Quake3World

just to get this in before the issue of big pharma rears its ugly head: drug companies typically spend twice as much on marketing as they do on R&D, so no - the astronomical cost of patented drugs is not just down to recouping R&D costs (and i guess patenting could be described as a kind of monopoly, and one riding on the back of public domain scientific work not funded by the pharma company at that)

Deji wrote:There is no clear line, people's views on "how much redistribution" is what determines whether they're right or not. (pun intended). I am not against public eduction or healthcare (up to a point), but I strongly detest unemployment benefits and progressive taxation. If you want to have some cash to fall back on (after you left your low-paying small risk job to work at that high-paying job at the company which will go bankrupt any minute), collect it yourself while you actually have a job.

I understand where you're coming from, since you've explained the level of compensation for unemployed people in your country. Here in the US, we have unemployment insurance, and we have welfare. Unemployment is a fund that you (or your employer) pay into, so that in the event you are fired or laid off you can still buy groceries and survive. If I were to be laid off, unemployment would provide less than 25% of my current salary. There is also the very important stipulation that you cannot draw unemployment indefinitely, and you have to prove that you are looking for another job.

Welfare is a different animal, and a lot of right-leaning people completely despise it (mostly based on anecdotal stories, like the Cadillac Queen). But in reality, welfare benefits pay below the poverty level, and there is such a social stigma attached to it that no one wants to be on it. While there is a lot of "conventional wisdom" among certain groups of people that there is an entire subclass of citizens abusing welfare and freeloading their entire lives off our tax dollars, in reality the large part of welfare funds goes to transient people who are forced on it after unsuccessfully job-hunting until their unemployment runs out, and eventually rejoin the workforce.

So here, there is still a strong incentive to work, even if you are a dumb, lazy person who would prefer not to. Since that seems to negate the incentive issues you have with welfare, do you still believe programs like this are detrimental to the economy?

Deji wrote:Understanding the underlying logic of how the economy works is a lengthy chain of thought and cannot be explained (in a way that you would be content with) in a few paragraphs or articles. Nevertheless, the basic argument is that there will always be something for someone to do somewhere, it's just that the job may pay similar to an Asian kid in a sweatshop.

This is nothing more than a theory - and not a scientific theory (since it can never be tested), but just a theory. If there were 100,000 people and only 70,000 jobs, then at some point some poor kid in a shanty town would probably decide to start taking handfuls of dirt from his backyard, walking out to the street, and asking wealthy passers-by for some of their money in exchange for his dirt. I get the impression that your economic theory would consider this a "job," for the purposes of making sure there are no loose ends.

Deji prefers regressive taxes.

R00k wrote: So here, there is still a strong incentive to work, even if you are a dumb, lazy person who would prefer not to. Since that seems to negate the incentive issues you have with welfare, do you still believe programs like this are detrimental to the economy?

Probably detrimental to a point (insofar that there will still probably be inactive people who will wither on it instead of working), but not nearly as much as when you get over half your previous paycheck. I still tend to prefer saving up money yourself, because it eliminates the moral hazard of insurance and actually makes you choose your job all the more carefully. The only problem is, a bunch of people don't have enough foresight to save for tomorrow, much less for the next 6 months.

R00k wrote: This is nothing more than a theory - and not a scientific theory (since it can never be tested), but just a theory. If there were 100,000 people and only 70,000 jobs, then at some point some poor kid in a shanty town would probably decide to start taking handfuls of dirt from his backyard, walking out to the street, and asking wealthy passers-by for some of their money in exchange for his dirt. I get the impression that your economic theory would consider this a "job," for the purposes of making sure there are no loose ends.

While there will always be some level of inherent unemployment (due to various reasons like demanded and offered skill incompatibility, regional issues and some amount of people between jobs), I know of no Western society which has a 30% unemployment rate as it's long term equilibrium. It's closer to 5-8% in most cases. Sure, it's a theory, but it's a logical one. Given that prices are elastic over the long term, there will be some sort of underlying demand for workers at some price level. But the outcome might be that some former engineer will have to work as a janitor, since there is no work suited for his expertise. Not quite as dramatic as the situation you described, but to the same effect.

As for my views on taxation: a short explanation. The income tax in Estonia is flat, everyone pays 21% off all their income over 2,500$ a year, everything below that is tax free. Income tax is used to finance various things with the exception of two things, which I will explain shortly. Additionally, the employer has to pay a social tax of 33% off your taxable income. The social tax is used directly and only for two purposes: 20% goes to paying out state pensions and 13% goes into universal healthcare. I have no problems with the current income tax system, which despite the flat tax rate, is actually progressive (though there have been cries to change it), though the marginal tax rate is pretty indifferent once you get to something like twice to median income. As far as the social tax, I would prefer there to be some sort of cap, like 3 times the median income, making it in effect a regressive tax. The result of this would be to cut down on employment costs for in-demand specialists, making it more attractive for people from abroad to come work here.

R00k wrote:
This is nothing more than a theory - and not a scientific theory (since it can never be tested), but just a theory. If there were 100,000 people and only 70,000 jobs, then at some point some poor kid in a shanty town would probably decide to start taking handfuls of dirt from his backyard, walking out to the street, and asking wealthy passers-by for some of their money in exchange for his dirt. I get the impression that your economic theory would consider this a "job," for the purposes of making sure there are no loose ends.

haha great point ey those crazy artists and rockstars and stuff they can sell ya anything!

I read a pretty good article today, seeing as the topic was mentioned here briefly, I'll paste it here:
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/09/i ... know-that/

It talks about economics, the current recovery and forecasting and modelling issues.

ive said this b4 but i personally dont have a prob with welfare.

and yea i pay a more than average amount of taxes too

dont get me wrong tho i really dont care 4 the socializm thing tho

plained wrote:dont get me wrong tho i really dont care 4 the socializm thing tho

Exactly!
Even if it really seems like the right thing to do, I feel I have to oppose it, because fox labels it as evil, and akin to baby-slaughtering nazism.

no thats not y for me

i just kinda feel diff peoples go threw diff phazes and outputs thruout thier life

i dont beieve limiting people that want to overachieve , when over achievers overachieve sometimes great advances that benifit us all occor , that helps all.

and those that want to underachieve OR overachieve shouldnt have to crime it up to make happen,

S ok plained. I agree that people who excel should be rewarded. Of course!

I just don't think that folks who aren't rich, or gifted in some way, should be culled from society, due to their circumstances.
Darwin might very well disagree, though.

i agree about the non-culling of so-labled non rich or non gifted.

honestly i haqvnt met anybody that hasnt alot of value to offer

altho mostly that value isnt unitized or often times even acknowledged .

dont care who anybody is, when they do what theyre best at, the results r more often better than can be conditioned into somebody whos skills lie elswhere

what % of people do what theyre bast at i wonder.

seremtan wrote:just to get this in before the issue of big pharma rears its ugly head: drug companies typically spend twice as much on marketing as they do on R&D, so no - the astronomical cost of patented drugs is not just down to recouping R&D costs (and i guess patenting could be described as a kind of monopoly, and one riding on the back of public domain scientific work not funded by the pharma company at that)

Yes, there's a lot of pointless bullshit in big pharma. Yes, they spend a lot on marketing. Yes, that's pretty much in line with other industries. Yes, they have a serious problem with generics as they're screwed three ways; loss of bottom line for the few years they have to exploit their research (compare duration of rights in the media), pissing off the shareholders and, if they don't
press for enforcement of patents, then they're screwed under
patent law. Yes, the amount of dubious research that comes
out of big pharma is a drop in the ocean of general bad research.

No, there isn't currenly a better option.

Holy shit, just try to watch this video without feeling the urge to kill these morons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlf_rUVGRNw

"theys takin uhh freedums awayeh!"

Where were these retards when Bush was wiping his hairy ass with the constitution? Oh right, they were cheering and applauding.

DEATH SQUADS FOR GRANDMA

WTF is with the word Czars and what's it doing in this debate about health care? Pick a random word and choose it as a catchphrase for stupidity?

I don't believe in what they are trying to do to our country because of BANANAS! BANANAS BANANAS BANANAS!

seremtan wrote:DEATH SQUADS FOR GRANDMA

To the tune of "I Will Possess Your Heart" by Death Cab for Cutie.

i'm thinking 'power ballad'

lol, bon jovi

or maybe a-ha

wtf