patrick.net

Straw Man says

None of them going back.

That's not because of the US health care system. It is despite it.

Your comments are so dumb it is not fun even ridiculing you.

FP says

Your comments are so dumb

Fuck you too.

MMR says

Is it because if this that there is a STEM shortage?

There is STEM shortage for $7/hr salary. Other than that, none whatsoever.

Also one could reasonably argue that it is not pharm industry, but US customer who subsidizes drug development, and sometimes subsidizes I-do-not-know-what (or more precisely, I know what - drug company CEO salary and FDA chief's gig at drug company after he retires).

Case in point, Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate) which is at the same time food additive and anti-MS drug.

Dimethyl Fumarate price as in food additive purity, which obviously makes it safe to eat: $30-50/kilogram, or 3-5 cents per gram.

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Food-additive-CAS-NO-624-49_60339788954.html?spm=a2700.7724857.29.152.WuzCc2

Anti-MS drug Tecfidera price: $106.85 for 120 mg, which makes it $890/gram

Link: https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/tecfidera

Markup 17 800 times, paid for by US patients.

This is feudalism, where serfs pay tax to the ruling class that consists of drug company CEO's and government approval agency bosses.

Strategist says

You guys have no damn clue what capitalism, innovation, or the purpose of corporations is.

Of course I understand it. What have I written that would make you think otherwise.

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I posted. Under a capitalistic system, owners of productive assets make money doing nothing. That is a fact.

I'm not saying capitalism doesn't have good features, but it does lead to wealth disparity because money begets more money.

Goran_K says

So you believe capitalism is "owners of productive assets" sitting back and collecting checks?

No, that wasn't what I said. You asked me to explain my previous sentence:

Goran_K says

Capitalism rewards "capital"? Please explain.

which is what I did.

Goran_K says

Also, "health care should be a human right".

And again--that's not what I said. If you're going to put quotes on something I said, please try to actually get it right.

Strategist says

It took billions of dollars to develop the iPhone, with tens of thousands of highly qualified people working on it

And those tens of thousands of highly qualified people got paid the tiniest fraction of the iPhone's revenues. Meanwhile Steve Jobs got to buy three more yachts and he didn't wire on damn circuit, write one damn line of code, or could even explain how any of the technologies inside the iPhone work. See the problem?

Strategist says

That's called the trickle down effect.

We're all familiar with the trickle down effect.

By the way, strategist's response illustrates why it's important to realize that capitalism is just one thing, the control of production and revenue streams by owners who don't produce or innovate. You see, the advocates of capitalism care only about that mechanism. Sure they may throw red herrings saying capitalism is more than that -- it's not -- but they don't give a shit about those other things anyway. They want the mechanism of not having to work or produce wealth yet being able to siphon off the wealth of others. It's no different from the motivations of slavers. The problem is you have far more slaves than slave owners under any such parasitic system.

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

--------------

American labor is subsidizing it, not big pharma. Especially younger people like me that pay into the lemon Socialist private health insurance industry, and never ever ever ever go to the doctor, for anything. Thanks a lot, Christian Republicans and independents(lol) who voted for this shitty Heritage Foundation system!

FortWayne says

Once again, you are completely wrong. Capitalism discourages innovation because the inventor does not own his invention, but rather his boss does. There are millions of Americans who don't invent because the company they work for would own their inventions.

Dan that is by far the stupidest thing you ever said.

he he he.
Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

Strategist says

Success involves someone who is willing to take the risk.

Over 90% of the work and economic activity involves no risk. It's day to day tasks that need to be done to keep society running. For this 90% of the economy, your suppositions do not apply at all.

As for risk taking, anyone who works for wages at a startup or on a new project is already taking great risk. I know because I've done IT contracts. People taking such jobs will gladly trade wages for profit sharing. There is absolutely no project that goes on for beyond a short period without profits coming back. You can get only so much investment funding.

Furthermore, all the important advancements in technology have been made by individuals who did not get jack shit for their innovation. The creators the transistor, William Shockley, John Bardeen, Walter Houser Brattain. The creator of the relational database, Edgar Codd. The creator of the WWW, Tim Berners-Lee. The creators of the MPEG compression algorithms. None of these innovators got rich off their inventions. Are you really saying that the already rich people that own companies deserve to take 99% of the wealth produced by these inventions of other people? That's ridiculous.

Strategist says

You foolishly think, like all socialists and communists, that capitalism involves exploitation.

I'm not a communist, and I'm far less of a socialist than you are as proved by your support of the largest socialist program in all human history. I'd cut that socialist program by 90%.

You are a fool to think that everything has to be either capitalism or communism. Those two systems are virtually identical. Your narrow tribal thinking prevents you from seeing any other possibility. This is why you could never innovate. Innovation means thinking outside the box and changing things. That is something you will never get. You are so 19th century.

FortWayne says

Dan that is by far the stupidest thing you ever said.

FortWayne, that is by far the stupidest thing you ever said.

Your post deserves no more than an echo.

Strategist says

he he he.

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

careful, Strategist, you are exposing your ignorance

Strategist says

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

If you mean communist countries, well communism is simply capitalism in which the owners are called party leaders rather than executives.

However, purely communist countries have innovated. The Soviet Unions created the most powerful rockets, got to space and the moon first, and built the most powerful weapons. But hey, why let historical fact get in the way of your narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_innovation#.C2.A0Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union

FP says

careful, Strategist, you are exposing your ignorance

Yes, he is. I'm very good at explaining things, so I'll explain one more thing.

Strategist's proposition is inherently wrong, regardless of whether or not I could explain his premise. You see, it does not matter if I, or anyone else, personally can explain phenomenon X. That does not mean phenomenon X cannot be explained, only that the person you asked cannot explain it at the moment. So even if I couldn't answer his dumb question, Strategist would still have gained nothing.

Unfortunately, Strategist just isn't good enough at basic reasoning to even understand this fact.

I learned Russian partially in order to be able to read their physics and math textbooks.

( I also like the literature and have read most of their classics in Russian (even read some of Nobokov's books in Russian before finding out that he had written them in English :) )

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

If you mean communist countries, well communism is simply capitalism in which the owners are called party leaders rather than executives.

However, purely communist countries have innovated. The Soviet Unions created the most powerful rockets, got to space and the moon first, and built the most powerful weapons. But hey, why let historical fact get in the way of your narrative.

Dan you are seriously failing at this today. I'm not even sure what's dumber, this or the other thing you said earlier about Capitalism not innovating.

FortWayne, you are seriously failing at this today. I'm not even sure what's dumber, this or the other thing you said earlier.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan will never be able to explain why socialist countries who do not have capitalism to discourage innovation, innovate nothing.

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

If you mean communist countries, well communism is simply capitalism in which the owners are called party leaders rather than executives.

However, purely communist countries have innovated. The Soviet Unions created the most powerful rockets, got to space and the moon first, and built the most powerful weapons. But hey, why let historical fact get in the way of your narrative.

ROFL ha ha ha ha. You are awesome Dan, awesome.
So there is no such thing as a Socialist country, yet you give an example of the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic -----USSR. ha ha ha. A socialist/communist system that failed long ago, that made progress 60 years ago on rockets, but could innovate with no product for the mass market.
ha ha ha ha Need I say more??????

The Soviet Union was a communist society. Communism is an economic system. Socialism is not. Saying a socialist country is like saying a taxist society, as if any society could run without taxes. By the way, taxes are by definition socialism.

You are still equating socialism and communism, and that's just plain stupid.

By the way, if you go just off of names, your going to be fooled. Iceland is green and lush. The vikings named it Iceland to discourage immigrants. Meanwhile, Greenland is covered in ice. The vikings named it Greenland to encourage immigrants.

This is what Iceland looks like.

This is what Greenland looks like.

But hey, plan your vacation based on the names of places.

Dan8267 says

That is exactly what capitalism is.

How did those people get into possession of those "productive assets"? A genie lamp?

Goran_K says

How did those people get into possession of those "productive assets"?

Their ancestors made unethical, and often illegal, deals with politicians in which they were given undue access to public resources like land, mining rights, or exclusive trade access in exchange for bribing the politicians. Some get lucky on a gamble.

In any case, you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. Do you really want to reward wealth concentration and punish productivity and innovation? This is what the mechanism of capitalism does. Luckily there are other factors that alleviate this problem by rewarding productivity and innovation, but they aren't nearly as effective as they would be absent the mechanism of capitalism.

Again, treat economics as a science, not as a religion, and this stuff is obvious.

Dan8267 says

Their ancestors made unethical, and often illegal, deals with politicians in which they were given undue access to public resources like land, mining rights, or exclusive trade access in exchange for bribing the politicians. Some get lucky on a gamble.

So Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Scott McNealy, Vinod Khosla made illegal deals with politicians to gain their wealth and build their companies?

Give me names, and numbers. How many of these evil business men colluded with politicians to screw others? What is the market cap of these companies compared to the market cap of their industries?

You know, proving your point?

For Ford, see the Tucker move. For Gates and Jobs see various documentaries showing how they use illegal business tactics, in violation of anti-trust laws, to eliminate competition. For example, Microsoft forced OEMs to only use Windows or they could not get bulk licenses.

You asked me how the rich families got rich. I gave you one of the most common answers. It would take pages of text to list every shady way that rich people became rich. And if I did that, you'd just stay "too long, didn't read".

Of course there are some rich people who earned their wealth. It's rare, and almost impossible without being either an entertainer or inventor who retains ownership of his or her own word in stark contrast to capitalism. However, no one begrudges the rich who got rich by producing wealth. People hate the rich who got rich on our backs. There's a difference, and you should be able to understand that. When the executives at Goldman Sachs rake in billions by costing other people tens of billions, that's not an acceptable way to get rich. When the coal mine owner gets rich while her poor coal miners get black lung, that's not acceptable. The coal mine owner didn't make the coal, didn't mine the coal, and didn't transport the coal, so why is she getting the lion's share of the wealth? Don't tell me that's good economics. It's stupid.

Dan8267 says

how the rich families got rich.

A wonderful book about the 13 beautiful mansions the descendants of Cornelius Vanderbilt constructed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries--ten of which are still in existence in various conditions:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312059841/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Dan8267 says

For example, Microsoft forced OEMs to only use Windows or they could not get bulk licenses.

That's illegal political collusion?

What's illegal about saying "use my shit" or you won't get better pricing?

Of course there are some rich people who earned their wealth. It's rare, and almost impossible without being either an entertainer or inventor who retains ownership of his or her own word in stark contrast to capitalism. However, no one begrudges the rich who got rich by producing wealth.

What do you consider "rich people" in terms of net worth?

Dan8267 says

That's not what they said. They said, "don't use other people's shit or we charge you more". You are completely ignorant of the history of IT.

So? What's wrong with that? How is it illegal political collusion?

Goran_K says

Dan8267 says

That's not what they said. They said, "don't use other people's shit or we charge you more". You are completely ignorant of the history of IT.

So? What's wrong with that? How is it illegal political collusion?

What they are really saying is.....If you use us exclusively, we will give you a discount.
Dan knows nothing about economics, and even less about business.

OK, so your ignorance of law and American history is also great. And now I'm stalking to both Goran_K and Strategist.

The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 all prohibit this practice. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the other three antitrust laws, although they rarely do so today. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition" and "deceptive practices".

You were taught these things in high school American history. You really need to retake that class. You'll find all this information in any high school American history textbook.

Goran_K says

What do you consider "rich people"

I've heard it described as being satisfied with what you've got.

Dan8267 says

OK, so your ignorance of law and American history is also great. And now I'm stalking to both Goran_K and Strategist.

The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 all prohibit this practice. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the other three antitrust laws, although they rarely do so today. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition" and "deceptive practices".

Offering discounts for exclusive use does not violate Anti Trust laws.
Fast foods routinely use either Coca Cola or Pepsi.
Auto dealers cannot sell competitors cars.

Dummie, they were socialist society, they never made it to communism, which was the eventual goal.

Dan8267 says

The Soviet Union was a communist society. Communism is an economic system. Socialism is not. Saying a socialist country is like saying a taxist society, as if any society could run without taxes. By the way, taxes are by definition socialism.

You are still equating socialism and communism, and that's just plain stupid.

By the way, if you go just off of names, your going to be fooled. Iceland is green and lush. The vikings named it Iceland to discourage immigrants. Meanwhile, Greenland is covered in ice. The vikings named it Greenland to encourage immigrants.

This is what Iceland looks like.

This is what Greenland looks like.

FortWayne says

Dummie, they were socialist society, they never made it to communism, which was the eventual goal.

Feel free to provide evidence to support your statement. Start by clearly distinguishing communism and socialism. I can't wait to read your brilliant paper.

P N Dr Lo R says

I've heard it described as being satisfied with what you've got.

That's a good barometer, but I want to know at what income level I should start being jealous and hating people. :)

Just curious--

Is it possible for someone to realize that large wealth disparity kills an economy without being jealous? Or hating people?

Or are those two concepts intertwined somehow?

Another question:

Is it possible for one to believe that hard work and innovation should be valued more by society than previously gotten wealth?

errc says

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

--------------

American labor is subsidizing it, not big pharma. Especially younger people like me that pay into the lemon Socialist private health insurance industry, and never ever ever ever go to the doctor, for anything. Thanks a lot, Christian Republicans and independents(lol) who voted for this shitty Heritage Foundation system!

Ummm wait - I believe Democrats forced Health Care down our throats. Pelosi and Obama took all the credit, right?

joeyjojojunior says

Is it possible for someone to realize that large wealth disparity kills an economy without being jealous? Or hating people?

No it does not kill an economy. If everyone makes $1000 per month, and gets a $100 raise, but one person gets a $1 million raise, you have wealth disparity. It does not make anyone else poorer, and does not kill the economy. Just be happy with your raise, and stop whining.

joeyjojojunior says

Is it possible for one to believe that hard work and innovation should be valued more by society than previously gotten wealth?

Sure you can believe that and anything else you want. It's the free market that determines what is fair compensation for all, not you and Dan.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Dummie, they were socialist society, they never made it to communism, which was the eventual goal.

Feel free to provide evidence to support your statement. Start by clearly distinguishing communism and socialism. I can't wait to read your brilliant paper.

Here it is:
Image result for definition communism socialism capitalism
On this page we will compare Socialism, Capitalism and Communism. First let us define the terms. Socialism: Socialism is a concept that individuals should not have ownership of land, capital (money), or industry, but rather the whole community collectively owns and controls property, goods, and production.
Capitalism, Socialism or Communism - The Cultural War
www.culture-war.info/Socialism.html
http://www.culture-war.info/Socialism.html

Strategist says

No it does not kill an economy. If everyone makes $1000 per month, and gets a $100 raise, but one person gets a $1 million raise, you have wealth disparity. It does not make anyone else poorer, and does not kill the economy. Just be happy with your raise, and stop whining.

Except that money isn't created out of thin air. That $1MM raise is coming out of someone else's pocket (I know, productivity increases grow the pie, but we're talking 2%/year. Not nearly enough to finance a $1MM raise). So increasing wealth disparity absolutely kills an economy.

Strategist says

Sure you can believe that and anything else you want. It's the free market that determines what is fair compensation for all, not you and Dan.

And that's the problem. The market doesn't make optimal decisions.