You'd need to build out your lab network as well. This is easier than it might seem. Put plans together for state of the art facilities and let cities supply the land and build them for you since they will get the economic boost from the jobs you create as well as the construction, maintenance, etc. The cities will issue municipal bonds to fund the construction and you purchase the bonds which will pay a higher rate than the fed rate you are borrowing at.
You can make similar arrangements with manufacturers of lab equipment to initially outfit your labs with large orders of US manufactured equipment, offsetting prices by purchasing corporate bonds to provide them the capital to supply your order. Since you are a charitable non-profit they can even donate the equipment as a charitable donation and also get a continued write off for the interest they pay you on the bonds. Clearly you will need replacements, upgrades, service, etc into the future so all around this would be a big win.
Establishing an educational branch would let you snap up the public and private grant money as well as ensure a steady supply of talent. These students would be working with the cost their education coming directly out of their salaries. This would provide an excellent means of reducing and eventually eliminating the tax dollars going to fund this work while producing a core of top 5% earners that pay income taxes in the highest brackets.
An internal credit union for the use of those earners will ensure they are able to invest back into the community as well with gains all being invested back into paying for research and salaries.
Of course this would need to license out patents to any and all drug manufacturers with low royalties for domestic use and higher royalties for international. In order to guarantee a competitive market you'd spin off two or three as well. This means third party manufacturers will help ensure third party manufacturers aren't able to collude and avoid a race to the bottom while giving them no special terms will avoid subsidizing a bottom below what the market would allow.
It can definitely work and pay for itself. The staff would not be government employees with unions and federal protections, they would have to work for their supper. Being a non-profit would mean not paying taxes directly but having to either cut rates to avoid profits or expand growing the R&D and in so doing further stimulating the economy and producing more top 1-5% taxpaying earners.
Non-profits aren't anti-capitalist, they just don't skim off the top.
The board of directors for one and practical economics for another. As I said, you fund this at the fed tap which means the money is loaned from the Fed much like it is loaned to banks. Ultimately, it has to be paid back with interest at the fed rate which is adjusted up and down to control inflation. As a charitable non-profit this does need to pay its debts, does not need to pay taxes, and does need to break even but can't generate a profit. Researchers can be hired and fired if they don't produce or aren't on track to produce but since the main focus is producing useful medicine that can pay for itself and not producing the most profitable medicine the focus shifts quite a bit.
Ideally, very low or no royalties would be charged domestically (since the organization would own patents) with international royalties primarily for the operation. Also an academic branch could be formed with lower pay rates to capture private grant funds and alleviate the massive tax funding going universities to produce drugs for the drug companies now.
"The structure you describe discourages risk-taking & disruption, and encourages groupthink. History has taught us that the engine of progress is decentralized innovation."
Exactly the opposite. Big pharma is anything but decentralized. Big pharma is also failing to produce anything earthshattering and new that revolutionizes medicine. Stop and think about it, how many miracle drugs have you seen in the last 30 years? Not new surgeries or cancer busting treatments but actual medications? Not many. For the most part you see new drugs that are minor variations on old drugs so the patents are new and doctors given heavy incentives to prescribe them. If we tried a new structure existing medications wouldn't disappear and it is unlikely to do worse. There is actually more medical innovation coming out of Europe than the US these days and they are completely socialized.
This would allow anyone with the qualification to do so to individually jump right in and develop drugs which will hit the market at rates we pay for generics now. You don't need a handful of people to have a chance of winning the lottery to motivate, a top 1% salary is plenty of economic motivation to go into the field and everyone, wealthy or not, has a shared interest in offering that incentive.
"Capitalism isn't necessarily the only way to get there, but it's an extremely powerful way to harness human greed & status-seeking behavior. It's foolish to disregard that."
Big Pharma isn't capitalism at all, it is exactly the opposite. People are right to not want government controlled healthcare because our government will do a terrible job of it. But it is also true that market economics work poorly for healthcare and research. There is no real limit to what you can squeeze from a person for good health and there is a greater profit to be made if you can make someone continue to pay for treatment rather than cure them.
When it comes to the health of citizens that is unacceptable and a non-profit (although there is nothing to say there can't be more than one to compete) run by actual experts solves both problems, the staff will be well compensated for the work they are doing but also will have to convince their peers they are in fact doing valuable work and progressing medicine without any attempt to halt and maximize the monetary benefit of a discovered medication before going on to the next beyond the minimum necessary to break even. By taking funds from the fed tap, it's a loan, there is still interest to be paid back and so still pressure and that interest varies with the economic state of the country we will just be investing these funds into medical progress rather than banks. And of course we will still be privatizing the production, distribution, and sales of the drugs produced with FDA control only on quality and purity to make sure nobody is cheating or ignorantly producing poison.
This has an excellent side effect. You'll certainly want to see your doctor to figure out which medication you should take or if you should be taking any at all but it will eliminate 90% of the repeat visits which are just to get a new prescription you already know you need. This frees up doctors offices to treat more patients and/or provide more attention and care to those they see.
It's very simple, human greed in medicine conflicts with the interest of every other human when it comes to producing medication. Status-seeking behavior and wealth is only one form of status, you can seek status in a non-profit environment. On the other hand, so long as you have controls that prevent cheating, human greed can work just fine on production and distribution where for-profit competitors all have access to the same medications and compete for the profits to be had on manufacturing them and getting them into the hands of those who need them. Small company? Great, make your profits on the medications needed by a smaller number of people that are going to be higher cost. Big company? Great, use your ability to invest in mass prod
"This is false logic: just because you can implement both policies does not mean they are unrelated."
One can have an indirect impact on another that is not the same thing as a direct relationship of the sort you are discussing. This program would be solving a tax avoidance and welfare abuse problem and is not directly related to wages. A minimum wage is a highly contentious partisian issue that is intended to solve a different problem than this bill. This bill is to close a loophole which allows corporations to subsidize their operations with government welfare programs at tax payer expense. A minimum wage is an effort directly intended to impact the take home pay of workers.
"I'm unamerican and was simply making an observation that the proposed policy had some potentially very serious flaws"
I did speak previously to the issues you raise but I might have pounced on your argument a bit harshly. The political situation in the United States at the point is extremely highly polarized, even dangerously so. Studies have shown that individuals access different regions of the brain (related to memory, rather than reasoning) once an individual perceives an issue as being partisan (remember, there are basically only two parties in the US). The minimum wage is a very contentious partisan issue in the US and I don't want to see reason shut off and people arguing for or against because of which "side" they perceive the bill as benefiting instead of the actual merits of the policy.
A bill like this should simply close a loophole if implemented properly without disclosing to companies which of their employees receive benefits and the amounts. There are fiscal conservatives who believe the reason wages are too low is that welfare programs are obstructing the free market by allowing the needs of staff to be addressed at lower rates which alleviates the market pressures which would force companies to raise them. If this does not work you've still reduced tax avoidance and freed up tax funds and added weight to your argument that the market will not solve this problem. That strengthens your argument for a minimum wage increase. Instead of arguing you will have proved it out by actually trying their solution and will have this policy on the books to cover the abuse situations for employees exempted from the minimum wage. If on the hand this works as you've suggested and a minimum wage increase is no longer needed... well a minimum wage increase is no longer needed and you've solved that problem as well which is a win for everyone.
"Generally, governments implement policies to solve perceived problems. If you implement one policy and it solves the problem then there is no need to implement the other unless it offers additional benefits or unless the problem is so big it needs multiple policies to fix it."
Right, this solves a corporate tax abuse problem not the problem that workers fail to earn enough. These employees have a low enough income they pay no net taxes and in some cases actually turn a profit at tax time due to tax credits. Currently, everyone who does earn enough to pay taxes foots the bill for the public benefits that make their health and well being possible. This shifts the tax bill to the employer who is actually profiting from the health and well being of these workers. This also sets a precedent that is sorely needed for many of these policies targeted at large corporate abuse, excluding small businesses without punishing them incorporating for liability protection.
I suspect we will see some kind of boost in wages as a side-effect. Likely this will start a chain reaction that causes an increase of prices on retail goods indexed for the tracking of inflation. That will have all sorts of positive effects in the US. The artificial reduction of the prices of many of these goods in order to prevent accurate inflation tracking. How can we have sane conversations if we are artificially reducing the costs of the items we use to track cost of living and inflation?
I'm not sure I would. People die all the time for all sorts of reasons. columbian neckties are a relatively tiny statistic. Big pharma jacking up costs and reducing availability of medication on a mass global scale is responsible for millions of deaths and billions of people being impoverished because of the additional costs to their healthcare.
Ditch big pharma, fund drug development at the fed tap managed by a private non-profit with a board of medical researchers and with all staff researchers paid 250k/yr(adjusted over time to keep them in the 1%) and outsource the actual production of medications to anyone and everyone who wants to do it with FDA oversight of quality control much like food production but not on distribution or consumption.
Breaks big pharma and leaves plenty of incentive in the field, just not the get rich screwing people kind or the slow to size of government kind.
The chinese government is completely corrupt and controls all reporting, and also rewrites any offending content that travels over Chinese data lines so I'm curious how you think you'd know any sort of real statistic on crime rates. In the US we definitely don't have an illegal organized criminal element as powerful as the Chinese triads, perhaps the closest we came was during prohibition. There are certain elements that are obviously immoral, unethical, and harmful to society that are as powerful in the US but they are powerful enough that they are legal.
"Crime statistics are extremely racist, especially if they are accurate. That's why no one talks about them on the news, and that's why cops are perceived to be so hard on blacks. They know from direct experience exactly where the crime is coming from, and unless they are willing to ignore black neighborhoods completely, like Chicago, they are going to run into a lot more black and brown criminals than whites."
Sure but by your own assessment, that has more to do with culture than race. There is also a very significant relationship to desperation and poverty but accounting for that it still takes significant phacking and spin to erode the correlation with race. Correlation doesn't equal causation. It is also self feeding, because of those statistics being true even the most idealistic young officer becomes disillusioned and begins profiling which means they are more likely to catch brown criminals. In the real world the criminals who are caught don't even represent a statistically significant sample of those who break the law so those numbers aren't useful for assessing crime. And there you have it, the moderate reality that stands somewhere in the middle and contains uncomfortable realities neither extremist political party wants you to consider... if you did people might realize there is some common ground to be found that doesn't require making race the issue but would attack the racially targeted problems alongside the rest.
Everything one has was taken from someone else, it isn't a question of whether it is acceptable, it isn't preventable.
Whether you are picking a pocket, taking by physical force, using your relative leverage to negotiate terms with an employee, or inventing a new system of lending and credit to exploit more interest or extract profit via penalties on loans that default; it is all taking from somebody else. All forms of profit are taking from someone else. Which of those are legal mostly seems to follow who has or had power at the time the laws were established and other politics.
Do you really think pressing someone with physical intimidation to get $20 is any different than exploiting his ignorance to extract an extra $20? Either way you are taking advantage of some weakness or fault to take his $20.
Tell it to the Asian gangs, yakuza, and various criminal organizations in China. Indians are technically Asian although India is a very distinct sub-continent but it also has streets filled with criminals and delinquents.
As a group nothing, every white, black, and asian is an individual every large scale metric becomes meaningless when applied to an individual. The only valid way to apply information to a group is one individual at a time.
"It is human garbage that think that they are above the law and that other people's property are there to be taken by them and they have no regard for human life."
The law is just a set of codes to make sure it is difficult for the poor to take other people's property while providing protections for the actions of the wealthy doing the same.
DNA is also wrongly seen as more compelling than it is. There are lot of flaws with DNA evidence in the methodology, the flawed manner in which it is analyzed, the bogus statistics of certainly, and the manner in which indirect transmission as a common daily occurrence for any individual is ignored. Unfortunately, the courts have slammed down pretty hard on challenging DNA as evidence and the public has been taught it is a silver bullet for doubt.
And he referred to him as a "guy" which isn't consistent with calling "guys" boys and equating them with children... you know, to correct the p-hack provable pay gap.
They include white male in the descriptions of criminals, they include race and gender in the description of anyone else if they accomplish something of note like science.
"Hardened criminals aren't likely to suddenly stop committing crimes. Either they get good enough where they stop getting caught or they are removed from the pool via either prison or death"
It depends on what you call "small crimes" but the common factor in people not growing out serious crime is mental illness, either natural or induced from the Trauma of going to prison.
Nah, white ghetto kids are still "urban" Most of the worst criminal elements come out of Urban culture, it doesn't really matter what color they happen to be.
It hasn't been acceptable to call a black man boy during the 36 years I've been alive anywhere in the US. The latest and greatest is women calling white men boys to demean them in much the same manner.
Referring to men as boys is just a modern language change that came out of the feminism camp to demean men and equate them to children. On the other hand men who hang out with many of those women do tend to act like boys.
"The difference is that one group is attacking, and the other group is assisting, and it is substantive."
Just where is all this attacking? I'm looking around and I don't see it. There are no laws giving someone with white skin an advantage. It certainly isn't a wealth thing, the wealthy don't care about the poor and most white people are poor. There are a couple tiny groups of white supremacists but you aren't likely to actually encounter one in your lifetime. I see things like this story, which are attacking.
Sorry, I can name and already have named a lot of examples of discrimination against white males, systemic in our society, institutional, and even legal. Your point becomes invalidated by even one white child needing help and/or not being an attacker because you've yet to define a reason to justify treating two random white people as having a connection that isn't cosmetic.
It isn't attacking you to want to be given equal access to opportunities without regard for my race and gender. It isn't attacking to suggest a math league should be colorblind and judge according to ability. It isn't attacking to say technology companies, governments, and schools should do the same. Publicly traded companies should not be discriminating to promote diversity for its own sake or inventing an artificial advantage.
You say you are Hispanic. I've known a lot of hispanics. As a young boy I had a good friend named Jose who'd somehow found his way from Puerto Rico to the small mid-western town I lived in. Of course I was 15 and Jose was around 35 but we were good friends for a summer. White certainly doesn't mean in the rest of the US what it means in Puerto Rico at least from the impression I got from Jose, it seemed a trait that was 90% based on ethical behavior and character but when it shifted to that other 10% that was racial within Puerto Rico it seemed extreme. I lived in Miami and encountered many pocket layers of Cubans with different perceptions more sharply divided by class than I've seen elsewhere with the upper classes seeing themselves as from Spain more than anything and many of this culture are extremely racist. When I lived in New Mexico I encountered two other very distinct sets of hispanic cultures, one group spanned many generations and predates the border. The other is an illegal movement that exploits what most don't know, the motor vehicle department outsources driver's license offices in New Mexico and can hand out ID all day long which enables illegal immigrants to vote.
Now, how much of my experience among these others and the negative things they did should I keep in mind if encounter your children and see they have that rare capacity to learn a valuable skill along with the inclination? How much of the positive? Which of these extremely varied groups, which actually contained extremely varied individuals, should I project into assumptions about your child? I'll tell you what I would project, the preponderance of evidence of what I know of a parent for where I have to guess with nothing to go on and otherwise I will do my best to avoid assumptions because their talents or lack thereof will do the talking for them. But right now, the parent of those hypothetical offspring is telling me my son should go to the back of the line because he has light colored skin.
If he did it would only have been on a subset of the $11.6 million he cashed out. And just the gains on the $21 billion in dodged taxes will likely amount to more than he'll cash out for the rest of his life but the cost to society of supporting that wealth will remain. The people who actually generate that wealth, including those in the top 1% by income, give a portion of what they generate to Warren Buffet. Maybe you think he deserves it because of his success in identifying and investing in well run companies (thereby growing the overall economy) and maybe not but either way he should be paying the taxes on the share he gets.
Aside from that taxes discourage behavior. If you tax income you discourage income but income isn't a behavior we want to discourage as a society, hoarding wealth is. That is the big joke, the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes but that is largely because the top 0.1% dodge theirs while holding the lion share of that 40% of wealth.
Because someone is picking an arbitrary physical trait or set of traits which have no importance and pretending they connect people. Grouping people in this manner dehumanizes them. It wrongly ascribes to them blame or credit for actions of other individuals to which they have no significant connection. This is exactly how wars are justified, you group millions of men, women, and children as "them" or "the enemy" rather than realizing each is distinct, human, and without blame or credit for the actions of others.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd need to build out your lab network as well. This is easier than it might seem. Put plans together for state of the art facilities and let cities supply the land and build them for you since they will get the economic boost from the jobs you create as well as the construction, maintenance, etc. The cities will issue municipal bonds to fund the construction and you purchase the bonds which will pay a higher rate than the fed rate you are borrowing at.
You can make similar arrangements with manufacturers of lab equipment to initially outfit your labs with large orders of US manufactured equipment, offsetting prices by purchasing corporate bonds to provide them the capital to supply your order. Since you are a charitable non-profit they can even donate the equipment as a charitable donation and also get a continued write off for the interest they pay you on the bonds. Clearly you will need replacements, upgrades, service, etc into the future so all around this would be a big win.
Establishing an educational branch would let you snap up the public and private grant money as well as ensure a steady supply of talent. These students would be working with the cost their education coming directly out of their salaries. This would provide an excellent means of reducing and eventually eliminating the tax dollars going to fund this work while producing a core of top 5% earners that pay income taxes in the highest brackets.
An internal credit union for the use of those earners will ensure they are able to invest back into the community as well with gains all being invested back into paying for research and salaries.
Of course this would need to license out patents to any and all drug manufacturers with low royalties for domestic use and higher royalties for international. In order to guarantee a competitive market you'd spin off two or three as well. This means third party manufacturers will help ensure third party manufacturers aren't able to collude and avoid a race to the bottom while giving them no special terms will avoid subsidizing a bottom below what the market would allow.
It can definitely work and pay for itself. The staff would not be government employees with unions and federal protections, they would have to work for their supper. Being a non-profit would mean not paying taxes directly but having to either cut rates to avoid profits or expand growing the R&D and in so doing further stimulating the economy and producing more top 1-5% taxpaying earners.
Non-profits aren't anti-capitalist, they just don't skim off the top.
The board of directors for one and practical economics for another. As I said, you fund this at the fed tap which means the money is loaned from the Fed much like it is loaned to banks. Ultimately, it has to be paid back with interest at the fed rate which is adjusted up and down to control inflation. As a charitable non-profit this does need to pay its debts, does not need to pay taxes, and does need to break even but can't generate a profit. Researchers can be hired and fired if they don't produce or aren't on track to produce but since the main focus is producing useful medicine that can pay for itself and not producing the most profitable medicine the focus shifts quite a bit.
Ideally, very low or no royalties would be charged domestically (since the organization would own patents) with international royalties primarily for the operation. Also an academic branch could be formed with lower pay rates to capture private grant funds and alleviate the massive tax funding going universities to produce drugs for the drug companies now.
"The structure you describe discourages risk-taking & disruption, and encourages groupthink. History has taught us that the engine of progress is decentralized innovation."
Exactly the opposite. Big pharma is anything but decentralized. Big pharma is also failing to produce anything earthshattering and new that revolutionizes medicine. Stop and think about it, how many miracle drugs have you seen in the last 30 years? Not new surgeries or cancer busting treatments but actual medications? Not many. For the most part you see new drugs that are minor variations on old drugs so the patents are new and doctors given heavy incentives to prescribe them. If we tried a new structure existing medications wouldn't disappear and it is unlikely to do worse. There is actually more medical innovation coming out of Europe than the US these days and they are completely socialized.
This would allow anyone with the qualification to do so to individually jump right in and develop drugs which will hit the market at rates we pay for generics now. You don't need a handful of people to have a chance of winning the lottery to motivate, a top 1% salary is plenty of economic motivation to go into the field and everyone, wealthy or not, has a shared interest in offering that incentive.
"Capitalism isn't necessarily the only way to get there, but it's an extremely powerful way to harness human greed & status-seeking behavior. It's foolish to disregard that."
Big Pharma isn't capitalism at all, it is exactly the opposite. People are right to not want government controlled healthcare because our government will do a terrible job of it. But it is also true that market economics work poorly for healthcare and research. There is no real limit to what you can squeeze from a person for good health and there is a greater profit to be made if you can make someone continue to pay for treatment rather than cure them.
When it comes to the health of citizens that is unacceptable and a non-profit (although there is nothing to say there can't be more than one to compete) run by actual experts solves both problems, the staff will be well compensated for the work they are doing but also will have to convince their peers they are in fact doing valuable work and progressing medicine without any attempt to halt and maximize the monetary benefit of a discovered medication before going on to the next beyond the minimum necessary to break even. By taking funds from the fed tap, it's a loan, there is still interest to be paid back and so still pressure and that interest varies with the economic state of the country we will just be investing these funds into medical progress rather than banks. And of course we will still be privatizing the production, distribution, and sales of the drugs produced with FDA control only on quality and purity to make sure nobody is cheating or ignorantly producing poison.
This has an excellent side effect. You'll certainly want to see your doctor to figure out which medication you should take or if you should be taking any at all but it will eliminate 90% of the repeat visits which are just to get a new prescription you already know you need. This frees up doctors offices to treat more patients and/or provide more attention and care to those they see.
It's very simple, human greed in medicine conflicts with the interest of every other human when it comes to producing medication. Status-seeking behavior and wealth is only one form of status, you can seek status in a non-profit environment. On the other hand, so long as you have controls that prevent cheating, human greed can work just fine on production and distribution where for-profit competitors all have access to the same medications and compete for the profits to be had on manufacturing them and getting them into the hands of those who need them. Small company? Great, make your profits on the medications needed by a smaller number of people that are going to be higher cost. Big company? Great, use your ability to invest in mass prod
"This is false logic: just because you can implement both policies does not mean they are unrelated."
One can have an indirect impact on another that is not the same thing as a direct relationship of the sort you are discussing. This program would be solving a tax avoidance and welfare abuse problem and is not directly related to wages. A minimum wage is a highly contentious partisian issue that is intended to solve a different problem than this bill. This bill is to close a loophole which allows corporations to subsidize their operations with government welfare programs at tax payer expense. A minimum wage is an effort directly intended to impact the take home pay of workers.
"I'm unamerican and was simply making an observation that the proposed policy had some potentially very serious flaws"
I did speak previously to the issues you raise but I might have pounced on your argument a bit harshly. The political situation in the United States at the point is extremely highly polarized, even dangerously so. Studies have shown that individuals access different regions of the brain (related to memory, rather than reasoning) once an individual perceives an issue as being partisan (remember, there are basically only two parties in the US). The minimum wage is a very contentious partisan issue in the US and I don't want to see reason shut off and people arguing for or against because of which "side" they perceive the bill as benefiting instead of the actual merits of the policy.
A bill like this should simply close a loophole if implemented properly without disclosing to companies which of their employees receive benefits and the amounts. There are fiscal conservatives who believe the reason wages are too low is that welfare programs are obstructing the free market by allowing the needs of staff to be addressed at lower rates which alleviates the market pressures which would force companies to raise them. If this does not work you've still reduced tax avoidance and freed up tax funds and added weight to your argument that the market will not solve this problem. That strengthens your argument for a minimum wage increase. Instead of arguing you will have proved it out by actually trying their solution and will have this policy on the books to cover the abuse situations for employees exempted from the minimum wage. If on the hand this works as you've suggested and a minimum wage increase is no longer needed... well a minimum wage increase is no longer needed and you've solved that problem as well which is a win for everyone.
"Generally, governments implement policies to solve perceived problems. If you implement one policy and it solves the problem then there is no need to implement the other unless it offers additional benefits or unless the problem is so big it needs multiple policies to fix it."
Right, this solves a corporate tax abuse problem not the problem that workers fail to earn enough. These employees have a low enough income they pay no net taxes and in some cases actually turn a profit at tax time due to tax credits. Currently, everyone who does earn enough to pay taxes foots the bill for the public benefits that make their health and well being possible. This shifts the tax bill to the employer who is actually profiting from the health and well being of these workers. This also sets a precedent that is sorely needed for many of these policies targeted at large corporate abuse, excluding small businesses without punishing them incorporating for liability protection.
I suspect we will see some kind of boost in wages as a side-effect. Likely this will start a chain reaction that causes an increase of prices on retail goods indexed for the tracking of inflation. That will have all sorts of positive effects in the US. The artificial reduction of the prices of many of these goods in order to prevent accurate inflation tracking. How can we have sane conversations if we are artificially reducing the costs of the items we use to track cost of living and inflation?
I'm not sure I would. People die all the time for all sorts of reasons. columbian neckties are a relatively tiny statistic. Big pharma jacking up costs and reducing availability of medication on a mass global scale is responsible for millions of deaths and billions of people being impoverished because of the additional costs to their healthcare.
Ditch big pharma, fund drug development at the fed tap managed by a private non-profit with a board of medical researchers and with all staff researchers paid 250k/yr(adjusted over time to keep them in the 1%) and outsource the actual production of medications to anyone and everyone who wants to do it with FDA oversight of quality control much like food production but not on distribution or consumption.
Breaks big pharma and leaves plenty of incentive in the field, just not the get rich screwing people kind or the slow to size of government kind.
Sure. It doesn't change the fact that the "alternatives" they prescribe rather than opioids still don't actually work for most.
The chinese government is completely corrupt and controls all reporting, and also rewrites any offending content that travels over Chinese data lines so I'm curious how you think you'd know any sort of real statistic on crime rates. In the US we definitely don't have an illegal organized criminal element as powerful as the Chinese triads, perhaps the closest we came was during prohibition. There are certain elements that are obviously immoral, unethical, and harmful to society that are as powerful in the US but they are powerful enough that they are legal.
"Crime statistics are extremely racist, especially if they are accurate. That's why no one talks about them on the news, and that's why cops are perceived to be so hard on blacks. They know from direct experience exactly where the crime is coming from, and unless they are willing to ignore black neighborhoods completely, like Chicago, they are going to run into a lot more black and brown criminals than whites."
Sure but by your own assessment, that has more to do with culture than race. There is also a very significant relationship to desperation and poverty but accounting for that it still takes significant phacking and spin to erode the correlation with race. Correlation doesn't equal causation. It is also self feeding, because of those statistics being true even the most idealistic young officer becomes disillusioned and begins profiling which means they are more likely to catch brown criminals. In the real world the criminals who are caught don't even represent a statistically significant sample of those who break the law so those numbers aren't useful for assessing crime. And there you have it, the moderate reality that stands somewhere in the middle and contains uncomfortable realities neither extremist political party wants you to consider... if you did people might realize there is some common ground to be found that doesn't require making race the issue but would attack the racially targeted problems alongside the rest.
Everything one has was taken from someone else, it isn't a question of whether it is acceptable, it isn't preventable.
Whether you are picking a pocket, taking by physical force, using your relative leverage to negotiate terms with an employee, or inventing a new system of lending and credit to exploit more interest or extract profit via penalties on loans that default; it is all taking from somebody else. All forms of profit are taking from someone else. Which of those are legal mostly seems to follow who has or had power at the time the laws were established and other politics.
Do you really think pressing someone with physical intimidation to get $20 is any different than exploiting his ignorance to extract an extra $20? Either way you are taking advantage of some weakness or fault to take his $20.
Tell it to the Asian gangs, yakuza, and various criminal organizations in China. Indians are technically Asian although India is a very distinct sub-continent but it also has streets filled with criminals and delinquents.
As a group nothing, every white, black, and asian is an individual every large scale metric becomes meaningless when applied to an individual. The only valid way to apply information to a group is one individual at a time.
"It is human garbage that think that they are above the law and that other people's property are there to be taken by them and they have no regard for human life."
The law is just a set of codes to make sure it is difficult for the poor to take other people's property while providing protections for the actions of the wealthy doing the same.
Yes
DNA is also wrongly seen as more compelling than it is. There are lot of flaws with DNA evidence in the methodology, the flawed manner in which it is analyzed, the bogus statistics of certainly, and the manner in which indirect transmission as a common daily occurrence for any individual is ignored. Unfortunately, the courts have slammed down pretty hard on challenging DNA as evidence and the public has been taught it is a silver bullet for doubt.
This isn't flamebait but rather someone taking the bait laid by someone inflaming him by calling him a racist.
I dunno, you did just assume the criminal would have dark skin. What if people are pissed about this being used to target Asians?
Ummm... better check your human privilege before PETA finds out.
And he referred to him as a "guy" which isn't consistent with calling "guys" boys and equating them with children... you know, to correct the p-hack provable pay gap.
Ummm skin color is important in this context, this is for visual identification of suspects.
They include white male in the descriptions of criminals, they include race and gender in the description of anyone else if they accomplish something of note like science.
"Hardened criminals aren't likely to suddenly stop committing crimes. Either they get good enough where they stop getting caught or they are removed from the pool via either prison or death"
It depends on what you call "small crimes" but the common factor in people not growing out serious crime is mental illness, either natural or induced from the Trauma of going to prison.
Nah, white ghetto kids are still "urban" Most of the worst criminal elements come out of Urban culture, it doesn't really matter what color they happen to be.
It hasn't been acceptable to call a black man boy during the 36 years I've been alive anywhere in the US. The latest and greatest is women calling white men boys to demean them in much the same manner.
Referring to men as boys is just a modern language change that came out of the feminism camp to demean men and equate them to children. On the other hand men who hang out with many of those women do tend to act like boys.
"The difference is that one group is attacking, and the other group is assisting, and it is substantive."
Just where is all this attacking? I'm looking around and I don't see it. There are no laws giving someone with white skin an advantage. It certainly isn't a wealth thing, the wealthy don't care about the poor and most white people are poor. There are a couple tiny groups of white supremacists but you aren't likely to actually encounter one in your lifetime. I see things like this story, which are attacking.
Sorry, I can name and already have named a lot of examples of discrimination against white males, systemic in our society, institutional, and even legal. Your point becomes invalidated by even one white child needing help and/or not being an attacker because you've yet to define a reason to justify treating two random white people as having a connection that isn't cosmetic.
It isn't attacking you to want to be given equal access to opportunities without regard for my race and gender. It isn't attacking to suggest a math league should be colorblind and judge according to ability. It isn't attacking to say technology companies, governments, and schools should do the same. Publicly traded companies should not be discriminating to promote diversity for its own sake or inventing an artificial advantage.
You say you are Hispanic. I've known a lot of hispanics. As a young boy I had a good friend named Jose who'd somehow found his way from Puerto Rico to the small mid-western town I lived in. Of course I was 15 and Jose was around 35 but we were good friends for a summer. White certainly doesn't mean in the rest of the US what it means in Puerto Rico at least from the impression I got from Jose, it seemed a trait that was 90% based on ethical behavior and character but when it shifted to that other 10% that was racial within Puerto Rico it seemed extreme. I lived in Miami and encountered many pocket layers of Cubans with different perceptions more sharply divided by class than I've seen elsewhere with the upper classes seeing themselves as from Spain more than anything and many of this culture are extremely racist. When I lived in New Mexico I encountered two other very distinct sets of hispanic cultures, one group spanned many generations and predates the border. The other is an illegal movement that exploits what most don't know, the motor vehicle department outsources driver's license offices in New Mexico and can hand out ID all day long which enables illegal immigrants to vote.
Now, how much of my experience among these others and the negative things they did should I keep in mind if encounter your children and see they have that rare capacity to learn a valuable skill along with the inclination? How much of the positive? Which of these extremely varied groups, which actually contained extremely varied individuals, should I project into assumptions about your child? I'll tell you what I would project, the preponderance of evidence of what I know of a parent for where I have to guess with nothing to go on and otherwise I will do my best to avoid assumptions because their talents or lack thereof will do the talking for them. But right now, the parent of those hypothetical offspring is telling me my son should go to the back of the line because he has light colored skin.
If he did it would only have been on a subset of the $11.6 million he cashed out. And just the gains on the $21 billion in dodged taxes will likely amount to more than he'll cash out for the rest of his life but the cost to society of supporting that wealth will remain. The people who actually generate that wealth, including those in the top 1% by income, give a portion of what they generate to Warren Buffet. Maybe you think he deserves it because of his success in identifying and investing in well run companies (thereby growing the overall economy) and maybe not but either way he should be paying the taxes on the share he gets.
Aside from that taxes discourage behavior. If you tax income you discourage income but income isn't a behavior we want to discourage as a society, hoarding wealth is. That is the big joke, the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes but that is largely because the top 0.1% dodge theirs while holding the lion share of that 40% of wealth.
"those groups are still behind today"
Because someone is picking an arbitrary physical trait or set of traits which have no importance and pretending they connect people. Grouping people in this manner dehumanizes them. It wrongly ascribes to them blame or credit for actions of other individuals to which they have no significant connection. This is exactly how wars are justified, you group millions of men, women, and children as "them" or "the enemy" rather than realizing each is distinct, human, and without blame or credit for the actions of others.