Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "ReasonTV" channel.

  1. So he made his fortune USING the opportunities of California (like the educated workforce, the network of companies that CHOSE to locate there instead of being in Nevada) - and as soon as a lot of revenue could be expected (while he did not need the workforce anymore, since product development was finished) he doged taxes. I have little empathy - that man is likely still very rich no matter the legal expenses. Why didn't he BUILD his enterprise in Las Vegas to begin with ? Because he couldn't build it there, that's why. Level the tax rates so that there is no UNFAIR advantage between the states. If Nevada has a great education system for the IT workforce and knows how to attract specialists, and maybe gives grants and subsidies to promote the high-tech industry - (and can finance THAT with very low taxes overall) - FINE. These tax dodging states or countries are always small entities (you cannot finance the infrastructure, welfare system for ALL of the population, education system) for a high tech industrialized society on the cheap. Small countries like Switzerland or islands like the Bahamas can find their niche - while LEECHING OFF the other states and countries that make the EARNING OF THE FORTUNES POSSIBLE. States that do their homework and finance all that is necessary for a MODERN society give them a free ride. For instance the founder of Ikea became a Swiss citizen. So does Switzerland produce and BUY all the stuff that Ikea throws at the market ? Do the Sweiss educate ALL the workforce that is necessary for the company ? Do they provide in general for the citizens / customers - before the consumers can buy their stuff from Ikea they have to make sure their essential needs are met. For instance you cannot run a society only with the families of IT employees, doctors, lawyers etc. Someone has to do the menial tasks AND our society and economy is built on MASS PRODUCTION. Which requires MASS CONSUMPTION. Which requires the majority of people having disposable income and the basics covered. So if only the upper 30 % is doing well - you cannot run a capitalistic industrialized society on that (and financialization is a ponzi scheme). you just do not have enough consumer spending to keep the system afloat. In the US wages have been stagnant since the early 80s (for the majority and in adusted spending power). For some time consumer debt on the credit card was the solution that was promoted in the US - that "solution" is now maxed out. A modern society NEEDS people that work as cleaners, in construction, gardening, childcare, care for the elderly, retail and the service industry in general. It needs MASSES of people to keep the "system" afloat. The "they just should get an education and get a better paying job" meme is is individual career advice but not an economic solution for the MILLIONS that are NEEDED in those service sector jobs. And there would not be enough well paying jobs for them anyway. Even if they were so bold (crazy) as to go into massive private debt to get a higher education or job training (it is not only the costs for the training, but also the living costs - often they do have dependent family members). Many economies went the route that they ALLOW those jobs to be low-pay. Well if you do that in the grand scheme of things you have to subsidize low income persons and households - also ! with GOOD public healthcare, childcare, public transportation, social housing, etc. And for that you need tax revenue. The wealthy people that are so afraid of paying taxes (while still doing excellently) are snipping away on the branch on which they are sitting. They undermine the very base of the society and system that allowed them to become rich. Note: The Amish people do not have a (formal !) welfare system. Although in their old fashioned society those who are more affluent are informally expected to help their fellows. It is not arranged by laws but by informal massive social pressure. The haves cannot refuse to help out if a Amish person needs a hospital treatment for instance. The pressure might not be by law but they are still not free to refuse to help out. How many very rich Amish people are there ?? That kind of society does not require a lot of taxes of the citizens - well it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make a lot of money or to accumulate a lot of possesions and material wealth, anyway. I think the Amish are paying some taxes - not a lot considering their income. Of course they use the streets and they indirectly profit from the justice system and law enforcement. In theory if would be easy for a gang of people with automatic weapons to drive them off their land. Only then the "system" with which the Amish do not want to interact much, would step up to PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS. That is prohibitive for any criminals wanting to exploit their technological disadvantage. Of course no one even tries to seize their property. Their furniture and other equipment is not worth stealing, it is not as easy to steel their cattle - you cannot sell them quickly and inconspicuously. It is impossible to take their land away from them covertly. So they are not plagued with bands raiding them - thanks to the "system'" that is maintained with taxes.
    5
  2. What kind of argument is that ??? The much smaller U.S. market must make it possible that the non-profit systems everywhere else can get good prices. Because THEY NEGOTIATE HARD on behalf of their citizens. ... US 325 million people, China 1,3 bn, Europe 530 million, Russia, Turkey, Japan between 100 and 200 million people - you get the idea. It is not true anyway - that the pharmaindustry would not earn enough to finance research if the U.S. patients would get well negotiated drug prices at the European level. But even if it was true - the LOGICAL solution would be: the U.S. citizens would ALSO get a good deal on pharma drugs (much better than now) AND the rest of the nations (at least the wealthy ones) would pay SLIGHTLY higher prices. They have so much more volume than the U.S. (even if the U.S. citzens tend to use more pills) that one can spread out the costs. If you have to ask for higher prices you of course spread them over the whole segement. In Europe the pharma industry will have to make a very good argument if they want a price increase. In the U.S. they are ALLOWED to rip OFF patients.
    2
  3. The dysfunctional incentives of capitalism in pharma - nationalize research and production (beyond the covert military funding that is going on anyway). Recently - Hepatits C. They found a CURE that helps almost in 100 % of the cases. Wonderful. So it also reduces the spread of the infection - that is not good for business. Now if you think NON-PROFIT and in the context of common good and are content to have that drug : It will pay for itself over 10, 15 or 20 years (in numbers ! - Hepatitis C is a terrible disease, was costly to treat, the benefits to society are much higher even if you cannot put a price tag on it). They had articles how the pharma industry questions if it makes sense to do research for CURES. With treatments of chronic conditions - not cures - they can make a lot of money. I would be for government funded pharma research AND production anyway. with a participation of maybe 30 - 40 % of private investors - at most. Some workers and co-op structure, or citizen owned. The usual incentives of capitalism - finding attractive solutions and offers for consumers - do not apply to pharma anyway. The state CAN create debt and interest free money (Prof. Richard Werner), the experts would be well paid. The inefficiency of fabricated studies and to make money for SHAREHOLDERS would be eliminated. Let's say 2 laboratories would work on a drug. it is not only their skill, genius, or sense of innovation, ambition,... that decides the outcome. With pharma it is LUCK. They can have a high potential drug - only to find out in a very late stage of testing that there are side effects that are unacceptable. And in a non-profit setting they would declare that openly. They still did a good job - if only in eliminating a potential solution as being not viable. And they do not need to make the drug appear better of more effective than it is (by the "design" of the studies they can influence that. If governments or neutral institutions do such test the results are less convincing than when pharmy tests their own products. One can massage the results if carfully selecting the comparison group and the conditions of the comparison group - rats for instance. There is so much money and possible profit at stake. The drugs are not necessarily dangerous. BUT: they are also not better. And the existing drug usually has been testing in real life, that means no unforseeable side effects. Even with well tested new drugs there can be negative effects). If this is conducted in the spirit of BASIC RESEARCH they have no need to hype up the results. They also develop drugs when already well working drugs are available - if they think that will be PROFITABLE. That is not the same as developing an new and better (or allegedly better) smartphone. And they stay clear of rare diseases. I also do not accept that only the potentially profitable areas should be left to pharma. The potential dysfunctional incentives are always there. If the public takes care of everything that is sure to not be a money-maker, and all potential good developments are left to the for-profit players the "free market" gurus will soon tell us how that is a money drain. They do exactely hat with medicare - after handing over the most costly patients to that sector. Areas that pharm is not interested in (but would be good for the citizens) They do not work on antibiotics (they would like to sell them to farmers but are not allowed. There are only few remaining antibiotics that still can be used for resistant bacteria. If they would come up with new antibiotics it would be for humans, it would be added to the shelf for the potential pandemic. Good for mankind, not good for profits. Or making vaccinations safer (or more EFFECTIVE, the response rate is not very convincing with some - health authorities shy away from a honest public discussion. Also negative side effects, incl. severe long time damages are likely downplayed. Now I would say they can be tolerated if you look at the large picture and the avoided deaths - but they should make every effort to make them safer. Which would also increase public confidence.) Big pharma does not make much money of vaccinations, but their research has been paid for and they are a mass article - so they have no interest at all to improve them. Which would be costly. Let's say they would have developed opiodes. Which can be a blessing in a very narrow setting (last stage of cancer to relief pain, chronic severe pain). And over time those drugs would earn their investment back. While they provide other benefits to society - like pain relief, like making the last months of a person and the family easier to bear. But if handled responsibly that would have restricted use, therefore opiodes would earn their contribution back slowlier. They would never be a blockbuster. The laboratory or management would have no incentive to lie about the potential dangers. And to market them like they did - with CATASTROPHIC results and EXORBITANT COSTS for society. Which btw ONLY happened in the U.S.- no other country allows the for-profit pharma industry to run amock. the non-profit agencies would have detected the increased use and would have questioned WHAT is going on between pharma, doctors and patients. The high prices they can demand and the criminal or at least reckless behavior are the two sides of the same coin. PROFIT ABOVE ALL
    1
  4. + Brutus Healthcare is a terrible fit for the "free market" so in absence of the usual capitalistic incentives (which would produce tosic results) other mechanisms must ensure quality and reasonable prices - like regulations, quotas, collective bargaining. - Take if from someone who knows the systems in Germany and Austria: the high regulation, quotas make the system efficient !! There is a public non-profit insurance agency. So the sitting government (which changes of course over time) is not directly involved. But they - well parliament - provide of course the legal framwork. And they negotiate the funding additional to the contributions from wages. That happens yearly.
    1
  5. + Brutus a) Bernie 2020, good chance he may run, Jeff Weaver recently: he considers that but for now he runs for his Senate seat b) the majority in the U.S. disagrees with your position , see polling, Medicare for All, Single Payer WILL come in the U.S. and c) you cannot even leave the country - that is IF you are even in the U.S. - (and unless you opt for Somalia or Libya etc.) the healthcare system and funding that you despise is everywhere and soon to come in the U.S. -:) you get quite offensive when reacting to other comments. If you do not like paying taxes I recommend Somalia.
    1
  6. "We are not arresting people for breaking quarantine half an hour early". Punitive and petty and no concessions for circumstances is for the lower classes in the U.S. Like people arrested for no reason at all and then police fabricates "resisting arrest" and that becomes the new charge. No, a pilote would not be bothered by pettyness because they are the higher income, the professional class. - Pettyness, or even worse framing them, will only be leveraged against low income people (even more so if they are of color). Or kids in schools (especially in the are non-white) that are arrested by police (and white kids with the same infractions get a more lenient treatment). Police informants framed an autistic boy (a minor under 14 years and autistic, in that case a white boy) because they assumed that his brother was engaged in criminal activities (drugs). informant bombarded the boy with messages encouraging him to engage in criminal activities. (I think it was 70 or 80 with a short timemaybe a day or several, completely ridiculous). What kind of law enforcement WORKS with such people who obviusly only want to get a better plea deal or want to make money from being "informatn". Then the boy was arrested in school, which was traumatizing for him. That was as ridiculous as the arrest of the pilote. At least the judge did not go along and threw out the case. The pilot can deal with it and his company helped him - but the boy had a shock for life and is less able to process it than a competent adult.
    1
  7. I guess Singapore also wanted to send a message to foreigners inclined to not take it that seriously. And the pilote had to make the warning example (In Australia they got cases because airline personnel thought the rules were not for them).
    1
  8. So in Singapore they are not shy to arrest a pilote (ignoring foreign and professional privilege), which of course created problems for his company, I assume he either was needed to fly a plane back OR at least he would have been scheduled for a flight after returning.
    1
  9. MEDICARE is not allowed to NEGOTIATE with the pharma industry. Medicare is set ON TOP of a dysfunctional for-profit system: so it is still underperforming and too expensive. Medicare for old people (or medicaid for poor) still creates artificial pools. With Medicare for all the system would move towards the way things are RUN in all other countries (much more cost efficient). Advantage: it is a system that is already in place and would adjust over time (accepting more and more age groups).
    1
  10. The military (aka the tax payers) have funded research on electronics for DECADES.
    1
  11. Allegedly the overpriced pharma prices are needed to finance innovation. That is not true. They got laws passed that extend patents. When they "invent" a new medical use for a drug and "fabricate" a study that prove that the drug is also effictive for other medical use, they are getting a NEW patent. Else the patent would expire, and generica would be produced. They have to long term costs of those innovations set aside in their budgets. (and the risks, many such projects never come to fruition). The HIGH profits are on top. And they HAVE the high profits. So IF the revenue (drug prices like in Europe, well the rest of the world) were lower then it would first eat into the HIGH PROFITS. Then and only then let's talk about their problems to finance research and still make a reasonable profit. Also: PHARMA profits from basic research that is financed by the MILITARY BUDGETS. See Noam Chomsky: the Role of the Military is misunderstood (the military budgets fund research, when something comes of it and the tax-payer have done the heavy lifting, it is handed over to the private for-profit sector. Well and 50 % of the military budget of 680 bn goes to private contractors anyway). Chomsky explains how the MIT was 90 % military funded, when he started there it was electronics, PC, the internet, etc. - and all the relevant corporations were on campus. Now it is the Pharma industry (and I guess also Artificial Intelligence). Things that I know off the cuff: Malaria, the infamous Epi-Pen (developed on the dime of the tax-payer for the Gulf War in 1991, so they could inject in combat situations).
    1
  12. Greetings from Europe - YES - half-baked arguments are mind boggling. The astonishing thing is that they still have some supporters. Although I think there may be many trolls around. Public opinion in the U.S. has considerable shifted. Thanks to the internet. and thanks to Sanders who relentlessly makes the point (the only rich country on earth...)
    1
  13. 33:18 What makes him think Jill Stein is not or was not "Jill" for he persons she interacts with on a personal level (for instance as teacher). That she uses her title on social media and in formal settings, and would like to be addressed in that way by media, is a different thing. And after all she is now First Lady. It is a formal role.
    1