101. Monkey, Business

Comment #106590 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:27 am

>Not all profit is evil, even pharma profit.

I didn't say it's evil. I just corrected hungarianelephant's naive assertion that Pharma are in "business of improving people's lives", made in post #230.

102. Monkey, Business

Comment #106588 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:25 am

>Can you please tell me when a company invented a disease? And then I assume infected people?

No, you misunderstand. I mean diagnosing common conditions as diseases and medicating them...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2128371,00.html

103. Monkey, Business

Comment #106578 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:10 am

230. Comment #106571 by hungarianelephant

>when they are in the business of improving lives.

They're in the business of maximising profits. If it improves lives as a consequence, that's great. But if they can do it through overpricing, price-fixing, stifling competition, inventing new diseases, paying consultants off in peer-review, lobbying for favourable government legislation and research subsidies, selling harmful or non-effective medicines, etc, they'll employ that too - whatever it takes.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/Pharma.html

http://www.citizen.org/documents/otherdrugwar.PDF

"According to NIH [National Institutes of Health], taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995." "Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry's R&D 'Scare Card,'" Public Citizen report, July 23, 2001."

104. Monkey, Business

Comment #106569 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 6:49 am

Look, I'm sure all sane people on this thread, as well as Fanusi, agree that both pure absolute capitalism or pure absolute socialism is undesirable, and that any optimal system requires a mix. In some areas of the economy/society, the knob should be twiddled towards unregulated free market capitalism, and in other areas, it should be twiddled towards accountable public ownership, in order to maximise living standards for all.

Surely we can all agree on this?

105. Monkey, Business

Comment #106564 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 6:39 am

Al-rawandi,

>The left is monolithic on the issue...

Didn't you call yourself "Left" a few posts ago? And yet when it gets into the cut-and-thrust of the argument you attack the left and defend right-wing positions. It sounds like "I'm an atheist but..."

106. Monkey, Business

Comment #106563 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 6:36 am

Hungarianelephant...

>Evidence, please.

Plenty already given in #192

107. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106555 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 6:17 am

This about sums it up...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33878

108. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106366 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 6:20 pm

In Germany, their website would be www.ChristenRaus.com.de

109. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106365 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 6:17 pm

www.gay_ex-atheists_who_are_now_creationistsout.com

110. Monkey, Business

Comment #106185 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Hamilton is also close to The Shire (Matamata), if you're a Tolkien fan.

111. Monkey, Business

Comment #106168 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I didn't think you were being rude.

One fine day... politicians will think it more politicially advantageous not to profess superstition, but until then agnosticism is the best we can hope for.

I found another - the PM of Sweden is also an agnostic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Reinfeldt

112. Monkey, Business

Comment #106163 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm

>don't think Helen Clark is a lesbian. Some say she looks like a man, but her husband still loves her...

She's declared herself as agnostic - which is a good start, given the belief in belief.

So 'heterosexual fence-sitter' is a more accurate description than 'lesbian atheist'.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3554978

113. Monkey, Business

Comment #106158 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm

>But what attracts capital, support systems, and investment?

Profit attracts those things - any way it can. Sometimes it's innovations, but sometimes it's by market manipulation, downsizing, pseudo-innovation (producing new models without any substantial changes), collusion, or by force (imperialism).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17366844

114. Monkey, Business

Comment #106138 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

This article lists a few examples of the perversions of the pharmaceutical industry...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman20020725

More articles on your 'jewel'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2128371,00.html

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf

115. Monkey, Business

Comment #106130 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 11:56 am

>How is the media in Middle Earth, my cousins just watch Sky News

I think economies of scale is a problem - they don't have the resources to have independent correspondants all over the world. NZ is too small. They just piggy back off other sources.

116. Monkey, Business

Comment #106124 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 11:47 am

>Why do you people trust a govt. to look out for you? Take a look at the text and tags on a spending bill in congress and realize how your money gets wasted.
>You want me to put my healhcare in the hands of politicians who lie for a living. I don't trust these people.

I think I see the problem. Americans are brainwashed to have a distrust of government (some remnant of the cold war), and justified too, given the quality of government you have.

But the point is, it doesn't HAVE to be like that. In Scandinavian countries, the government can be a force for good. One would rather have democratic, accountable, institutions that you can vote out, rather than a corporation that only has the bottom line as its objective.

If the link between corporations and politicians is severed (politican donations and lobbyists) then politicans became accountable to the people, rather than representing the interests of concentrated capital.

>wealthy=bad

If there are a small group of opulent wealthy co-existing with millions in poverty suffering and dying from preventable diseases, then yes.

>profit=bad

If earned from monopolies or where the costs were incurred by the public.

>capitalism=bad

Capitalism has a fundamental contradiction. Players in a free capitalistic market will buy each other up to concentrate economic power, manipulate markets so that it's no longer capitalism.

Pure theoretical capitalism, where there are an infinite amount of players all with infinite knowledge is fine.

Regulated capitalism, maintaining competition, is the best we have for the time being. The degree of regulation is the issue.

>compensation for innovation=bad

Anna's point is that they have already been compensated once before the patent extension. It's double-dipping.

117. Monkey, Business

Comment #106114 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 11:29 am

Al-rawandi, with the media, one needs to distinguish between ownership and control.

The BBC and the ABC in Australia (and I presume the CBC) are publically owned but they have independent charters. They can, and often do, criticise the government. "Socialised media" doesn't have to be the Ministry of Propaganda. As we've seen with Fox, privately run news can resemble the 'Department of Truth'.

The media can't be that liberal if Bush got re-elected. The US media is full of taboos: can't mention gun control, Israeli occupation, CIA coups, signing up to the ICC, reducing the military budget, normalisation of relations with Cuba, etc.

118. Monkey, Business

Comment #106108 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 11:19 am

>Also, everyone keeps ignoring what I am saying about getting patents on extended release drugs. This is ridiculous. IT IS THE SAME MEDICATION. The only difference is its mechanism of delivery. This is a big ploy to boost profits and essentially extend the patent of their top selling products. Most of the pharmaceutical companies wait until the patent is about to expire on the original drug before releasing the extended release form. It's highway robbery. Those of you who think it's not are deluded!

I fully agree. Don't take silence as disagreement. Health before profits. Many of the pharmaceuticals get their research done with government support through university research and then all they do is wrap a plastic bubble around it, stick it on the shelf and call themselves "entrepreneurs".

119. Monkey, Business

Comment #106098 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 11:00 am

>Is it bad to make fun of the scots for being tight fisted?

It doesn't seem to be called racism if white western Europeans are mocked, as they can hardly claim to be persecuted over the centuries.

120. Monkey, Business

Comment #106092 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 10:52 am

>I need a huge loan to be a round of beers in London. BYOB!

Fund managers can't cry that poor can they? :)

121. Monkey, Business

Comment #106085 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 10:43 am

>I would probably use the Independent as the best source

Yep, good summary epeeist. I'd agree with that ranking.

122. Monkey, Business

Comment #106080 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

163. Comment #106068 by al-rawandi

>London IS on my to-visit list this coming year.

See if you can be here on February 12, Darwin's birthday. Dawkins will be at UCL on Gower Street, Bloomsbury, in the Darwin lecture theatre. Tickets are 5 pounds.

123. Monkey, Business

Comment #106052 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 9:57 am

>I think it would be just so embarassing if we were visited by an alien civilization with the amount of religious belief in the world today.

You apes have nuclear weapons and space stations and most of you believe in invisible beings? Don't call us, we'll call you.

124. Monkey, Business

Comment #106043 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 9:50 am

Al-rawandi,

>Either way, ad hominem is not how to confront his vociferous defense of one noble principle and one incorrect principle.

I'm sorry. Fanusi's posts sound like they're written by someone infected by the Rage Virus from '28 Days Later' or 'I am Legend'.

There's no armour to lies, and I have standards.
You and I disagree on a few things, and I said earlier I'll still buy you a beer in NZ, but I won't debate the demented. As an atheist, I'm profoundly aware that life in precious and time is not to be wasted.

125. Monkey, Business

Comment #106022 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 9:33 am

130. Comment #106016 by Fanusi Khiyal
>Where are all the major inventions coming from?

Unfortunately they haven't found a cure for the rabies that you apparently have contracted.

126. Monkey, Business

Comment #106012 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 9:22 am

124. Comment #106003 by mesomodel

>BTW, wouldn't it be a spectacle to witness the response of religious institutions to the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe, especially intelligent life?

Yes, I used to think this might be a big nail in their coffin, but if Darwin didn't convince them, then discovery of exobiology won't hinder them much either. Human cognition is flexible enough to confabulate a reconciliation or even to hold the two contradictory notions simultaneously.

I can think of four excuses off the top of my head:

1. It doesn't say in the Bible that there ISN'T life elsewhere.
2. More life? Surely the greater glory to God's magnificent creation.
3. It's only bacteria. Perhaps it came from Earth anyway.
4. They don't have souls. Or, they do have souls and need saving - send missionaries.

127. Monkey, Business

Comment #105995 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 9:06 am

>As an atheist I believe that religions and govt.'s cannot make people good, only people can do it.

As a libertarian, I take it you still believe in a police force, law courts and prison system to "encourage" people to be good.

Also, how do you reconcile inheritance with libertarianism? A lot of the capitalist tier of society you refer to didn't earn their wealth from scratch (and indeed many run their companies into the ground without penalty). Is inheritance equivalent to welfare? What about elite schools for the privileged where reward becomes disconnected from merit?

It sounds like you're defending all these injustices. You might acknowledge them and disagre with them, but you're saying 'tough' - it's the greatest system we've got full stop

I put it to you that that's a conservative stance that could be used to justify any state of society at any time in history.

My own position is that we've got a long way to go and that 2008 isn't any more privileged than 1808 or 1608 - the zeitgeist will continnue to change, and the structures of our society and economy that we take for granted will one day appear outmoded and perhaps even immoral.

That's why I don't champion the current system as you seem to. Yes, it's better than the past, but so are most times in history when compared with even earlier times.

128. Monkey, Business

Comment #105980 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 8:40 am

>A few names Mossadegh, Omar Torrijos, Salvadore Allende, etc...
More: Iran-Iraq war, Contra-Sandinista etc...
CIA organized a large bombing in Beirut, trained Frank Camper, etc...

You don't need to persuade me. I fully agree. I could write that list 10 times longer.
I'm glad I don't live there so I'm not forced to make these faustian bargains in voting for despicable candidates just so even more despicable candidates don't get in.

129. Monkey, Business

Comment #105976 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 8:33 am

>These billionares provide thousands of jobs

"Provide?" By their good graces? You could turn it around and say workers provide their labour so that millionaires can become billionaires. How many jobs would that wealth employ if distributed more equally? Don't forget the opportunity cost when making comparisons.

What do you think an acceptable ratio is between average CEO remuneration packages and average annual worker salaries?

As you know, it's blown out to over 400:1 in recent decades, when the ratio used to be only in the tens to one. It sounds like you're saying it's acceptable whatever the market can bear, even if 95% of the wealth is concentrated into 1% of the population?

Where do you draw the line - where inequality has got too far? Is there a line in your world at all? If there is, what criteria do you employ?

130. Monkey, Business

Comment #105967 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 8:24 am

101. Comment #105952 by al-rawandi

>The CIA is one of the most prolific terrorist organizations in the world. End of story.
>The CIA has overthrown democracies, assassinated leaders, incited wars, and they are just all around jerk offs.

That's a strong statement, and bold of you to make it. As no Presidential candidates have announced they will disband the CIA, does this mean that any American who votes for ANY Republican or Democrat candidate is voting for the perpetuation of a vast terrorist organization?

131. Monkey, Business

Comment #105964 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 8:17 am

Al-rawandi, you've claimed that you are left libertarian, but seeing as you live in the USA, I speculate that when calibrated and mapped onto the rest of the western world, left of centre in the USA actually translates to right of centre elsewhere.

In the same way, right wing conservatives in Norway are actually left of the American Democrats.

I'd like to weigh in on the fast cars and big TVs debate. Dawkins talks about the changing zeitgeist of ethics throughout history in TGD. I think opulent luxuries like sports cars, high fashion, vast mansions, private jets, and giant plasmas co-existing with millions dying of preventable diseases in Africa, will one day be equivalent to how we look back now and view the immorality of slavery.

People of the 23rd century will look back on us in 2007, the same way that we look back on those that profited from the slave trade.

The desire for luxuries is only a relative, not an absolute condition, a by-product of evolutionary desire for status. The poor in the UK live better than the kings of the classical world. The happiness curve begins to flatten out when essentials are met, so there's no moral argument that can support policies that allow millionaires to become billionaires while malaria, HIV, respiratory diseases, etc run rampant in Sub-Saharan Africa.

132. Monkey, Business

Comment #105949 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 7:46 am

>Again, pharma is a capitalist jewel.

Ha - then why do thousands of Americans cross the border and buy their pharmaceuticals in Canada?

133. Monkey, Business

Comment #105948 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 7:42 am

USA is at least as beautiful as NZ and offers much more in way of hunting and fishing opportunities. Alcohol is about the same everywhere, so that that leaves foreign policy as the major difference.

I heard the NZ greens wanted to add the CIA to the list of terrorist organizations a few years ago. :)

Helen Clarke, the NZ PM, is an declared non-beliver in God. Quite rare for a western country's political leader to be a nontheist.

I'd like to retire in NZ (I have an Australian passport so I'm allowed to), so I'll buy you a Steinlager there.

134. Monkey, Business

Comment #105940 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 7:31 am

88. Comment #105932 by al-rawandi

>Also, which country is leading the planet in pahrmaceutical development? Where are the newest and best medicines developed?

Under the university systems and research institutes (UCSD, Salk, ec) and biotech start-ups that have millions in government hand-outs, tax incentives, etc. Ralph Nader writes a lot about corporate welfare in the pharmaceutical sector. It's not "capitalism" that's producing these innovations or incurring the risk if things go wrong. Corporations are happy to privitise the profits, but the costs are often socialised.

135. Monkey, Business

Comment #105937 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 7:27 am

>I didn't shoot myself in the foot saying that is was the best model. It is.

It is a contradiction. You've stated that America has a socialise-welfare model for its corporate sector, which is where America's wealth is located, so you clearly don't attribute American corporate success to capitalism, but to socialistic models.

So what evidence do you draw upon to back up the statement "Well done. Capitalism is the greatest model, end of story" that you made in post #77.

Surely you have more evidence that your experience of waiting times at the DMV?

If you're merely claiming that capitalism is the greatest model in principle, but is yet to be implemented, then I agree, lets give it a go and see how the experiement runs. If it works, great, if it doesn't, then ditch it.

I'm not harping on about Sweden. The previous HDI table leaders have been Canada, Japan, and Norway. Currently, it's Iceland. New Zealand is a "Sweden of the Pacific" and you want to emigrate there.

136. Monkey, Business

Comment #105931 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 7:15 am

> will just say "Stalin, see, socialism doesn't work." You are a sharp guy, don't play the "worst of capitalism" card

Stalinism "worked" in the way that slavery "worked" - it was successful. In 1917, Russia was a backwards peasant society routed by Germany in WWI. By the early 1960s, it was leading the USA in the space race (first probe, first man in space, etc).

That's just the nature of brutal cental totalitarian regimes - they can achieve certain goals and bulldoze anyone who gets in the way.

You're going to have to be more specific in your criteria for success other than "worked".

I would say the following make good criteria:

Longevity and infant mortality
Literacy
Income per capita
Distribution of income
Levels of corruption, crime
Participation of women, minorities in politics and the economy
Secularisation, religiosity
Military spending versus education, research, health spending
Foreign aid (as a % of GDP)

137. Monkey, Business

Comment #105928 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 7:05 am

>I went to the Dr. the other day. I got a prescription, a flu shot and the prescription filled all under 20 minutes. Can you get in and out of the DMV that fast? How about tax returns? Not a chance.

What? That's your counter-evidence to the Human Development Index (tabulated from many criteria across 100+ countries)?

In Australia, you can do tax returns in 15 minutes online and get your refund cheque in under 10 days.

You're committing the mistake of extrapolating from anecdotal evidence from one country, the USA, which is quite often a statistical outlier.

Yes, I agree with you about the USA being socialistic for corporations - and aren't the corporations doing well? You've shot your argument in the foot when you said "Well done [Fanusi Khiyal]. Capitalism is the greatest model, end of story.

Perhaps by "model" you mean "yet to be implemented"?

The reason why Australians or New Zealanders buy private medical insurance is because each year since the early 1980s, the governments cut back on public health funding, so the services get weaker and weaker. In Australia there is a non-means tested private health insurance rebate where the rich actually get tax incentives for taking out private health insurance.

You'll be surprised that it works that other way too - many people with private health insurance choose to have their babies through the PUBLIC health system because it's free (no excess to pay).

Agreed about private campaign funding - that's the biggest impediment to democracy and very easy to remove legally.

And if you've read all of Chomsky's books, then you'll know that Fanusi's claim that Chomsky pines for the USSR, etc is a lie.

138. Monkey, Business

Comment #105922 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 6:44 am

77. Comment #105918 by al-rawandi

>having never worked a real job in your entire life

What, revolutionising the field of linguistics and putting cognition firmly in the field of empirical science is not a "real job"?

Then Dawkins, Pinker, Diamond, etc also don't have real jobs. No academic does, if that's your view.

I agree his books often repeat each other, just like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris' speeches often recycle the same lines, concepts, etc.

As for socialised models outperforming private models, look at the top ten countries of the Human Development Index that measures standards of living across a broad range of criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

The USA isn't even in the top ten, despite having the highest GDP. It spends more on heath, but capitalisms gross inefficiency means that millions of Americans don't benefit. And before anyone says that criticising the US health system is "anti-American", I would say that it is actually PRO-American to encourage policies that benefit all Americans. It's the Whitehouse that is Anti-American as its policies harm Americans.

>If you want to see the social model fail, watch Hugo Chvez fuck up Venezuela.

There is no "the social model" - it's a matter of getting the balance right. Free market capitalism may be optimal in some areas of society, and a regulated socialised system might be better in others.

Hugo's weapons purchases, personality cult, Christianity, and nepotism are to be condemned. I'd prefer he follow Costa Rica. We'll see if the majority of Venezuelans are better off - there is some progress there, but it's too slow for my liking. But in principle, there is nothing wrong with using a country's resources to benefit its people, rather than few oligarchs or multinationals.

On balance, Venezuela is still a whole lot better than Pinochet in Chile and it's right-wing policies.

There are 180+ countries in the world, all with different mixes of capitalism and socialism, so it's a simple empirical exercise to see which ones are performing the best, and you should know by now that it's the Scandinavian countries (with highly socialised economies) that outform the more capitalist countries.

139. Monkey, Business

Comment #105889 by Rtambree on January 2, 2008 at 4:40 am

>Capitalism has a better track record on solving any social problem than any other form of social organisation.

Three important counter examples: public health (seen Sicko?), media (BBC v Fox), and education. In these areas, Social models outform private models - and have been doing so for decades, so your statement is clearly bogus.

>Chomsky still pines for the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Khmer Rouge

That's an outright lie.

140. Monkey, Business

Comment #105405 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 1:11 pm

>Steve Zara and Rtambree, Your conversation is most fascinating. Please do tell where you have learned of these theories as I am very eager to read about such!

Scientific American is a good place. I also particularly like the von Karmen lectures that are broadcast each month from NASA's JPL:

Here's the 2008 season...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/pso/lectures.cfm

You can watch them online or download them.

I also highly recommended Peter Ward's three-part discussion of the origin of life at Princeton...

You can watch them here, Anna...

http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/

They're the ones dated 9,10,11 January 2007. They're very multidisciplinary - you get to learn a bit of biology, geology, climatology, astronomy, etc. He's also a funny, cool, guy - very engaging.

Happy New Year all, by the way.

141. Monkey, Business

Comment #105399 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Mars has problems with the lack of a shielding magnetic field (lots of UV light sterilises anything on the surface) and all those highly concentrated sulphate salts in the soil (harmful to life as we know it) which has also been a new discovery by the MERs.

Yes, the uniform chirality of all known life seems to suggest that even if there were several origin events, one form dominated and ate up all the others, perhaps by the mechanism you suggest. Or alternatively, there might be some (as yet unknown) physical preference for left handedness, which means that all origin events would look the same.

There's so much we don't know.

142. Monkey, Business

Comment #105376 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 11:13 am

Genetic studies seem to point to archaea being the most primitive, and therefore the earliest, and because the extremophiles are part of that family, it's a reasonable assumption, Steve.

It is fascinating however that life got started so quickly, which quick begs the question, if life is so easy (given the right conditions), then why not two (or more) origin events?

Life on the surface may have been re-seeded from subterranean origins, or may have had multiple indepedent origins after the bombardment period eased.

I prefer the black smoker model on the seabed due to all the dynamic processes: pH gradients, temperature gradients, and pressure gradients - all maximising the chances of autocatalytic reactions.

143. Monkey, Business

Comment #105373 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 11:01 am

It'd be a Mad Mad M.A.D. Max world.

144. Monkey, Business

Comment #105370 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 10:56 am

The bacteria that comprises the deep bedrock part of the biosphere extends several kilometres beneath the surface, so, no it wouldn't be all life, but perhaps civilisation as we know it for a couple of generations.

145. Monkey, Business

Comment #105367 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 10:51 am

Good luck with the citizenship application, Al-rawandi. Middle Earth is a beautiful country.

146. Monkey, Business

Comment #105364 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 10:44 am

>Eisenhower warned of the 'military industrial complex'. Now it is a reality

The military industrial complex serves the same function as Foreign Aid that you alluded to earlier - a means to transfer taxpayer revenue from the public to the private sector.

The war objectives are "won" when Congress signs those cheques worth hundreds of billions that go to defense contractors. Whatever happens next: win, loss, quagmire, etc is irrelevant. The "mission" has already been accomplished. People get distracted with the oil, but the real wealth is the US Treasury.

147. Monkey, Business

Comment #105361 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 10:39 am

"Defense" is a nice euphemism when the last country to attack the USA was England in 1812.

148. Monkey, Business

Comment #105357 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 10:30 am

40. Comment #105354 by al-rawandi

>In the US we pay almost as much in taxes as Scandanavian countries, and we don't get dick in the way of services

Yes you do. You get a defense force bigger than the rest of the world's combined, to protect you from all the evildoers. And you get more flags than you can salute in a lifetime.

149. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105293 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 6:27 am

14. Comment #105263 by GoatBoy36

>I don't have any: you're certainly not one; don't flatter yourself into thinking that you could possibly be anything more than well, a poster on a board I use sometimes. That's all you'll ever be. Obviously.

>Getting back to the matter at hand: I wonder what you will have to say

Methinks Goatboy36 doth protest too much! :)

It's okay, Goatboy36, you're allowed to have a crush on Vinelectric. We're all broadminded here.

150. Monkey, Business

Comment #105258 by Rtambree on December 31, 2007 at 2:41 am

20. Comment #105228 by quill

>I had no idea Michael Shermer had a background in economics

Shermer also has a background in nuttery as he was once a hard core evangelical. Even these days as "atheist", he can still be found attacking Dawkins and Harris in his monthly Scientific American column for being too hardline.

His rationale is that the freedom/liberty to be religious trumps that of logic, science and evidence.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rational-atheism

His wholesale embrace of free market capitalism (against the evidence) shows he has simply rejected one form of religion for another.

Once again, it's the less capitalistic socialised countries of Scandinavia that produce the best standard of living, longevity, literacy, participation of women in politics, equality, low infant mortality, low crime rates, etc. They've found a better mix between capitalism and socialism.

Historically, the rich countries of west didn't get rich because of "free market" capitalism. They had highly protected markets, overseas colonies they exploited for resources by force, and they "successfully" used slavery until the 19th century. Even after slavery was banned, the British empire became the world's largest narco-traffickers to try to break into the Chinese market.

So you have both historical and contemporary evidence against his position, and yet Shermer blindly employs whatever cognitive self-delusions he needs to, in order to justify his position.

He should stick to denouncing water diviners, astrology, tarot cards, UFO abductions, 9-11 conspiracies, etc, etc.