And excellent lesson, all told. A similarly teachable moment occurred back when I was working at a summer camp. The kids were clustered near the head cook's cabin, where he was raising some rabbits. The kids asked the cook what their names were. He replied, "this one here is Lunch, and this other one is Dinner".
Actually, that particular camp did a lot of work with farm animals, and not only ate some of the meat they raised (usually referring to it by name, e.g. "pass some more of Porky please") but also handled some of the slaughtering themselves, with the kids.
I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.
This comes up whenever the discussion turns to corporate taxation. It's incorrect, but tends to be one of those zombie concepts that keeps coming back no matter how incorrect it is.
The standard microeconomics on taxation on a single market: The tax raises the cost to produce the good. This shifts the supply curve somewhere. A new equilibrium price is formed, which is nearly always somewhere in between the old price and the old price + the tax. That means the cost of the tax is partially paid by the seller (old price + tax - new price) and partially paid by the buyer (new price - old price). In the case of a corporation, the portion of the cost born by the seller is passed along to some degree to the stockholders. The cases where this doesn't happen are when the demand for the good is not affected by price, or in the case of Giffen or Veblen goods where demand increases when prices are increased.
Incidentally, this explains it far better than what I just said. The diagrams alone explain it rather clearly. All this stuff can be found in any standard introductory economics textbook. There's disagreement over exactly how much gets paid where, but agreement that it isn't all passed along to the consumer.
There's a massive loophole in your proposal: 1. If the pharma companies are responsible for tracking the R&D costs, then they will make darn sure that the R&D costs are as high as they can be without drawing suspicion from whatever agency is enforcing these rules. 2. Thanks to Hollywood accounting, the net profit of any good can be $0 (or $1 if you make a "no profit = no patent" rule) if the company producing the good wants it to be. 3. Ergo, the R&D costs can either never be covered, or won't be covered in anyone's natural lifetime.
Reminds me of a great moment by Dr House: When he explains to his audience that Vogler's new drug will work really well, because the old drug worked really well, and nothing significant has changed, just minor changes in order to keep the patent protection.
That is pretty much entirely untrue outside the US, where people seem to think that cows can eat grain.
It's more along the lines of "perverse agricultural subsidies make it cheaper to feed grain to cows and pump them full of drugs than it is to feed them grass like evolution or $DEITY intended". Scale back the corn subsidies (that appear to benefit farmers but are actually benefit ADM and Cargill) to get a proper price for corn and a lot of the other problems in the US food chain would go away.
Not only that, every firm in the business of producing cars and dogs is going to be doing everything it can not to pay for the environmental damage (as well as health risks to workers and in some cases customers, but that's another story). Those things are called externalities by policy-wonk economists, and most regulations are about trying to get businesses to pay those costs.
Government cannot do ANYTHING of any significance without this kind of corruption. That is the single best reason to keep government out of it.
Not necessarily: it's possible under some circumstances the corruption involved in a government program is less than the corruption involved in a private-sector program.
Where exactly did I say that other politicians across the political spectrum weren't also on the take?
A "tu quoque" argument doesn't make any sense here. Just because Harry Reid (D-NV) is also getting bribed by AT&T doesn't mean that John McCain's (R-AZ) positions aren't based in large part on AT&T's corporate sponsorship of his campaigns.
This is one of the many reasons I loved Blazing Saddles: Not because it was historically accurate (not remotely), but because a number of the jokes were based on putting the real story of how the American west was somewhat civilized (Chinese-Americans and African-Americans worked to death building railroads, rampant racism, and so forth) in the middle of a Hollywood western.
Yup, I'm quite sure the $216,938 from AT&T for his 2010 campaign committee has absolutely nothing to do with his principled stance on this issue. source
Already been there and done that. I worked in a fast food restaurant as a teenager.
No, you haven't, if you were living with your parents when you did that job. Or if it was a few decades ago when the minimum wage was significantly higher in real dollars.
The "making a living" standard probably should include paying for the following: - A place to live. - Food to eat (unless given away by the restaurant, which they will sometimes do). - Clothes to wear. - Transportation to and from work. - Basic utilities: electricity, water, and heating.
During that era, the government officials who might have put a stop to the railroad robber barons all had several thousand reasons (mostly with Benjamin Franklin on the front) for not doing so. Where do you think the term "railroading" in reference to legislation came from?
It wasn't even subtle: it was along the lines of railroad executives coming into Washington with suitcases of cash and each congresscritter stopping by and leaving with filled pockets.
Guy in store: Nice melons Peter: Hey, watch it! Lois: Peter, I'm holding melons Guy in store: And those hooters aren't bad either Peter: Grrr! Lois: Peter, I'm holding hooters.
(I'm pro-gay marriage, btw, but this goes for the opposing view as well)
If I sign my name to a petition, and someone publishes just my name, I have no problem with it. There's actually a benefit to me in some ways: if a news organization starts looking for people with my views and picks someone to talk to at random, then I get a chance to make the best case I can for my position to a public audience.
Is there a slight risk? Of course. But if I wanted to assume absolutely no risk of retaliation for my political opinions, I'd post as an Anonymous Coward to an Internet forum after going through Tor or some other anonymizer.
Slashdot Mirror
You laugh, but my first thought was that it was referring to Vishy Anand, current World Chess Champion.
It's OK: the chief weapon of the French Inquisition is surrendering.
And excellent lesson, all told. A similarly teachable moment occurred back when I was working at a summer camp. The kids were clustered near the head cook's cabin, where he was raising some rabbits. The kids asked the cook what their names were. He replied, "this one here is Lunch, and this other one is Dinner".
Actually, that particular camp did a lot of work with farm animals, and not only ate some of the meat they raised (usually referring to it by name, e.g. "pass some more of Porky please") but also handled some of the slaughtering themselves, with the kids.
Well, poop and dark matter do in fact have something in common: Nibblonians.
I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.
This comes up whenever the discussion turns to corporate taxation. It's incorrect, but tends to be one of those zombie concepts that keeps coming back no matter how incorrect it is.
The standard microeconomics on taxation on a single market: The tax raises the cost to produce the good. This shifts the supply curve somewhere. A new equilibrium price is formed, which is nearly always somewhere in between the old price and the old price + the tax. That means the cost of the tax is partially paid by the seller (old price + tax - new price) and partially paid by the buyer (new price - old price). In the case of a corporation, the portion of the cost born by the seller is passed along to some degree to the stockholders. The cases where this doesn't happen are when the demand for the good is not affected by price, or in the case of Giffen or Veblen goods where demand increases when prices are increased.
Incidentally, this explains it far better than what I just said. The diagrams alone explain it rather clearly. All this stuff can be found in any standard introductory economics textbook. There's disagreement over exactly how much gets paid where, but agreement that it isn't all passed along to the consumer.
There's a massive loophole in your proposal:
1. If the pharma companies are responsible for tracking the R&D costs, then they will make darn sure that the R&D costs are as high as they can be without drawing suspicion from whatever agency is enforcing these rules.
2. Thanks to Hollywood accounting, the net profit of any good can be $0 (or $1 if you make a "no profit = no patent" rule) if the company producing the good wants it to be.
3. Ergo, the R&D costs can either never be covered, or won't be covered in anyone's natural lifetime.
Reminds me of a great moment by Dr House: When he explains to his audience that Vogler's new drug will work really well, because the old drug worked really well, and nothing significant has changed, just minor changes in order to keep the patent protection.
That is pretty much entirely untrue outside the US, where people seem to think that cows can eat grain.
It's more along the lines of "perverse agricultural subsidies make it cheaper to feed grain to cows and pump them full of drugs than it is to feed them grass like evolution or $DEITY intended". Scale back the corn subsidies (that appear to benefit farmers but are actually benefit ADM and Cargill) to get a proper price for corn and a lot of the other problems in the US food chain would go away.
Not only that, every firm in the business of producing cars and dogs is going to be doing everything it can not to pay for the environmental damage (as well as health risks to workers and in some cases customers, but that's another story). Those things are called externalities by policy-wonk economists, and most regulations are about trying to get businesses to pay those costs.
Are you suggesting that Tasha26 is really John Titor?
Government cannot do ANYTHING of any significance without this kind of corruption. That is the single best reason to keep government out of it.
Not necessarily: it's possible under some circumstances the corruption involved in a government program is less than the corruption involved in a private-sector program.
Thank you for the correction. Still, I think my point remains valid.
saying that I've been hit by an "all-knowing frog" attack would simply be cool.
That's rather a rude way to describe being beaten by the French.
Where exactly did I say that other politicians across the political spectrum weren't also on the take?
A "tu quoque" argument doesn't make any sense here. Just because Harry Reid (D-NV) is also getting bribed by AT&T doesn't mean that John McCain's (R-AZ) positions aren't based in large part on AT&T's corporate sponsorship of his campaigns.
Actually, it sounds like from Wikipedia like both sides lost, and claimed victory anyways (as military leaders are wont to do).
This is one of the many reasons I loved Blazing Saddles: Not because it was historically accurate (not remotely), but because a number of the jokes were based on putting the real story of how the American west was somewhat civilized (Chinese-Americans and African-Americans worked to death building railroads, rampant racism, and so forth) in the middle of a Hollywood western.
Yup, I'm quite sure the $216,938 from AT&T for his 2010 campaign committee has absolutely nothing to do with his principled stance on this issue.
source
Already been there and done that. I worked in a fast food restaurant as a teenager.
No, you haven't, if you were living with your parents when you did that job. Or if it was a few decades ago when the minimum wage was significantly higher in real dollars.
The "making a living" standard probably should include paying for the following:
- A place to live.
- Food to eat (unless given away by the restaurant, which they will sometimes do).
- Clothes to wear.
- Transportation to and from work.
- Basic utilities: electricity, water, and heating.
During that era, the government officials who might have put a stop to the railroad robber barons all had several thousand reasons (mostly with Benjamin Franklin on the front) for not doing so. Where do you think the term "railroading" in reference to legislation came from?
It wasn't even subtle: it was along the lines of railroad executives coming into Washington with suitcases of cash and each congresscritter stopping by and leaving with filled pockets.
Guy in store: Nice melons
Peter: Hey, watch it!
Lois: Peter, I'm holding melons
Guy in store: And those hooters aren't bad either
Peter: Grrr!
Lois: Peter, I'm holding hooters.
If it doesn't seem hard, you're not searching for the good stuff.
(at least for men)
People still use watches!?
We even think the digital ones are a pretty neat idea. Amazing how primitive us humans can be.
By that standard, CmdrTaco is more influential than Bruce Perens or Wil Wheaton.
The petition in question should then read something like "I support putting a ban on gay marriage on the ballot for the election on Nov XX 200X."
If you believe this statement, then there should be no shame in attaching your name to that statement.
(I'm pro-gay marriage, btw, but this goes for the opposing view as well)
If I sign my name to a petition, and someone publishes just my name, I have no problem with it. There's actually a benefit to me in some ways: if a news organization starts looking for people with my views and picks someone to talk to at random, then I get a chance to make the best case I can for my position to a public audience.
Is there a slight risk? Of course. But if I wanted to assume absolutely no risk of retaliation for my political opinions, I'd post as an Anonymous Coward to an Internet forum after going through Tor or some other anonymizer.