Why do people insist on having jobs when what they really want are goods and services? Robots will exponentially decrease the costs of goods and services until they they cost nothing, just as has happened on the internet (do you pay money to a website to post comments? Probably not).
We will likely wind up in a situation where basic commodities are provided free of charge, or for a very small fee, and your home robot will use them to make whatever you want, whether it's a new t-shirt, a drone, or even a medical device. By the time this happens, the robot will be far more intelligent and skilled than any human, possibly ALL humans combined. It will be able to perform surgery on you, and synthesize custom medicine in house to keep you healthy. It will mow your lawn, and repave your driveway. It will build you a new house if you want. Perhaps it will even build a specialized workshop for the production of some commodity that it can sell to bring in some cash to use towards the purchase of similar commodities.
Imagine, each home a corporation, with the humans as executives. They just tell the robot(s) what they want, and they get it done.
You don't need ATMs these days. You can get POS systems that work on your smartphone for free. Draft it straight out of your bank account.
And besides, what part of "more supplies to the stricken region" do you not understand? These supplies that are more expensive than normal simply wouldn't be there otherwise. Having higher priced stuff available won't stop you from bringing in stuff for free, nor will it stop charitable organizations or governments from showing up. It's all extra, for those who can afford it, which, to be honest, is pretty much everyone. If you can't spare $20 for some water when you are severely dehydrated, I honestly just don't know what to tell you.
Lead times allow material shift at "reasonable" pricing. Allow "unreasonable" pricing, and people start loading shit into their pickup trucks and driving it into the disaster zones.
And yes, they can pay for access to those resources. This isn't the third world yet.
Free market (not "fair" market, whatever that is) pricing encourages production of more goods, or, in an emergency, movement of goods from places that have an abundance to where they are needed.. A lottery does not. By adopting non market solutions to problems, societies shoot themselves in the feet.
"Uber just needs to pay attention and modify it's surge pricing accordingly, so as not to cross the line between "economic incentive to work instead of fleeing with your family" and "gouging during that emergency"."
You, and everyone else, would do well to realize that those are the exact same thing.
I, fr one, would rather pay $20/gallon of gas during a power outage to keep my generator, and thus my refrigerator and freezer running, than not have any gas at all. In addition, if I would get thrown in jail for charging too much money, I might actually load up the car with bottled water and other vital supplies and go sell it in disaster areas. But I can't, so the people have to rely on things they shouldn't have to rely on, like governments and charity. As it is, I'm content to sit on my ass and watch such disasters unfold without lifting a finger. ANd before you start bitching at me for being $HUMANCHARACTERISTIC, think about what YOU do during a disaster. What did YOU do during Katrina? Or Rita? Oh right, fucking nothing.
Let the drivers set their price, then let the riders bid. IE make it an ACTUAL market. If someone wants to get out and drive during an emergency (or early morning, or on a holiday, or whenever), let him set his price as he likes. Riders see the price and how far away the driver is, and choose based on their situation. If they really, REALLY don't want to wait, then they can bid $30/mile if they want, ensuring that they get the closest driver (and they will pay whatever his rate is, up to $30/mile). If the rider is in no hurry, then they can put in a lower bid and wait for someone to get to them.
The problem here is the fact that the current price scheme is mostly arbitrary.
No, it means the unemployment rate, as it was calculated during the Great Depression, is higher than it was for all but one year of Great Depression. http://www.shadowstats.com/alt...
Well, bet your dumb ass didn't know that we cured cavities either. I've got a coating on my teeth with the same catalytic technology that prevents tooth decay with a 100% success rate. It's called SeLECT Defense. Look it up. My name is on the patent. Same tech, combined with a CD4 targeting molecule, burns HIV until it's nothing but random bits of protein.
He thinks "free market" means "anything goes". Lawsuits are a feature of a free market, even in the most extreme version of a free market--anarcho-capitalism.
" Personally I would like to see all drugs decriminalised, with the caveat that the "first do no harm" pledge still means that only robustly tested drugs can be legally prescribed by a qualified doctor."
This is the most sensible idea yet in this thread, aside from forbidding doctors to do what they think is best. Rather than that, let them do what they want, and instead revoke their license to practice (and, as always, allow them to be sued for malpractice) if they are causing a lot of problems among their patients.
I didn't cure AIDS. A guy I used to work with did (probably--it worked selectively in a cell culture). He did get the money once to get it tested, but the lab that was doing the testing was destroyed by Katrina. Cures for diseases aren't in vogue (granting agencies want vaccines rather than cures), so getting money is difficult or impossible.
>Mmm hmm. And instead of that, we live in a country without flipper babies at all.
But that's wrong, you fucking lying sack of shit. There WERE flipper babies in the US. THOUSANDS of them.
>And we all get to vote on what kind of policy we prefer, the one where flipper babies have a tiny chance of eventually getting a small payout after enormous legal effort, or one with healthy people with normal arms and legs.
No, we get to have a system dictated to us where we either get a tiny chance of having flipper babies, or we have a 100% chance of having vital drugs delayed for decades, killing millions of people while safety is checked, and further, where many drugs are never even subjected to the system because the costs are too high. I know this for a fact because I had the literal fucking cure for AIDS sitting in my freezer for seven years at a previous job that never got the money to make it through the FDA gauntlet. We were testing it on apes at Tulane when fucking Katrina came though and destroyed the lab, and we could never get the money for another ape study again (don't get me started on the animal rights faggots who have caused the prices of ape studies to skyrocket).
Literally fuck you from the deepest, most fundamental seat of my self.
Uhhh, not if the application of a $2 drug can prevent $100,000 worth of surgery in one out of four people with heart disease. No, the delay came completely and 100% from the AMA. I am absolutely AMAZED that it actually got approval. It likely happened solely because the people in Europe weren't all dying from it and someone got wind of that fact, and acted per-emptively to cover their own ass.
>How, exactly, is the use of government force to move assets from one group of persons to another, through the guise of lawsuits, the free market?
Arbitration is a feature of the free market. The government has largely co-opted the function, though. In a true free market, the arbitrators would be chosen by the two parties based on their record of fairness.
>What is there to sue for if there's no law saying companies need to test their products.
Here you show your complete and total ignorance of the legal system. I'm not even going to bother to tell you where you are wrong. Read a fucking book and learn for yourself or live in ignorance. I don't really care either way.
> If every product comes with a disclaimer "use at your own risk" then in a purely free market system there is absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit.
No.
>There is no concept of suitability, or negligence, in a world without government regulation.
You are fucking retarded. That's like saying there is no concept of spirituality without state religion.
Not only did they deny culpability, I would be willing to bet that they gave several thousands of dollars to a local politician who made it all go away, like a friend of mine did back in the 60's with his drunk driving and prostitution charges (I have some weird ass friends--seriously considering writing a book).
$15/hr is too little to support YOUR family. It could easily be enough to support a family with a greater degree of self reliance. In fact, my own situation is such that I don't even need 40 hours at minimum wage to support myself, thanks to older investment in capital resources like real estate.
And the problem actually began in the Nixon administration, specifically with the abandonment of the gold standard/closing of the gold window. Look at the economic data--it all experiences a sudden shift in 1971 when that happened.
They are better off working because they need the income than not working while still needing the income.
And yes, housewives were, in fact, the self reliance side of the equation in those families. They cooked the food (much cheaper than eating out), raised the children (cheaper than daycare), etc.
Computerization and automation are great, but they haven't yet created as much productivity as the government has confiscated or destroyed through taxation, inflation, and regulation. These factors are the driving force pushing women into the workforce over the last 40+ years. That may change in the future, either by a dramatic reshuffling (and shucking down) of government, or by a radical increase in automation. I just hope it does so before we start seeing people starving to death in the streets of formerly first world nations (this is already happening in Greece, sadly).
>And how would these parents have proven that the drug was to blame?
Cause and effect. This would have been a very, very large lawsuit.
>Who would've forced the company to provide samples or hand over data?
The courts. It's called discovery.
> Would a coalition of parents have pooled their money to employ scientists and rent lab time for the task?
No. They would have noticed they had flipper babies, and then their doctors would have noticed that all their flipper baby patient's mothers had taken thalidomide.
> I wouldn't care to guess how many millions more would have to suffer deformity to inspire that kind of collective action, but the scenario doesn't exactly make for a free market paradise.
Probably none, because doctors stopped prescribing it when they heard about the side effects. Why do you want to use regulations as a substitute for doctors? That's just a weird concept. Pretty typical of supporters of government intervention though.
Seems I misremembered a lot about it, including mechanism of action and exaggeration of its effects, but it does have a huge impact on heart failure rates (reduces risk of death from heart failure by 26%). I also see that it has finally been approved in the US as of April. Only took ten years longer than Europe.
Not just that, but you can also get a cushy job at one of the companies you used to regulate for denying approval to a better drug made by a small company that subsequently went bankrupt, or get a seat on the board of the AMA, which is composed of doctors who make tons of money off of doing unnecessary surgery because you prevented approval of drugs found to be safe and effective, and are in wide use in other countries. Or, you know, just get paid off directly.
More regulations means more regulatory capture. That's about it.
It actually would have. Lawsuits would have quickly ended the operations of the offending company, and gone further, severely punishing its shareholders, who would not have been protected by the corporate veil. In fact, with that huge pool of money and lawyers salivating over huge settlements, companies would have quickly instituted their own testing procedures, which would ensure safety enough to actually be safe while still getting their drugs out into the market to help people.
Also, seeing as the company in question actually did safety testing, but inexplicably buried the results, they would also be liable criminally. But for some reason (campaign contributions), rich people tend to avoid criminal prosecution in this country--at least that was definitely the case back in the 60's.
Slashdot Mirror
More like they can pour money into the toilet, where everything that got bought with fedbux gets liquidated for pennies a la Solyndra.
Why do people insist on having jobs when what they really want are goods and services? Robots will exponentially decrease the costs of goods and services until they they cost nothing, just as has happened on the internet (do you pay money to a website to post comments? Probably not).
We will likely wind up in a situation where basic commodities are provided free of charge, or for a very small fee, and your home robot will use them to make whatever you want, whether it's a new t-shirt, a drone, or even a medical device. By the time this happens, the robot will be far more intelligent and skilled than any human, possibly ALL humans combined. It will be able to perform surgery on you, and synthesize custom medicine in house to keep you healthy. It will mow your lawn, and repave your driveway. It will build you a new house if you want. Perhaps it will even build a specialized workshop for the production of some commodity that it can sell to bring in some cash to use towards the purchase of similar commodities.
Imagine, each home a corporation, with the humans as executives. They just tell the robot(s) what they want, and they get it done.
You don't need ATMs these days. You can get POS systems that work on your smartphone for free. Draft it straight out of your bank account.
And besides, what part of "more supplies to the stricken region" do you not understand? These supplies that are more expensive than normal simply wouldn't be there otherwise. Having higher priced stuff available won't stop you from bringing in stuff for free, nor will it stop charitable organizations or governments from showing up. It's all extra, for those who can afford it, which, to be honest, is pretty much everyone. If you can't spare $20 for some water when you are severely dehydrated, I honestly just don't know what to tell you.
Lead times allow material shift at "reasonable" pricing. Allow "unreasonable" pricing, and people start loading shit into their pickup trucks and driving it into the disaster zones.
And yes, they can pay for access to those resources. This isn't the third world yet.
Free market (not "fair" market, whatever that is) pricing encourages production of more goods, or, in an emergency, movement of goods from places that have an abundance to where they are needed.. A lottery does not. By adopting non market solutions to problems, societies shoot themselves in the feet.
"Uber just needs to pay attention and modify it's surge pricing accordingly, so as not to cross the line between "economic incentive to work instead of fleeing with your family" and "gouging during that emergency"."
You, and everyone else, would do well to realize that those are the exact same thing.
I, fr one, would rather pay $20/gallon of gas during a power outage to keep my generator, and thus my refrigerator and freezer running, than not have any gas at all. In addition, if I would get thrown in jail for charging too much money, I might actually load up the car with bottled water and other vital supplies and go sell it in disaster areas. But I can't, so the people have to rely on things they shouldn't have to rely on, like governments and charity. As it is, I'm content to sit on my ass and watch such disasters unfold without lifting a finger. ANd before you start bitching at me for being $HUMANCHARACTERISTIC, think about what YOU do during a disaster. What did YOU do during Katrina? Or Rita? Oh right, fucking nothing.
Let the drivers set their price, then let the riders bid. IE make it an ACTUAL market. If someone wants to get out and drive during an emergency (or early morning, or on a holiday, or whenever), let him set his price as he likes. Riders see the price and how far away the driver is, and choose based on their situation. If they really, REALLY don't want to wait, then they can bid $30/mile if they want, ensuring that they get the closest driver (and they will pay whatever his rate is, up to $30/mile). If the rider is in no hurry, then they can put in a lower bid and wait for someone to get to them.
The problem here is the fact that the current price scheme is mostly arbitrary.
No, it means the unemployment rate, as it was calculated during the Great Depression, is higher than it was for all but one year of Great Depression. http://www.shadowstats.com/alt...
Well, bet your dumb ass didn't know that we cured cavities either. I've got a coating on my teeth with the same catalytic technology that prevents tooth decay with a 100% success rate. It's called SeLECT Defense. Look it up. My name is on the patent. Same tech, combined with a CD4 targeting molecule, burns HIV until it's nothing but random bits of protein.
He thinks "free market" means "anything goes". Lawsuits are a feature of a free market, even in the most extreme version of a free market--anarcho-capitalism.
" Personally I would like to see all drugs decriminalised, with the caveat that the "first do no harm" pledge still means that only robustly tested drugs can be legally prescribed by a qualified doctor."
This is the most sensible idea yet in this thread, aside from forbidding doctors to do what they think is best. Rather than that, let them do what they want, and instead revoke their license to practice (and, as always, allow them to be sued for malpractice) if they are causing a lot of problems among their patients.
Yes, people who have actually seen the ineffectiveness and corruption of the system are just a bunch of asshats. I guess Snowden was a traitor too.
I didn't cure AIDS. A guy I used to work with did (probably--it worked selectively in a cell culture). He did get the money once to get it tested, but the lab that was doing the testing was destroyed by Katrina. Cures for diseases aren't in vogue (granting agencies want vaccines rather than cures), so getting money is difficult or impossible.
>Mmm hmm. And instead of that, we live in a country without flipper babies at all.
But that's wrong, you fucking lying sack of shit. There WERE flipper babies in the US. THOUSANDS of them.
>And we all get to vote on what kind of policy we prefer, the one where flipper babies have a tiny chance of eventually getting a small payout after enormous legal effort, or one with healthy people with normal arms and legs.
No, we get to have a system dictated to us where we either get a tiny chance of having flipper babies, or we have a 100% chance of having vital drugs delayed for decades, killing millions of people while safety is checked, and further, where many drugs are never even subjected to the system because the costs are too high. I know this for a fact because I had the literal fucking cure for AIDS sitting in my freezer for seven years at a previous job that never got the money to make it through the FDA gauntlet. We were testing it on apes at Tulane when fucking Katrina came though and destroyed the lab, and we could never get the money for another ape study again (don't get me started on the animal rights faggots who have caused the prices of ape studies to skyrocket).
Literally fuck you from the deepest, most fundamental seat of my self.
Uhhh, not if the application of a $2 drug can prevent $100,000 worth of surgery in one out of four people with heart disease. No, the delay came completely and 100% from the AMA. I am absolutely AMAZED that it actually got approval. It likely happened solely because the people in Europe weren't all dying from it and someone got wind of that fact, and acted per-emptively to cover their own ass.
>How, exactly, is the use of government force to move assets from one group of persons to another, through the guise of lawsuits, the free market?
Arbitration is a feature of the free market. The government has largely co-opted the function, though. In a true free market, the arbitrators would be chosen by the two parties based on their record of fairness.
>What is there to sue for if there's no law saying companies need to test their products.
Here you show your complete and total ignorance of the legal system. I'm not even going to bother to tell you where you are wrong. Read a fucking book and learn for yourself or live in ignorance. I don't really care either way.
> If every product comes with a disclaimer "use at your own risk" then in a purely free market system there is absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit.
No.
>There is no concept of suitability, or negligence, in a world without government regulation.
You are fucking retarded. That's like saying there is no concept of spirituality without state religion.
Thanks you for letting me know that I can put your opinions into the garbage can where they belong.
Not only did they deny culpability, I would be willing to bet that they gave several thousands of dollars to a local politician who made it all go away, like a friend of mine did back in the 60's with his drunk driving and prostitution charges (I have some weird ass friends--seriously considering writing a book).
You didn't read the article, so you are an idiot. NEXT!
$15/hr is too little to support YOUR family. It could easily be enough to support a family with a greater degree of self reliance. In fact, my own situation is such that I don't even need 40 hours at minimum wage to support myself, thanks to older investment in capital resources like real estate.
And the problem actually began in the Nixon administration, specifically with the abandonment of the gold standard/closing of the gold window. Look at the economic data--it all experiences a sudden shift in 1971 when that happened.
They are better off working because they need the income than not working while still needing the income.
And yes, housewives were, in fact, the self reliance side of the equation in those families. They cooked the food (much cheaper than eating out), raised the children (cheaper than daycare), etc.
Computerization and automation are great, but they haven't yet created as much productivity as the government has confiscated or destroyed through taxation, inflation, and regulation. These factors are the driving force pushing women into the workforce over the last 40+ years. That may change in the future, either by a dramatic reshuffling (and shucking down) of government, or by a radical increase in automation. I just hope it does so before we start seeing people starving to death in the streets of formerly first world nations (this is already happening in Greece, sadly).
>And how would these parents have proven that the drug was to blame?
Cause and effect. This would have been a very, very large lawsuit.
>Who would've forced the company to provide samples or hand over data?
The courts. It's called discovery.
> Would a coalition of parents have pooled their money to employ scientists and rent lab time for the task?
No. They would have noticed they had flipper babies, and then their doctors would have noticed that all their flipper baby patient's mothers had taken thalidomide.
> I wouldn't care to guess how many millions more would have to suffer deformity to inspire that kind of collective action, but the scenario doesn't exactly make for a free market paradise.
Probably none, because doctors stopped prescribing it when they heard about the side effects. Why do you want to use regulations as a substitute for doctors? That's just a weird concept. Pretty typical of supporters of government intervention though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Seems I misremembered a lot about it, including mechanism of action and exaggeration of its effects, but it does have a huge impact on heart failure rates (reduces risk of death from heart failure by 26%). I also see that it has finally been approved in the US as of April. Only took ten years longer than Europe.
Not just that, but you can also get a cushy job at one of the companies you used to regulate for denying approval to a better drug made by a small company that subsequently went bankrupt, or get a seat on the board of the AMA, which is composed of doctors who make tons of money off of doing unnecessary surgery because you prevented approval of drugs found to be safe and effective, and are in wide use in other countries. Or, you know, just get paid off directly.
More regulations means more regulatory capture. That's about it.
It actually would have. Lawsuits would have quickly ended the operations of the offending company, and gone further, severely punishing its shareholders, who would not have been protected by the corporate veil. In fact, with that huge pool of money and lawyers salivating over huge settlements, companies would have quickly instituted their own testing procedures, which would ensure safety enough to actually be safe while still getting their drugs out into the market to help people.
Also, seeing as the company in question actually did safety testing, but inexplicably buried the results, they would also be liable criminally. But for some reason (campaign contributions), rich people tend to avoid criminal prosecution in this country--at least that was definitely the case back in the 60's.