How is the FDA helping? The crooks routed around the damage. The only thing being slowed down here are the legitimate companies with legitimate treatments.
Why should there be a concern? The people dying early are the stupid people. Smart people live healthy lifestyles and don't need as much treatment.
One problem here is that you ignore here behavior and intent. The "smart people" try to live longer via methods that are known to work. And life extension for the "smart" seems to have better results than stupidity prevention for the stupid.
I believe as a result, smart peoples' health concerns should have considerably more weight over those that willingly engage in harmful behavior and need warning labels for their entire lives. And while the smart people may need less treatment per year of life, they end up needing just as much overall since everyone dies.
The AC didn't understand the role of compensation. It's not to reverse the irreversible. It's to provide a hefty negative consequence to harmful activity while simultaneously providing a very public and ample settlement to the victim(s) for the harm done.
hey violate the Weak Energy Condition, which means that they are indeed forbidden.
By the weak energy condition, but not necessarily by the laws of physics. Wormholes wouldn't be "normal conditions". Given that the weak energy condition is violated on quantum scales, as you already noted, that's one avenue by which you might be able to exploit the math.
Not everyone has the luxury of being *allowed* to execute financial competence, you dimwit.
This is outright bullshit. You don't have to get a note from Mommy in order to live within a budget.
Seriously, try to live in the actual reality of a great many people and get off your high horse once in a while.
Been there. Done that. Get a real argument or get lost.
It's not the Man keeping people down. People don't live within their means, frequently they drink or smoke their paychecks, they don't know how to budget, they borrow too much money at too high interest rates, and sometimes they don't even know how to hold down a job (things like showing up on time and no backtalk). Those are the sort of things they are doing that lead to "paycheck to paycheck" living.
We're not going to get 19th century conditions if we re-create the environment that led to those conditions? Why not?
We're not recreating the conditions or the environment for starters. That would require losing more than a century of knowledge.
or that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be happy to receive huge profits on untested and addictive drugs if it meant losing the occasional lawsuit?
For example, we know more about addictive drugs than we used to. The "occasional lawsuit" can include class action lawsuits capable of bankrupting the company and everyone involved.
If society as a whole has given me the privlege of earning 4 million dollars this year, then sure, it's reasonable for society to expect me to give a million dollars back.
Actually, society as a whole has given you the privilege of earning zero dollars per year. If instead you earn 4 million a year, that's somebody else's fault.
We have a public service, we have a tax. The thing you're missing in your argument is that the cost of your use of that service is far less than the tax I made up. That's what the rich have to put up with.
Do you have numbers to back that up?
We have widespread government incentives to attract businesses in the US. For example, the state of Georgia offers a variety of standard business incentives to create jobs or move parts of your company to Georgia.
Second, it doesn't take numbers I don't have to note that commercial and industrial property is typically far more valuable than farmland or residential property. Commercial property and office complexes are particularly noteworthy for not being hard on municipal infrastructure. They need a bit of traffic control and some utilities, but there's only so much sewage or traffic a store or office building will generate. Businesses don't use schools, for example, and don't generate a lot of law enforcement needs.
In turn, you get a lot of tax revenue from the business itself and from the employees that the business hires. At the federal level, it's even more pronounced. The company generates a lot of tax revenue, even in the cases where the business itself isn't paying taxes (just due to income tax from the employees and various sorts of capital gains taxes from the business owners).
If government itself was a highly competitive business rather than a monopoly racket, I doubt businesses would pay taxes at all. They're just too valuable due to what they bring to an economy.
Matter compared to what? Surely not lives saved, the FDA is nothing but a speedbump for pharmaceutical R&D - a fairly big one, but it's not like the cure for cancer is languishing in a basement because we aren't in the early-1800s golden age of snake oil and balls-trippin' cough syrup.
Then don't make that claim. I've already noted the problem. It has become vastly expensive to develop medical technologies and procedures. The FDA and similar government agencies are the primary reason why. They only care if people die from the prospective treatment not if people die because the treatment doesn't exist.
The 19th century isn't going to ambush us merely because we let up some on the reins of medical companies. It's still illegal to knowingly kill people and you can still sue for gross or criminal negligence. These don't change even if the FDA ceases to exist.
Do their employees also take a helicopter to work? Do businessmen have to train their employees from scratch in basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills? Does each company have to have its own set of on-staff doctors to avoid having the entire company out sick with the Plague?
No, but they do pay for it and then some.
Even if the owners don't personally use the services, they benefit immensely from having them available to the general public, who ultimately become their employees and customers.
Because you drive on roads, it's ok to tax you for a million dollars a year right? We have a public service, we have a tax. The thing you're missing in your argument is that the cost of your use of that service is far less than the tax I made up. That's what the rich have to put up with.
And I haven't even considered whether the tax is going to the right government! If NYC is paying for the road, but the feds are taking the tax, then that's a bad allocation of taxes.
You can see the broken HTML in the first sentence. It's a quote designation. And he, like I, posts without previewing it. I otherwise agree with your post.
prior to the First World War, which is the traditional end of the Victorian era.
Ok, Queen Victoria died in 1901 which technically is the end of the era, but things didn't really change until the brutality of the First World War making that a better bookend for the era.
Dunno where you got your ideas about Victorian values - it's kind of funny since you're describing movements(better worker appreciation which Ford copied from few german companies) which happened in societies at exactly post Victorian timeframe.
How old was Ford? On January 5, 1914, he was 50 years, So he was born solidly in the middle of the Victorian era. Second, as I just implied, his "five dollar day" policy was implemented prior to the First World War, which is the traditional end of the Victorian era.
If the "criminals" who leaked the information have deeper goals that simply name and shame... fine by me.
There's probably a more mundane answer than the conspiratorial "Blackmailers!!!". But my concern here is that a blackmailer of this size is powerful enough to create in many countries the taxation laws that encourages blackmailable tax evasion. This might be the first concrete indication that some powerful crime organization is screwing with the laws of your country in order to encourage tax evasion.
These records are apparently for the creation of somewhere around 10% of all such corporations created in the British Virgin Islands (which in turn appears to be a leader in this area). That seems a lot to me and we're not told yet where they came from.
When people spend more money on bullshit medicine that doesn't help, or die from unsafe medicine? Wouldn't both of those decrease the customer base for helpful medical treatments?
The police also try to stop crime before it happens
And they do so by providing consequences for illegal behavior. See how this works?
And who said the FDA doesn't work?
I did, for starters.
We're not giving heroin to kids anymore, all kinds of drugs are being thoroughly tested before they hit the market.
And I already explained the dark side of that rosy picture. Ridiculous R&D costs that result in far fewer medical innovations than we'd have in their absence.
That's ignorant. The board of directors reflects the interests of the big shareholders such as Vanguard. Vanguard probably even has direct control over one of the members of the board. There we go. A Rajiv L. Gupta is a director of HP and of The Vanguard Group.
It's not magic how this works. Directors usually represent the interests of one or more large shareholders each and the large shareholders negotiate with each other to get enough votes for the entire board. The board got reelected because its purpose is to represent the interests of the large shareholders not to make decisions that appear competent to the outside world.
Winning an election with 58% of the vote is perfectly fine. Until you realize that he had no opponent. Just like elections in the old Soviet Union or other dictatorships, elections for most boards of directors are a complete fraud.
Here's a challenge. Name any sitting dictatorship that won with only 58% of the vote. It's always a win with something like 99.7% of the vote.
There are two big differences here. First, he might not have won. If 4% of those votes had shifted against him, he would be out. That's assuming my understanding of the election system is correct.
Second, the reason he won was because he represented the interests of certain large shareholders who negotiated with other large shareholders in order to secure enough votes to elect him. As long as he continued to represent those interests faithfully, no matter how incompetent or corrupt he might appear to the outside world as a result, they'll continue to sponsor him.
Directors usually do not represent the interests of all shareholders, but the interests of a few large shareholders. That's what people don't get. There's no fraud here. It's just divergent and conflicting interests.
Your point is extremely moot. This doesn't happen in any other country I've been in, but "I don't know" is a cool answer for some idiotic reason in a lot of places in the US now.
You do realize that "extremely moot" just means that it is "arguable"? And I simply just don't buy the rest of your claim. Willful ignorance is universal and enduring, even if you're not fully aware of it. They've been complaining about it as long as there has been writing.
The fact that you take this as a given fact suggests that you NEED to believe this strongly in order to rationalize your religious-like beliefs in an economic theory.
I debunk that here. I also debunk the subsequent claim that most of that spending is "marketing" by noting that most of the spending listed is in drugs that never see the market.
From my perspective, before the FDA, there was a lot of snake oil sold as medicine. Literal snake oil. And sometimes toxins. And not sold as "herbal remedies," they were outright lies. People have not gotten smarter since that time, we have herbal remedies which are completely ineffective, yet they're still big money. Consumers are not able to determine side effects or efficiency themselves, which is why they keep buying "Airborne" or crap like that. If you allowed unproven crap medicines to be sold alongside meds which were tested and effective, there's no way real pharmaceutical practices would be competitive. Real pharmaceutical testing would be halted in favor of marketing cheap snake oil.
So what? Don't get me wrong. I have no empathy for people who willingly poison themselves with snake oil cures. I don't care at all about that. But these things wouldn't happen if the people involved took a little responsibility for themselves. I consider it evolution in action.
The price for protecting stupid people is that everyone else doesn't have access to the best possible medical gear, medicines, and procedures. That's a lot of lives ended early. Where's the concern for that?
Recognize that every warning label you ever saw is because someone fucked up once.
News flash. The people who fuck up in that way generally don't read warning labels. This is just pandering to the stupid. It doesn't work.
How you think it's preferable that a system setup to to at least try to prevent irreversible negative outcomes (in the form of your family's deaths) vis a vis public standards in pharmaceuticals should be overturned for the post hoc (and entirely inadequate) remedy of lawsuits in the event of your family's preventable deaths, is beyond me.
Because I look at outcome. The FDA prevents positive health outcomes by blocking medical innovation.
The only thread you have presented is this idea that the FDA somehow causes obscene budgetary inflation of R&D, to the extent that cures and treatments are not being researched, when the most casual perusal of the costs for drugs shows the biggest cost to be marketing of the drugs. Meanwhile, you completely ignore that "snake oil" was once not a euphemism. The argument falls flat on it's face.
Most of that "marketing" cost comes from drugs that never make it to the market. Maybe you ought to think about that.
But seriously, the idea that you can sue for your family's deaths is 'adequate' recompense, would make me concerned for you and your metal, were I to know you personally. That is not the mindset of an empathetic person.
It's not the mindset of a fool, you should say. We'll never know how many people die for the sake of your so-called "empathy". But people will die early when medical innovation is blocked. That's just how it works or rather doesn't work. Opportunity cost is invisible.
While I understand that fraud and corruption in regards to public utilities are a problem, that's not what I'm talking about here. If some office or store didn't exist, then there would be less car traffic of customers and employees. There would be less need for other infrastructure that is only required because of the increased demand caused by the commerce. This commerce then financially enriches the capitalist. I don't have a problem with charging capitalists for the infrastructure that is used in their commercial ventures.
The thing you don't get is that the store or office is greatly overpaying for that service. All that traffic directly translates into tax income. They don't use schools and they only need moderate services for their size.
It's a very common racket throughout the US (and probably the entire world) to skim extra taxes off of commercial and industrial properties. They can't vote so they can't stop it aside from shady stuff like offering bribes (which in this case would just be another form of taxation).
That's why local politicians get excited when a new large business moves in. It's easy money.
Slashdot Mirror
do you want to open up these markets even more?
How is the FDA helping? The crooks routed around the damage. The only thing being slowed down here are the legitimate companies with legitimate treatments.
Why should there be a concern? The people dying early are the stupid people. Smart people live healthy lifestyles and don't need as much treatment.
One problem here is that you ignore here behavior and intent. The "smart people" try to live longer via methods that are known to work. And life extension for the "smart" seems to have better results than stupidity prevention for the stupid.
I believe as a result, smart peoples' health concerns should have considerably more weight over those that willingly engage in harmful behavior and need warning labels for their entire lives. And while the smart people may need less treatment per year of life, they end up needing just as much overall since everyone dies.
The AC didn't understand the role of compensation. It's not to reverse the irreversible. It's to provide a hefty negative consequence to harmful activity while simultaneously providing a very public and ample settlement to the victim(s) for the harm done.
hey violate the Weak Energy Condition, which means that they are indeed forbidden.
By the weak energy condition, but not necessarily by the laws of physics. Wormholes wouldn't be "normal conditions". Given that the weak energy condition is violated on quantum scales, as you already noted, that's one avenue by which you might be able to exploit the math.
Not everyone has the luxury of being *allowed* to execute financial competence, you dimwit.
This is outright bullshit. You don't have to get a note from Mommy in order to live within a budget.
Seriously, try to live in the actual reality of a great many people and get off your high horse once in a while.
Been there. Done that. Get a real argument or get lost.
It's not the Man keeping people down. People don't live within their means, frequently they drink or smoke their paychecks, they don't know how to budget, they borrow too much money at too high interest rates, and sometimes they don't even know how to hold down a job (things like showing up on time and no backtalk). Those are the sort of things they are doing that lead to "paycheck to paycheck" living.
We're not going to get 19th century conditions if we re-create the environment that led to those conditions? Why not?
We're not recreating the conditions or the environment for starters. That would require losing more than a century of knowledge.
or that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be happy to receive huge profits on untested and addictive drugs if it meant losing the occasional lawsuit?
For example, we know more about addictive drugs than we used to. The "occasional lawsuit" can include class action lawsuits capable of bankrupting the company and everyone involved.
If society as a whole has given me the privlege of earning 4 million dollars this year, then sure, it's reasonable for society to expect me to give a million dollars back.
Actually, society as a whole has given you the privilege of earning zero dollars per year. If instead you earn 4 million a year, that's somebody else's fault.
We have a public service, we have a tax. The thing you're missing in your argument is that the cost of your use of that service is far less than the tax I made up. That's what the rich have to put up with.
Do you have numbers to back that up?
We have widespread government incentives to attract businesses in the US. For example, the state of Georgia offers a variety of standard business incentives to create jobs or move parts of your company to Georgia.
Second, it doesn't take numbers I don't have to note that commercial and industrial property is typically far more valuable than farmland or residential property. Commercial property and office complexes are particularly noteworthy for not being hard on municipal infrastructure. They need a bit of traffic control and some utilities, but there's only so much sewage or traffic a store or office building will generate. Businesses don't use schools, for example, and don't generate a lot of law enforcement needs.
In turn, you get a lot of tax revenue from the business itself and from the employees that the business hires. At the federal level, it's even more pronounced. The company generates a lot of tax revenue, even in the cases where the business itself isn't paying taxes (just due to income tax from the employees and various sorts of capital gains taxes from the business owners).
If government itself was a highly competitive business rather than a monopoly racket, I doubt businesses would pay taxes at all. They're just too valuable due to what they bring to an economy.
Matter compared to what? Surely not lives saved, the FDA is nothing but a speedbump for pharmaceutical R&D - a fairly big one, but it's not like the cure for cancer is languishing in a basement because we aren't in the early-1800s golden age of snake oil and balls-trippin' cough syrup.
Then don't make that claim. I've already noted the problem. It has become vastly expensive to develop medical technologies and procedures. The FDA and similar government agencies are the primary reason why. They only care if people die from the prospective treatment not if people die because the treatment doesn't exist.
The 19th century isn't going to ambush us merely because we let up some on the reins of medical companies. It's still illegal to knowingly kill people and you can still sue for gross or criminal negligence. These don't change even if the FDA ceases to exist.
Do their employees also take a helicopter to work? Do businessmen have to train their employees from scratch in basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills? Does each company have to have its own set of on-staff doctors to avoid having the entire company out sick with the Plague?
No, but they do pay for it and then some.
Even if the owners don't personally use the services, they benefit immensely from having them available to the general public, who ultimately become their employees and customers.
Because you drive on roads, it's ok to tax you for a million dollars a year right? We have a public service, we have a tax. The thing you're missing in your argument is that the cost of your use of that service is far less than the tax I made up. That's what the rich have to put up with.
And I haven't even considered whether the tax is going to the right government! If NYC is paying for the road, but the feds are taking the tax, then that's a bad allocation of taxes.
Is there some significance to the italics?
You can see the broken HTML in the first sentence. It's a quote designation. And he, like I, posts without previewing it. I otherwise agree with your post.
prior to the First World War, which is the traditional end of the Victorian era.
Ok, Queen Victoria died in 1901 which technically is the end of the era, but things didn't really change until the brutality of the First World War making that a better bookend for the era.
Dunno where you got your ideas about Victorian values - it's kind of funny since you're describing movements(better worker appreciation which Ford copied from few german companies) which happened in societies at exactly post Victorian timeframe.
How old was Ford? On January 5, 1914, he was 50 years, So he was born solidly in the middle of the Victorian era. Second, as I just implied, his "five dollar day" policy was implemented prior to the First World War, which is the traditional end of the Victorian era.
If the "criminals" who leaked the information have deeper goals that simply name and shame... fine by me.
There's probably a more mundane answer than the conspiratorial "Blackmailers!!!". But my concern here is that a blackmailer of this size is powerful enough to create in many countries the taxation laws that encourages blackmailable tax evasion. This might be the first concrete indication that some powerful crime organization is screwing with the laws of your country in order to encourage tax evasion.
These records are apparently for the creation of somewhere around 10% of all such corporations created in the British Virgin Islands (which in turn appears to be a leader in this area). That seems a lot to me and we're not told yet where they came from.
When people spend more money on bullshit medicine that doesn't help, or die from unsafe medicine? Wouldn't both of those decrease the customer base for helpful medical treatments?
Not by enough to matter.
You are a very sad human being.
There may be a place for empathy and such things. But it's not in making decisions that kill millions to save thousands.
Have you ever tried to plow a field with your bare hands?
Be kind. He's already said that personal property is ok. Everyone will have a spoon.
The police also try to stop crime before it happens
And they do so by providing consequences for illegal behavior. See how this works?
And who said the FDA doesn't work?
I did, for starters.
We're not giving heroin to kids anymore, all kinds of drugs are being thoroughly tested before they hit the market.
And I already explained the dark side of that rosy picture. Ridiculous R&D costs that result in far fewer medical innovations than we'd have in their absence.
150 million people aren't financially ignorant.
I didn't say that. I said at least 150 million people. I'd say that it's closer to 300 million than to 150 million.
Almost no one takes out a payday loan because of ignorance
Nonsense. Those loans are obviously terrible.
it's because they live paycheck to paycheck.
Which is a painfully glaring sign of financial incompetence.
That's ignorant. The board of directors reflects the interests of the big shareholders such as Vanguard. Vanguard probably even has direct control over one of the members of the board. There we go. A Rajiv L. Gupta is a director of HP and of The Vanguard Group.
It's not magic how this works. Directors usually represent the interests of one or more large shareholders each and the large shareholders negotiate with each other to get enough votes for the entire board. The board got reelected because its purpose is to represent the interests of the large shareholders not to make decisions that appear competent to the outside world.
Winning an election with 58% of the vote is perfectly fine. Until you realize that he had no opponent. Just like elections in the old Soviet Union or other dictatorships, elections for most boards of directors are a complete fraud.
Here's a challenge. Name any sitting dictatorship that won with only 58% of the vote. It's always a win with something like 99.7% of the vote.
There are two big differences here. First, he might not have won. If 4% of those votes had shifted against him, he would be out. That's assuming my understanding of the election system is correct.
Second, the reason he won was because he represented the interests of certain large shareholders who negotiated with other large shareholders in order to secure enough votes to elect him. As long as he continued to represent those interests faithfully, no matter how incompetent or corrupt he might appear to the outside world as a result, they'll continue to sponsor him.
Directors usually do not represent the interests of all shareholders, but the interests of a few large shareholders. That's what people don't get. There's no fraud here. It's just divergent and conflicting interests.
The point of the FDA is to cockblock death before it has a chance to strike
Well, that doesn't work. And by inhibiting medical innovation, they're actually running counter to their alleged purpose.
does suing after the fact do anything like that?
Yes. Providing negative consequences for negligent harm does, just like law enforcement helps discourage crime.
Your point is extremely moot. This doesn't happen in any other country I've been in, but "I don't know" is a cool answer for some idiotic reason in a lot of places in the US now.
You do realize that "extremely moot" just means that it is "arguable"? And I simply just don't buy the rest of your claim. Willful ignorance is universal and enduring, even if you're not fully aware of it. They've been complaining about it as long as there has been writing.
The fact that you take this as a given fact suggests that you NEED to believe this strongly in order to rationalize your religious-like beliefs in an economic theory.
I debunk that here. I also debunk the subsequent claim that most of that spending is "marketing" by noting that most of the spending listed is in drugs that never see the market.
From my perspective, before the FDA, there was a lot of snake oil sold as medicine. Literal snake oil. And sometimes toxins. And not sold as "herbal remedies," they were outright lies. People have not gotten smarter since that time, we have herbal remedies which are completely ineffective, yet they're still big money. Consumers are not able to determine side effects or efficiency themselves, which is why they keep buying "Airborne" or crap like that. If you allowed unproven crap medicines to be sold alongside meds which were tested and effective, there's no way real pharmaceutical practices would be competitive. Real pharmaceutical testing would be halted in favor of marketing cheap snake oil.
So what? Don't get me wrong. I have no empathy for people who willingly poison themselves with snake oil cures. I don't care at all about that. But these things wouldn't happen if the people involved took a little responsibility for themselves. I consider it evolution in action.
The price for protecting stupid people is that everyone else doesn't have access to the best possible medical gear, medicines, and procedures. That's a lot of lives ended early. Where's the concern for that?
Recognize that every warning label you ever saw is because someone fucked up once.
News flash. The people who fuck up in that way generally don't read warning labels. This is just pandering to the stupid. It doesn't work.
How you think it's preferable that a system setup to to at least try to prevent irreversible negative outcomes (in the form of your family's deaths) vis a vis public standards in pharmaceuticals should be overturned for the post hoc (and entirely inadequate) remedy of lawsuits in the event of your family's preventable deaths, is beyond me.
Because I look at outcome. The FDA prevents positive health outcomes by blocking medical innovation.
The only thread you have presented is this idea that the FDA somehow causes obscene budgetary inflation of R&D, to the extent that cures and treatments are not being researched, when the most casual perusal of the costs for drugs shows the biggest cost to be marketing of the drugs. Meanwhile, you completely ignore that "snake oil" was once not a euphemism. The argument falls flat on it's face.
Most of that "marketing" cost comes from drugs that never make it to the market. Maybe you ought to think about that.
But seriously, the idea that you can sue for your family's deaths is 'adequate' recompense, would make me concerned for you and your metal, were I to know you personally. That is not the mindset of an empathetic person.
It's not the mindset of a fool, you should say. We'll never know how many people die for the sake of your so-called "empathy". But people will die early when medical innovation is blocked. That's just how it works or rather doesn't work. Opportunity cost is invisible.
While I understand that fraud and corruption in regards to public utilities are a problem, that's not what I'm talking about here. If some office or store didn't exist, then there would be less car traffic of customers and employees. There would be less need for other infrastructure that is only required because of the increased demand caused by the commerce. This commerce then financially enriches the capitalist. I don't have a problem with charging capitalists for the infrastructure that is used in their commercial ventures.
The thing you don't get is that the store or office is greatly overpaying for that service. All that traffic directly translates into tax income. They don't use schools and they only need moderate services for their size.
It's a very common racket throughout the US (and probably the entire world) to skim extra taxes off of commercial and industrial properties. They can't vote so they can't stop it aside from shady stuff like offering bribes (which in this case would just be another form of taxation).
That's why local politicians get excited when a new large business moves in. It's easy money.