|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
I'm sorry, that last response was a bit off the cuff. Here is a bit more in depth:
Editors at 56 papers around the world are running the same editorial. There are 192 countries at the conference, so that means that 136 newspapers aren't running the same editorial (if we were to assume each paper came from separate countries). Since all the papers obviously don't come from different countries, the nice circle (jerk) of papers prints the same thing and acts like it's unity when it's a minority opinion. |
The 56 papers are from only 45 different countries and probably owned by a total of three or four people - or does Rupert Murdoch own them all?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is complete BS. Large private firms routinely spend years researching and developing new technologies. |
Yes, when they deem it a profitable/financially sound investment to do so. However, my point still stands: not everything that advances mankind or helps improve the lives of people starts as something that looks like a profitable investment to research and develop.
Yes, the private sector does independently research and develop new ideas/products. For example, Pfizer independently produced Viagra. Now, anyone with any understanding of marketing knows that sex sells, and anyone with understanding of markets would know there's a demand for a product like viagra. Viagra was a viable, profitable investment. Conveniently, Viagra is a product that must continually be bought in order to reap the benefits.
Do you see the difference between the incentive to invest in Viagra and the incentive to solve the problem of cervical cancer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is complete BS. Large private firms routinely spend years researching and developing new technologies. |
Yes, when they deem it a profitable/financially sound investment to do so. However, my point still stands: not everything that advances mankind or helps improve the lives of people starts as something that looks like a profitable investment to research and develop.
Yes, the private sector does independently research and develop new ideas/products. For example, Pfizer independently produced Viagra. Now, anyone with any understanding of marketing knows that sex sells, and anyone with understanding of markets would know there's a demand for a product like viagra. Viagra was a viable, profitable investment. Conveniently, Viagra is a product that must continually be bought in order to reap the benefits.
Do you see the difference between the incentive to invest in Viagra and the incentive to solve the problem of cervical cancer? |
You are laboring under the assumption that politicians and bureaucrats are all knowing and can predict which projects will be a success.
They put the money up for a HPV vaccine. So what? That money would have been spent in other parts of the economy. Who are you or anyone else to dictate what resources should be spent where?
I'm not saying an HPV vaccine is a bad thing. I'm saying that you are not seeing what wasn't created with the resources that were used to research the vaccine. Extrapolate that out to other areas of spending and you see where the anti-interventionists are coming from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saving lives always seems to be a worthwhile cause to most people, even though the market may not put a large financial incentive behind it. Again, this supports my original assertion that the government, as an instrument of and service to the people, must at times step in.
If you want to play the "imagine what the market could've done with that money!"... I'd be highly willing to bet it wouldn't have involved preventing a deadly disease. Maybe the market would've given us a superior Botox, new way to make bigger breasts, or a new method of growing hair instead of an HPV vaccine.
boy wouldn't that be great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| Saving lives always seems to be a worthwhile cause to most people, even though the market may not put a large financial incentive behind it. Again, this supports my original assertion that the government, as an instrument of and service to the people, must at times step in. |
At times step in? You mean step in at half a chance and often when they it is not wanted or needed.
| Quote: |
| If you want to play the "imagine what the market could've done with that money!"... I'd be highly willing to bet it wouldn't have involved preventing a deadly disease. Maybe the market would've given us a superior Botox, new way to make bigger breasts, or a new method of growing hair instead of an HPV vaccine. |
It would probably do both. Now it doesn't have the chance. Maybe it would have cured malaria or TB instead, both of which kill far more people than cervical cancer from HPV infections.
Even if the govt does get it right from time to time, wouldn't you agree that the myriad of things that the govt cocks up on a daily basis, far outweigh any good it does do? Ie, the net benefit of total govt intervention is negative.
boy wouldn't that be great.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is complete BS. Large private firms routinely spend years researching and developing new technologies. |
Yes, when they deem it a profitable/financially sound investment to do so. However, my point still stands: not everything that advances mankind or helps improve the lives of people starts as something that looks like a profitable investment to research and develop.
Yes, the private sector does independently research and develop new ideas/products. For example, Pfizer independently produced Viagra. Now, anyone with any understanding of marketing knows that sex sells, and anyone with understanding of markets would know there's a demand for a product like viagra. Viagra was a viable, profitable investment. Conveniently, Viagra is a product that must continually be bought in order to reap the benefits.
Do you see the difference between the incentive to invest in Viagra and the incentive to solve the problem of cervical cancer? |
There is no difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kangnamdragun
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
Saving lives always seems to be a worthwhile cause to most people, even though the market may not put a large financial incentive behind it. Again, this supports my original assertion that the government, as an instrument of and service to the people, must at times step in.
If you want to play the "imagine what the market could've done with that money!"... I'd be highly willing to bet it wouldn't have involved preventing a deadly disease. Maybe the market would've given us a superior Botox, new way to make bigger breasts, or a new method of growing hair instead of an HPV vaccine.
boy wouldn't that be great. |
If I were left-of-center, I'd be hammering the example of the pharma companies home, too. They're terrible. It seems top scientists know this and try to stay in universities and within the public sector. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| DIsbell wrote: |
Saving lives always seems to be a worthwhile cause to most people, even though the market may not put a large financial incentive behind it. Again, this supports my original assertion that the government, as an instrument of and service to the people, must at times step in.
If you want to play the "imagine what the market could've done with that money!"... I'd be highly willing to bet it wouldn't have involved preventing a deadly disease. Maybe the market would've given us a superior Botox, new way to make bigger breasts, or a new method of growing hair instead of an HPV vaccine.
boy wouldn't that be great. |
If I were left-of-center, I'd be hammering the example of the pharma companies home, too. They're terrible. It seems top scientists know this and try to stay in universities and within the public sector. |
The pharmaceutical industry is a cartel that couldn't exist without tacit government support. Blame the FDA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| or blame the fact that a research + a one-time shot to prevent a deadly disease is never going to be as profitable as a pill that you use for 20 years to keep you **** hard, "free market" or central bank be damned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is complete BS. Large private firms routinely spend years researching and developing new technologies. |
Yes, when they deem it a profitable/financially sound investment to do so. However, my point still stands: not everything that advances mankind or helps improve the lives of people starts as something that looks like a profitable investment to research and develop.
Yes, the private sector does independently research and develop new ideas/products. For example, Pfizer independently produced Viagra. Now, anyone with any understanding of marketing knows that sex sells, and anyone with understanding of markets would know there's a demand for a product like viagra. Viagra was a viable, profitable investment. Conveniently, Viagra is a product that must continually be bought in order to reap the benefits.
Do you see the difference between the incentive to invest in Viagra and the incentive to solve the problem of cervical cancer? |
Given the sheer number of cancer patients and the hundreds of types of cancer, the size of that market means that the potential profits are huge, far bigger than the market for viagra, and the market will likely exist for hundreds of years.
In a free market, the first difference is that there will be more research and more money spent by private firms to develop cancer treatments, cures, or preventative single shots than even for viagra type drugs. Government right now hinders, slows and prevents research by limiting types of scientific inquiry and regulating research, production, prices and profits.
If we want the best medicine, the best research, the best chance to live a long, healthy life, then we need to get the government completely out of health care, insurance, drugs and research.
As a side note: I have personally written numerous cancer research papers for publication in international journals and prepared significant new findings for presentation at international medical conferences specifically related to several types of cancer, including cervical cancer.
There is almost no chance of anyone ever finding a "magic bullet" that will cure or prevent cancer or even a single type of cancer. It will always be necessary to have a large variety of preventatives, a large variety of drugs and a large variety of treatments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| or blame the fact that a research + a one-time shot to prevent a deadly disease is never going to be as profitable as a pill that you use for 20 years to keep you **** hard, "free market" or central bank be damned. |
Your logic is completely faulty. You're not talking about "free" markets, you're talking about "rigged" markets. In a truly free market, someone would invent one-time shot to prevent a deadly disease (assuming it were possible), simply because there is a demand for it. End of discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Your logic is completely faulty. You're not talking about "free" markets, you're talking about "rigged" markets. In a truly free market, someone would invent one-time shot to prevent a deadly disease (assuming it were possible), simply because there is a demand for it. End of discussion. |
There's not an unlimited supply of medical research and production, so not all demands can be met. The ones that would be met first are the most lucrative ones, certain low-profit or unprofitable demands would be left undeveloped.
You also run into the problem of some treatments being too costly- costly enough to exclude large segments of a potential market, making them unattractive to produce, or only available to the very wealthy. This is an ethical issue related to healthcare- people are willing to pay anything to save their lives, but they have finite amounts they are actually able to pay. Which is why most civilized societies have socialized health costs to some end, because most people find it unethical to put a market value on human lives.
I'm also thoroughly enjoying the "no true scotsman" approach to market behavior. IT'S NOT REALLY A FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!! In that case, I guess you shouldn't take any credit for market innovations either, given that they aren't true free-market innovations. Let's blame the fed for personal computers and abundant food  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blockhead confidence
Joined: 02 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think this one links to the antarctic article, although there is another article on that website about Greenland and the artic which is less persuasive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
| Quote: |
Your logic is completely faulty. You're not talking about "free" markets, you're talking about "rigged" markets. In a truly free market, someone would invent one-time shot to prevent a deadly disease (assuming it were possible), simply because there is a demand for it. End of discussion. |
There's not an unlimited supply of medical research and production, so not all demands can be met. The ones that would be met first are the most lucrative ones, certain low-profit or unprofitable demands would be left undeveloped. |
Actually, there IS an unlimited supply of medical research and production - or rather it is limited only by market demand. Why on earth would you claim otherwise? Based on what??? There would be even more market demand (and therefore research) if the government didn't waste so much of our money.
| Quote: |
| You also run into the problem of some treatments being too costly- costly enough to exclude large segments of a potential market, making them unattractive to produce, or only available to the very wealthy. This is an ethical issue related to healthcare- people are willing to pay anything to save their lives, but they have finite amounts they are actually able to pay. Which is why most civilized societies have socialized health costs to some end, because most people find it unethical to put a market value on human lives. |
Complete tosh. In a free market, the prices fall to the lowest levels that they can, driven down by competition. Government subsidies are a false economy, because nothing is free (it ends up being more expensive, we pay the cost both in taxes and inflation, which lowers everyone's standard of living and purchasing power).
| Quote: |
| I'm also thoroughly enjoying the "no true scotsman" approach to market behavior. IT'S NOT REALLY A FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!! In that case, I guess you shouldn't take any credit for market innovations either, given that they aren't true free-market innovations. Let's blame the fed for personal computers and abundant food |
Your mockery falls flat each and every time. If you wanna repeat it, then so will I: it's NOT really a free market: nobody with even a single brain cell on duty will ever deny this statement of fact. You keep bringing up farcical examples like the pharmaceutical industry being greedy, touting it as "proof" that the free market doesn't work, but then you FAIL to point out that the pharmaceutical industry is a stinking cartel (the antithesis of a free market) propped up entirely by government regulation. You've failed miserably to rebuttal this basic point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
