Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Maarten

Regulars
  • Posts

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Maarten

  1. I don't know about the market investment thing. I have considered it myself, but what it does do is have a form of government competition with the private sector. After all, they would be competing against normal investors for those shares. I am not so sure if that is a good idea, because it is still a form of government interference in the economy (however slight). Kind of like the little baby brother of today's investment in every bank One fun thing I saw mentioned the other day as a way of transitioning towards a better society as far as taxes go, is to allow people to decide where their tax dollars go towards. I think that would get rid of ridiculous programs (the ones small groups lobby for) real quickly, and it would furthermore get rid of (or severely downsize) programs people who pay very little taxes benefit from. Then, you can add a provision that says that any surplus a department gets has to be returned to the taxpayer, and that any budget cuts, so to speak, have to become permanent. So every year that people give less money to programs, they will end up getting smaller, unless there is consistent interest to maintain it by the people who actually share the burden of taxes. At the same time you could reduce taxes every year because there will probably be a massive overflow (I can imagine that many people would support the actual functions of the government in favor of welfare stuff, because the people that pay for taxes generally do not benefit from that anyway). I think it'd be somewhat more politically viable to do something like this than just getting rid of it altogether. You'd basically get a sort of pruning process that shrinks down the government depending on what people choose to fund. After all, it is your money, so why shouldn't you have some say over what it goes towards?
  2. Well, hospitals would probably have such a department because it is important to their functioning. I imagine it would likely be funded either indirectly through other parts of the hospital or by donations. I do think that the current system is very much abused by people who have no desire or means to pay for the treatment. I do not think anyone has a right to medical treatment even in emergency situations, but it would probably still be available to them. I can just imagine that there would be some payment mechanism involved to offset at least some of the costs. After all, it is not at all fair to shift the bills to other people who do have the ability to pay for their medical expenses.
  3. It is also impossible to survive without food. Does that mean that people should provide you with food if for whatever reason you are unable or unwilling to do so? What about a house? People in certain climates definitely need shelter. Do they have the right to have a house of some kind? What about other necessities that are further removed from directly dying but still affect your ability or desire to live? Should those be provided as well because at the end of the road you will die from not having it? I mean, you could also demand free access to the latest drugs if you are sick. After all, without them you will die. But where do you draw the line here? Once you say that under some conditions people MUST help you survive, you have really surrendered the principle and there's no good reason to say that in these situations help is needed and in these it is not. I mean, every situation in life is a life/death situation, because every action you take affects your ability to live (or die). That is basically the essence of all the pseudo-rights liberals seem to come up with these days...
  4. I watched part of a heritage foundation lecture by Robert Bork yesterday, and it raised this issue in my mind. He is pretty clearly a constructionist (I think that's what it is called) and says that judges who are supposed to interpret the meaning constitution and the law should not arrive at conclusions that are completely unsupportable from the facts they start out with. He gave some examples of cases where one supreme court justice basically got to decide what direction the country's laws were going to, and that when such decisions are made based on reasons other than what the constitution specifically says they are overstepping their power. I know that strict constructionism is incorrect, because ultimately the law (and consitution) should be based on individual rights. But is it really the judge's responsibility to do so? I think he has a point when he says that when you depart from literally interpreting the constitution you enter an area where anything seems to go fairly quickly. At least, it is much easier to arrive at incorrect decisions when your decisions are no longer based on the original document you are supposed to uphold. That brings me to my question: Should these issues of individual rights be decided by the judicial system, or is it properly a responsibility of the legislative branch by proposing constitutional amendments? It seems to me that there is a reason why it was incredibly difficult to amend the constitution in the first place. The document is so powerful that it could very easily be misused by people trying to further their own social or political agenda. When a justice concludes that even though the constitution says X, it should not have said that, and instead concludes that Y is true, how is that proper when it is his job to interpret the constitution? Would it not be a much more robust system if the Supreme Court had to base their decisions on the actual meaning of the constitution? The only point of having such a document is if you're going to actually respect it as the fundamental basis of a country's laws. We already have a mechanism for amending the constitution if we want to address sections the constitution is either mistaken or unclear on. I think it really is an area of concern when Justices can basically ignore what the constitution says, for better or for worse. It still sets a precedent that they are not actually basing their decision on the constitution they are supposed to interpret. So on the one hand I can see that ideally, it would be good if a Justice can uphold individual rights even where the constitution remains vague or contradictory. But because we by no means have the ideal justices nowadays, a more strict interpretation of the constitution with a more active role for amendments (if something really needs to be addressed) seems much safer to me as a way of maintaining the original structure of the republic.
  5. Gah, it's like right next to where I live, but I will probably be in class till 4 =/ That sucks, I really wish I could go there.
  6. Well, that is not necessarily bad. There is nothing selfless about being willing to die for a cause if living without that value would be worse than not living at all. In their case, if they failed, their fate would be horrendous, so I think it is perfectly rational for her to say what she did there.
  7. Rahm Emanuel's idea of service Nice, isn't it? That's from 2006, but I somehow doubt the guy has significantly changed his mind.
  8. I kinda liked the part of the first episode that I saw. Yeah, they deviated from the books in some significant ways, but I think there is a point to that. In the books there is a lot of backstory that is filled in with small flashbacks and things like that. That wouldn't be a very good idea on screen. So I think it's better that they have more of the character interactions and relationship development on screen, because it makes it clearer to people watching it why the characters interact with each other. I really like Kahlan and Darken Rahl. I'm not totally sure about Zedd, but yeah, we'll see I am kinda hopeful, though.
  9. But most people who commit suicide haven't completely surrendered their old value system and its base in life. Many times it is more an act of despair, and I think that even in the cases of people who really do not see a way out, that they still care to some extent[ about the things they used to value very much. I don't think you can instantly change all the things you value, so unless the decision of suicide is at the end of a very long road of systematically stopping to care about everything else you used to care about, it is unavoidable that you still do care about many of those things. And as a result, when you act in such a way that you hurt people you love and value (usually by taking your life in a way that can be very traumatizing to them; there's definitely better and worse ways to commit suicide) I think it is a betrayal of the things you used to value, and possibly immoral.
  10. What exactly does this graph show? Is it a measure of how much money the fed has in deposits at the moment from commercial banks, or how much money they are lending other banks?
  11. I kinda like 4th edition so far, although I haven't had much of a chance to play it because we don't know many people who like RPGs here. But yeah, one big plus is that they made all non-spellcasting classes much more active in terms of their abilities, so you can do a lot more now than just using standard attacks. I kinda like it that way, and also spellcasters don't have spell limitations on their most basic spells anymore, so you can always use some kind of attack. I thought it made it more fun to play at first level. Also, it's normal that it has less options than 3.0 /3.5 because there are tons less expansion books. It is a shame they removed some classes, though...
  12. I don't really understand that. I thought the whole point of the bailout was that it would be voluntary; i.e. banks that were in trouble could get government help. Are they basically forcing banks to accept the proposal now, no matter how well they are being run and how solvent they are? What good does that accomplish??
  13. Well, it's an accounting thing. A bank's assets (I suppose that's everything of value that they own) has to be paid for in some way, and that is done through both equity and liabilities (loans of various kinds). It is very difficult to finance a business solely through direct ownership, because borrowing money allows you to grow much more quickly. Usually about 70-80% of a business' assets are backed by liabilities, but the thing is, they make more money doing it that way than they have to pay in interest, so it's a way of creating more value than otherwise would be possible if they only had direct ownership through equity financing. It's kinda like borrowing a hundred dollars so you can use them and make 120 dollars. If that's all you have, your assets (100 dollars in cash) would be backed solely by debt, but if you make money on your secondary investment you can eventually pay back the money with interest (say 105 dollars total) and you make 15 dollars that you couldnt have made without borrowing the money. Balancing their books just means that their assets always have to be backed by a equivalent amount of debt + equity combined. Otherwise there'd be more assets than were paid for, which is impossible. The value has to come from somewhere, and the accounting reflects that. Added value through profits is part of equity, so it stays balanced when you make money. I guess to answer the second part of your question: The banks bought mortgages as assets, using a combination of equity and liabilities to finance it (mostly borrowed money, see above). When the mortgages that seemed to give a healthy return on their investment started losing value, the equity share of their financing was correspondingly reduced because of the loss they made, and eventually all that is left is debt, and the mortgages become pure liabilities that drag down overall profits. If a significant amount of their assets were based on this, they'd have a really big problem.
  14. John Allison wrote a letter to congress about the bailout plan and why it's a bad idea. It's a good read Go BB&T! Allison's letter The whole article I found it in: Article
  15. I read this article just now. It's pretty terrible.... Here's the whole thing: Article That basically gives the treasury secretary a blank check to do whatever he likes without any fear of reprisal if he messes up or abuses it....
  16. Yeah, for example BB&T's stock rose quite a bit in the last few days. I think it went from about 30 dollars per share to almost 36 in the same time as most financial institutions had huge losses. Go BB&T!
  17. Hey guys. Sorry I've been so absent from these forums in the last months, or year, really. I've been extremely busy, so I have something to show for it anyway =) I've been doing really well in graduate school so far, and I'm going to graduate without any problems the coming spring, probably with a 4.0 GPA. Earlier this week I got an acceptance letter from Phi Kappa Phi, which is apparently a pretty big deal because they don't seem to invite too many people, so that's really cool. I've been doing various internships in industry for most of the year, or rather, it was one long one at a local mid-sized biotech company, and I just started an internship at one of the labs at a local medical school, in their cancer center. I'm mostly reading up on the theory behind the form of cancer they study there and the background of the study, and the hallmark characteristics of cancer in general, but I'll also get training in the various techniques they use to study the tissue they receive from patients. So that's cool After a lot of deliberation I've pretty much decided that I would like staying in Academia better, and because I really like teaching as well I am thinking about going for a faculty position in the long run, if I can get one. I also really enjoy the science behind many of these diseases and treatments and I would love to be able to be in a position to have the freedom to decide what I want to study and how, and I think I can do that much better at a university than at most industrial companies. To that end, I've decided that I want to go ahead and get a PhD when I finish my current master's degree. I will almost certainly get it in some form of cancer research, and I am leaning more towards the translational research than fundamental research. Especially angiogenesis is a deeply fascinating topic within cancer research, and many other diseases for that matter. So yeah, I'm currently making sure that I can get all the materials I need for the application procedure, and I am going to work on that in the next month or two and hopefully get them all completed by early November at the latest. So yeah, the next half-year is going to be an exciting time for me. Especially one of the schools has a lot of really awesome faculty members that do research in this field, and I'd love to go there. Oh, I'm also still a teaching assistant for the animal cell culture course, and it's so much fun. Takes up another big chunk of my time, but that's okay. My professors are the best people in the world, and I can't remember having that much fun in school, ever. Lol. But between that, the internship, my girlfriend, and my 11 or so hours of graduate credit I am kinda overworked. Oh, I'm also babysitting a few hours a week because this couple wants to make sure their kids keep speaking dutch. That's fun, too, and it pays for my gas expenses =) If you want some more specific details, please PM me and I'll gladly provide you with all the information you want
  18. The funny thing is that the stuff we use in the lab to grow mammalian cells, is basically gatorade I mean, you add some serum to it, as well, but the basal media that's used is water, electrolytes and a bunch of vitamins and amino acids, that's almost exactly what they put in sports/energy drinks.
  19. I'm not sure about that. Granted, if they claim something to be true when it isn't and they have evidence contradicting it, that's fraud. But simply knowing something and not saying anything about it is not necessarily fraud. Otherwise you end up on a slippery slope where companies have to disclose any kind of information that may pertain to the health of others, and I do not think it is right to force them to do that. Again, if they claim that X doesn't happen, when it really does, that would be fraud. Oh, something that is reason for good cheer: Apparently the FDA is extremely overextended as it is, which is a very good sign, because it makes it impossible for them to be as strict as they'd like to be. I think that might keep the market a lot free-er than it otherwise would be...
  20. But the thing is, right now it's the FDA that approves drugs, and therefore makes the final decision on whether or not a drug is safe. So why should the company in question be fully responsible for things they couldn't have foreseen? The restrictions placed upon them by the FDA are already such a huge burden, and I think that this ruling basically places the responsibility solely with the FDA. I think that on the balance that is a good thing, because maybe then people will realize that if something bad happens, it is the FDA's failing, and not the "free" market's or the company's. I didn't say companies were by definition good, just that the vast majority of them are. It most certainly isn't a perfect solution, or even a good one. I agree that these restrictions shouldn't exist. But I think it is still an improvement over the status quo, and as such, might lead to a beneficial effect, overall, on our well-being. Anything that reduces the rather insane risks associated with developing drugs will lead to more of them entering the market. That is a simple application of economics, because investors will be more likely to invest in these drugs. And I believe that that is a good thing. Can it be abused? Sure it can, and it probably will be. But I am quite certain that in cases of gross negligence that cause harm, this ruling won't hold water, that there would be some kind of recourse available (even if it's just suing the FDA for failing to do its job). It just annoys me that everyone is expecting omniscience from companies when they develop drugs. Many extremely rare side effects are almost impossible to test for, and it's unreasonable to hold them to an impossible standard. You should have known is not a valid argument, unless you can prove that they went out of their way to hide the evidence or something. p.s. Aspartame isn't a drug, as far as I know. It is a food additive, which is also regulated by the FDA. I'm just saying that because I think the regulatory process for both of those things is vastly different, and not really comparable. I am not familiar with anyone using aspartame to treat disease, for example. So I am unsure as to how much this example really holds in this discussion about (medicinal) drugs.
  21. I don't think that will be the case. Currently, there is a very large deterrent for pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs, at least in part because of the risks they're taking with them (possibly) being withdrawn before they become possible, and with the company then being sued for a lot of money. Overall, I think it would help a lot more than it would hurt the current state of affairs. In my book, pretty much anything that makes it easier for companies to develop new drugs is a good thing. Sure, it may be abused sometimes, but the VAST majority of companies aren't out there to scam you and kill your children.
  22. I am taking a course in biopharma law right now, and my professor mentioned that there is a concept that's something like "insufficient testing". It applies pretty much to any product you might buy, where a manufacturer is liable if the plaintiff can prove that the safety testing done for the product wasn't sufficient. Now, I am not sure if this concept is at all valid. It certainly seems to set a (potentially) unreasonable, omniscient standard. But either way, as it currently stands, it would be a potential liability if something happened that could have been discovered with further testing (I guess you try and prove that they were (criminally) negligent in their QA procedures?). On a brighter note, apparently there's a bill currently in the works that would immunize pharmaceutical companies for liability of any approved uses of their drugs. I think that by itself would be a step forward, because it makes it somewhat less insane to produce drugs in today's market with all the liability suits going on. Sure, ideally the FDA shouldn't exist, but it is a good step for some temporary relief for these companies, in my opinion.
  23. Hi Katie Glad to see that you, umm, "decided" to apply here. There was absolutely no coercion involved in that ladies and gentlemen!
  24. I don't know if I can state this explicitly, it's mostly an empirical observation made from many years of interacting both with girls and guys. Maybe it's the emotional intimacy that's easier to get when you have really good female friends, I don't know exactly. All I know is that I rarely find guys I want to be such good friends with, and it happens much more with girls.
×
×
  • Create New...