we create a profit motive such that more of it is produce and in the future it will be widely available?
The problem with fixing prices and killing profit motive is that it prevents the normal and good progression of forces that makes an expensive rare thing cheap and widely available. You condemn future generations to the same aggregate limitations. Greed is good when it motivates creation.
How does this bullshit get modded up? Seriously?
Does anyone know what actually anarcho-libertian economics would look like? Cause its not the heavily regulated and subsidized healthcare system we had in the U.S. prior to the ACA.
Moryath is as idiotic as the Tea Party trolls who call Obama a communist.
Health insurance companies couldn't drop people when the customer gets sick prior to the ACA. The change is that they now can't deny coverage for previously existing conditions.
Its good for some little guys, however its bad for the majority of little guys. Some people will get coverage who otherwise would not have. The rest of us will have higher premiums.
They don't. Free Markets address the problem of people being free to do what they choose with their person and property. Thats it.
The problem isn't that markets are too free, they are that they aren't free enough. If we didn't have patent law, then how often would a widely necessary drug be manufactured by only one company? How would artificially high prices be maintained?
No, its totally legit.
Why should a company be forced to cover someone they don't want to? Are they not entitled to choose when and if to enter in to a contract? Are they not entitled to do with their property as the choose? If the people think that there is an ethical imperative to cover someone, then they should do so themselves. Telling others what to do with their property is unethical.
I don't like the people behind this however:
(1) They broke a very minor regulation in an exceptionally complex set of campaign finance laws. Its actually criminal, just against regs. There was no felony.
(2) They are actually trying to hit one of the orgs involved for $15m in addition to the $1m.
(3) Its probably not even unethical. Even when the people involved are assholes, I have a real problem with criminalizing, regulating or punishing people for political speech
I definitely have a problem with the existence of an intentional complex and opaque regulatory code being created to deter political organizations and political speech. More often then not, it won't be used against Koch, but against little guys.
Actually I don't like the direction they are swaying the elections. Im against almost most of Koch's policy objectives.
Thats irrelevant. People shouldn't be targeted by the government for political speech.
Nationalizing 15% of the economy is not right in the fucking center. If you think it is, where the hell does that mean you are?
"The game industry does not work like this because "the talent" does not get a big enough share of the profit - when was the last time you heard of a head creative or a head developer making 20 million on a game - it doesn't happen."
Actually it does happen, though ironically only for those who go to indie shops. Make a great game that does serious revenue, and you WILL be acquired by one of the big shops for an astronomical sum. I think this is better then hollywood. Rather then having to sell out to the big commercial stuff, game makers have to go indie and do something new.
I think thats great.
It also can be cheaper. I don't use office normally, but a company I consult for uses msft cloud. They had some word and ppt docs they wanted me to read. Instead of buying a multi hundred dollar license, it was $15 for the month.
Because people resent those who get rich doing something most can't understand.
You can't put the plumber in the room if you can't pay him.
The plumber can't fix shit if he doesn't have the capital to buy tools.
The economy grows when banks and investors give money to people with ideas. Take away either and everything stops. Large parts of the economy are effectively stalled right now because of massive inefficiencies in the banking system. Many of these inefficiencies are a direct result of some government regulations.
The Fed has basically made money free for banks, however individuals and small business can barely get loans. Want to know why? Regulations have made the cost of lending too high for banks to make a profit on small loans. The fair banking act has made evaluating non fico type data basically illegal for the banks, so risk cannot be be priced people who would otherwise be very credit worthy. This has made loans impossible to get for many, more expensive for most.
Your plumber now can't hire or expand or buy tools.
"the system could, and should, do without them"
I lol'd at that. Yes. Lets get rid of the market makers. That would make things SOOOO much cheaper and fairer right?
For fucks sake, this would almost certainly lead to tons more insider deals, as everything would have to be a direct placement. Want Goldman to get prices 20% lower then a retail investor? Try this out.
Its a market place with consenting adults. If you dont like it, don't buy stocks from it or raise capital for your company on it.
Find or create another market.
Government is bad government.
"The difference here is that the U.S. is not formally at war with any country"
(1) So its not possible for the U.S. to be "formally at war", however there is no denying we are at war with a very real threat. Absent a state actor to declare war on, you are saying espionage is automatically wrong?
(2) Plenty of GREAT intelligence came out of Poland intercepting and decrypting radio transmissions well before war was declared, with british support and involvement. Was this acceptable despite the fact that their was only the threat of war? Keep in mind that the magnitude of the coming war was totally unkown.
(3) Are you really going to argue that espionage is automatically wrong without a declaration of war?
"It's important to look at where this started and it was the ends justify the means free for all that the Bush administration let loose immediately after Sept 11th".
I agree, and a whole lot of what he did and what Obama has done is completely unacceptable. However, I don't think that cracking TOR is wrong. Storing records or continuing listening once a U.S. citizen is communicating is clearly illegal, but cracking TOR seems to be completely consistent with the NSA's historical role. It IS used by very real enemies to communicate. Cracking and looking for them there seems no different then what has traditionally been done by state cryptologists over the last thousand years, weather they are at war or at peace. Congress should make it criminal for them to store or listen on u.s. citizens without a warrant, but by all means crack away.
Honest question. During WW2 Bletchley Park and OSS routinely listened in on all radio communication. Private, Public, Foreign, Domestic.
They also tried to decrypt all encrypted signals, enemy and ally alike.
Was that less wrong then cracking Tor?
Because its zero some?
The capital saved via automation did not just get pocketed. It probably went to expanded operations if the business was at all well run.
Except that immigration has repeatedly been demonstrated to create a net gain in economic activity, ie more jobs.
"don't employ someone for that role because it is not worth it for society to do so."
"Acceptable minimum to me includes healthcare, pension and ability to support a basic family."
Nice. So if someone has no interest in supporting a family, it doesn't matter you are going to force the job to not exist through price controls?
The real problem with the minimum wage is that you are restricting an individuals ability to price their own labor. Someone without a family should have the ability to compete on price with someone who does. Stopping them is immoral.
"The instant you decide one person's money is less than another's, you've become bad at business."
Obviously false. Just consider the value of a trend setters purchase versus an average consumer. I'd far rather take the trend setters money.
However he clearly does not have the chops to be an entrepreneur.
There is currently no shortage of money aggressively chasing startups and video game studios. If he can't generate interest despite the successful Kick-starter campaign, then he should really re-evaluate his business plan, his pitch and his fund raising strategy. Failure to generate any interest at all is a great indicator that you are doing something very wrong.
Except the federal reserve doesn't print money. Treasury does.