Thread: McCain, Clinton win NH

Okay, I'm listening to Hillary Clinton's greatest strength/weakness question (stupid question by the way) and I think I just aged 4 years.

She's terrible. I mean that literally. It's not just that I think everything she says is a lie, it's that she says it in a terrble way. She rambles incoherently and drags you kicking and screaming to the point she wants to make, then clubs inexpertly at your head with it.

I feel badly for the Dems or undecideds who might have to listen to that during her campaign.

Wow, she's so hateable, it's awesome.

-dale

Originally Posted by Shek

So your contention is that the poor don't realize that you need water for an emergency or cannot afford it? That they can't afford clothes/blankets? Water is the one thing the body cannot do without. Between water and clothing to protect you from the elements, you will survive. Cost - the current clothes/blankets you own and the reuse of empty plastic containers.

Kind of hard to do if your building just fell down/burned/ flooded. If your possessions are destroyed by an act of God event, poor city planning or just plain dumb luck and you don't have cash reserves large cash reserves if we use your system, then your doomed to live as best you can like an abandoned dog becuase the profit of the store owner takes precedence over your life. Most disaster do not come with a warning.

If you want a more robust kit, then you can check out the Red Cross recommendation - American Red Cross. It takes money, but it is not out of reach of any demograhpic.

You seem tob e assuming that you can get at your kit in any disaster. Which is fine if you choose to stay home as a Hurricane advances, but like I said earleir most disaster do not have a warning, or one long enough to let you leave work get home and get your kit.

So, what should take priority - building your kit (of which the most basic and essential items are already present in households) or buying a TV? DVD player? Stereo? If you can show me someone who hasn't chosen to purchase amenities as opposed to survival gear, then for that minute demographic I'd support some public subsidy. For those who made the choice, then the lack of a kit is due to their choice and not because of some breakdown in the social contract.

Having kits on hand is a great idea,but unless we want to walk around weighed down with MRE's and flashlights a Kit is far more likely to be out of reach than in reach during a disaster.

Risk premiums are only part of a price structure. Costs (to include opportunity costs) and demand also play a part. No one can be forced to pay more than they value something at.

Yes they can becuase some things do not have a quantifiable value like life.

Also, your examples leave much to be desired. If $150 tickets and $4 bottles of water (Woodstock '99) at a voluntary event justify anarchy, then there should be anarchy at every single Redskins football game. Prices are an after-the-fact excuse to try and justify anarchic behavior.

Katrina was way overblown (see RealClearPolitics - Articles - Katrina: What the Media Missed or USATODAY.com - Katrina spawned plague of misinformation for some examples of the poor reporting). Care for the needy was provided at the central evacuation locations. Looting wasn't the result of high prices, but rather those who were trying to take advantage of situation. In fact, how can you explain that there were stores with water and food that were closed - maybe because the threat of anti-gouging action by the LA AG provided a disincentive to remain and keep the store open when balanced against the threat of the hurricane? As far as 9-11 goes, I'm not that familiar with any linkage to "violent" responses other than isolated incidents of harassment, to include violent harassment, of those that appeared to be Muslims or Arabs. I'd certainly welcome evidence to this.

Put simply, in your examples, any causal argument about high prices would be very weak at best.

I didn't say it caused them, only that it was a factor in the break down of order.

Funny thing about 9-11, non of the gas station owners who got attacked wasn't darker skinned. However- look at where the rage was unleashed for the most part- at gas stations where prices shot up in a panic.

Your solution, besides ignoring incentives and reducing welfare for all because of ignoring incentives, also extends the concept of a "social contract" such that a huge moral hazard is created. If the expectation is that the state will provide a disaster kit, then what is the incentive to build your own? If you don't let there be consequences for poor choices, then you simply increase the incentive for others to make poor choices. There's got to be some personal responsibility involved.

I never said the state should provide a disaster kit, I said essential items should not be priced out of reach for the poor. A generator is luxury the butcher should have dibs no matter the price; water, food, tarps, flashlights, batteries etc are not and need to be equally available to everyone not just those who who have the slack in their accounts to absorb the profiteering.

Having kits on hand is a great idea,but unless we want to walk around weighed down with MRE's and flashlights a Kit is far more likely to be out of reach than in reach during a disaster.

If you're a homeowner in a disaster-prone area, it's never a bad idea to have a pantry stocked with canned foods, drinking water, a radio, batteries, among other things. I'm sure for under $200 one could stock enough supply to last a family a week.

I don't own a home or have a family, but if I did I would have a ready supply of necessities on hand in the event of an unforeseen disaster.

I keep a ready supply of necessities in my car in the case of an unforeseen event. I keep a 12-amp battery charger, mini air compressor, spare tire, 150 ft. of extension cord, full toolkit, a "space" blanket, and a flashlight in the trunk of my car, for example. Past experience has taught me that it's a good idea to have these on hand.

For a small fraction of the price of the money people throw at unnecessary luxuries in a year, every home in the US could have a ready supply of necessities. Most people below the poverty line enjoy the luxuries of cable TV and air conditioning, so I assure you that most below the poverty line can prepare and have these necessities on hand when disaster strikes.

Originally Posted by zraver

Yes they can becuase some things do not have a quantifiable value like life.

Actually, you can quantify the value of life. People everyday when they buy death insurance (since that title was repugnant, it was changed to "life" insurance to make it more palatable). People do it everyday when they purchase health insurance. People do it everyday when they decide to pull the plug on treatments - they no longer value life. Uncle Sam does it everyday when he taxes estates.

Originally Posted by zraver

Funny thing about 9-11, non of the gas station owners who got attacked wasn't darker skinned. However- look at where the rage was unleashed for the most part- at gas stations where prices shot up in a panic.

Can you provide me some links? Google turns up nothing but these in the first pages of the Google News search for the few weeks following 9/11.

CNN.com - Man questioned in shooting death of Sikh - September 16, 2001

MESA, Arizona (CNN) -- A man was being questioned by police Sunday in connection with the shooting death of a gas station owner, an Indian immigrant who was a Sikh.

The man has not been arrested or charged. Authorities are also investigating two other shootings that took place Saturday afternoon, involving a man that fits the same description.

The victim has been identified as Balbir Singh Sodhi. Guru Roop Kaur Khalsa, the spiritual leader of a Sikh temple in Phoenix where Sodhi was a member, said Sodhi was 52.

***
Police said several shots were fired 20 minutes after the fatal shooting, from a similar vehicle at a Mobil station in the city. No one was hit and the driver fled. Owners of this second gas station are Arabic.

Police said shots were fired 10 minutes later from a similar truck at a third location. Nobody was hurt.

***

Sikhs are not Muslims, but Sikh men wear turbans and because of their appearance have been mistaken for Muslims. Suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden, an Islamic militant based in Afghanistan, is suspected of masterminding the terror attacks.

Khalsa said Sikh men keep their beards and most wear turbans -- "we look more like bin Laden than the Muslims do."

Three held after attack on Afghan taxi driver - Independent Online Edition > This Britain

In America, two men were murdered over the weekend in what appeared to be the first revenge killings. Waqar Hassan Choudhry, 40, was shot dead just after 10pm on Saturday in Dallas, Texas. His killers did not attempt to rob the petrol station where he worked, and detectives have told Mr Choudhry's family that they suspect the motive to be revenge.

The NYT only turns up this in the two weeks following 9/11. Same incidents and nothing else.

Sikh Owner Of Gas Station Is Fatally Shot In Rampage - New York Times

In a shooting rampage on Saturday, a gunman in Arizona fatally shot the Sikh owner of a Chevron gas station, and then, 20 minutes later, shot at but missed a clerk of Lebanese descent at a Mobil station. Soon afterward, he fired several shots into the home of a family of Afghan descent, but hit no one.

The police in Mesa, Ariz., charged Frank Roque, 42, with one count of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder and three counts of drive-by shooting. Bond was set at $1 million.

The East Valley Tribune reported that Mr. Roque shouted, ''I stand for America all the way,'' as he was handcuffed. And while the police have not declared that the shootings were motivated by the victims' ethnicity, they have notified Federal Bureau of Investigation officials who investigate hate crimes.

The gas station owner who was killed, Balbir Singh Sodhi, who is Indian, moved to the United States 10 years ago. He came to Arizona and opened his gas station a year ago.

In another killing, a Pakistani Muslim in Dallas, Waqar Hassan, was found fatally shot in his grocery store on Saturday night. The police said that a ''considerable amount'' of money was left in the cash register, and they could not rule out the possibility it was a revenge killing. ''We're not saying it's a hate crime and we're not saying it isn't,'' Sgt. Gary Kirkpatrick said. ''We just don't know yet.''

Originally Posted by zraver

I pay gas taxes, i use the roads, unless it was privately built or turned over to a private company who then get no more Federal money I am done paying. With the pharmas i pay taxes to help pay them to develop drugs but then I have to pay again for something I helped them create, then I have to pay them a third time to cover the tax burden they weaseled out of. They keep making record profits- where and when does the profit of the rich give way to the needs of the many?

This is too emotional a subject, even for me. It's hard to be objective when the outcome is a matter of life or death to many people. No doubt, the cost of proprietary drugs is much too high, and that means lower income people who need but can't afford them are at risk. It's also clear that pharmaceuticals is a major US industry. At a time when our traditional industries are being challenged from abroad, we have to be careful not to cripple the industry with price controls. Raising prices overseas to achieve parity with US prices may be ok in Europe and Canada, and other countries with a comparable per capita income. Raising them in less weathly nations will encourage countries like China and India to compete with us.

In an ideal world, the sick and injured should be taken care of as a
humanitarian matter. A community would provide help when needed, and that goes for the larger community, the nation. Of course, it's a pipedream. Everything conspires to make the medicine a for-profit industry. Uncle Sam and the states try to help, but they're like you and me. What little they give us, they have to buy from doctors and drug companies, further enriching them. I have no answers for a permanent solution. We can hit up the drug companies for now, but after we're run them down, what then?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

This is too emotional a subject, even for me. It's hard to be objective when the outcome is a matter of life or death to many people. No doubt, the cost of proprietary drugs is much too high, and that means lower income people who need but can't afford them are at risk. It's also clear that pharmaceuticals is a major US industry. At a time when our traditional industries are being challenged from abroad, we have to be careful not to cripple the industry with price controls. Raising prices overseas to achieve parity with US prices may be ok in Europe and Canada, and other countries with a comparable per capita income. Raising them in less weathly nations will encourage countries like China and India to compete with us.

In an ideal world, the sick and injured should be taken care of as a
humanitarian matter. A community would provide help when needed, and that goes for the larger community, the nation. Of course, it's a pipedream. Everything conspires to make the medicine a for-profit industry. Uncle Sam and the states try to help, but they're like you and me. What little they give us, they have to buy from doctors and drug companies, further enriching them. I have no answers for a permanent solution. We can hit up the drug companies for now, but after we're run them down, what then?

We can't undo what medicine's accomplished. We can only make it more affordable.

Or we can leave prices naturally-high, and people will die so that we can cure erectile dysfunction and restless leg syndrome.

Put an X or a Z in the name; I'll buy it

Some trade-off

Originally Posted by JAD_333

This is too emotional a subject,

For some.

-dale

Originally Posted by zraver

It's not honest capitalism when those with money can buy laws that get them more money at the expense of the tax payer. in 2003 they spent 681 million lobbying for Medicare D that will return 139 billion in profits via the tax payers money since thier lobbying got them a ban on Medicare bargaining for lower prices. They fixed the market plain and simple.

Medicare Part D is probably actually one of the best deals out there for the taxpayer, as it pretty much pays for itself.

The Welfare Effects of Public Drug Insurance

Rewarding inventors with inefficient monopoly power has long been regarded as the price of encouraging innovation. Public prescription drug insurance escapes that trade-off and achieves an elusive goal: lowering static deadweight loss, while simultaneously encouraging dynamic investments in innovation. As a result of this feature, the public provision of drug insurance can be welfare-improving, even for risk-neutral and purely self-interested consumers. In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, the Medicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual static deadweight loss reduction, and at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation. These two components alone cover 87% of the social cost of publicly financing the benefit. The analysis of static and dynamic efficiency also has implications for policies complementary to a drug benefit: in the context of public monopsony power, some degree of price-negotiation by the government is always strictly welfare-improving, but this should often be coupled with extensions in patent length.

Prescription Drug Coverage and Elderly Medicare Spending

Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending.

Originally Posted by zraver

6- profits are artificially high

Drug industry R&D does not appear to be as risky as companies claim. In every year since 1982, the drug industry has been the most profitable in the United States, according to Fortune magazine’s rankings. During this time, the drug industry’s returns on revenue (profit as a percent of sales) have averaged about three times the average for all other industries represented in the Fortune 500. It defies logic that R&D investments are highly risky if the industry is consistently so profitable and returns on investments are so high.

Here's an excerpt from a recent CBO report that dispels the above myth of "triple" profits. However, if you believe that it's such unrisky proposition, I take it that you have all of your life savings tied up in pharma stocks (especially Merck).

Greg Mankiw's Blog: CBO on Pharma Profits

By standard accounting measures, the pharmaceutical industry consistently ranks as one of the most profitable industries in the United States. Those measures, however, treat most R&D outlays as expenditures rather than as investments that add to the value of a firm. Thus, they omit from a firm’s asset base the value of its accumulated stock of knowledge. For R&D-intensive industries, such as pharmaceuticals, that omission can significantly overstate profitability. Adjusted for the value of its R&D assets, the drug industry’s actual profitability still appears to be somewhat higher than the average for all U.S. industries, but not two to three times higher, as standard measures of profitability indicate.

The notion that pharmaceutical companies enjoy extraordinary profits is reinforced by the relationship between prices and costs in the drug industry. The industry’s high R&D spending and relatively low manufacturing costs create a cost structure similar to that of, for example, the software industry. Both industries have high fixed costs (for research and development) and low variable costs (to put a software application onto a CD-ROM or to produce a bottle of prescription medication). Consequently, prices in those industries are usually much higher than the cost of providing an additional unit of the product, because revenue from sales of the product must ultimately cover those fixed costs.

Based on a study by two economists at the FTC, the “average” cost of bring a new drug to the market is between $839 million and $868 million dollars (both expressed in 2000 constant dollars). The latter figure refers to the average cost of new molecular entities (NCEs) while the former refers to all new drugs.

SSRN-Estimating the Costs of New Drug Development: Is it really $802m? by Christopher Adams, Van Brantner

This paper replicates DiMasi et al (2003) drug development cost estimates using their published survey cost estimates along with information from a publicly available data set. The results suggest that the expected cost of developing the average drug is even higher than the DiMasi et al (2003) estimate of $802m (in 2000 dollars). The paper estimates the capitalized out-of-pocket cost per new drug to be between $839m and $868m (in 2000 dollars). The paper similarly estimates the expected cost of the average new drug with certain characteristics such as primary indication. It is shown that the expected cost of developing the average HIV/AIDS drug is $479m, while the expected cost of developing the average rheumatoid arthritis drug is twice that, at $936m. For one large pharmaceutical company the expected cost of developing an average drug is $521m, and for another large firm the cost is almost four times that number, coming in at $2,119m. The results support DiMasi et al's claim that the average cost to develop a new drug is over $800m while also suggesting that for some drugs the costs can be much higher or much lower.

Once corrected for inflation using the CPI, the average cost for the average new drug in today’s dollars is $1.01 billion. While this study analyses the pre-tax costs, a look at actual tax credits awarded for R&D expenditure beyond deductible R&D expenses amounted to 2.0% (DiMasi 2003). Thus, if you wish to adjust for “special” tax breaks, the net result is negligible.