Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't invest in the stock market and neither should you, it puts economic well being in danger and makes you a slave to the value of the corporate sector and leads you to support destructive public policy to save the wealth you have locked up in the market.
If taxes were raised to 90% 401ks and other investment tools would become less attractive and production/economic activity will become less inflated by capital investment and greed.
Sorry bro, but just because you have neither the ability, desire or the capital to invest and improve your life, don’t try to punish those of us who do. Over the years I have done well in the market, as has almost everyone who employed steady, realistic investing strategy.
It is only a tax on profits (so not total sale value).
I'm not supporting it from a tax revenue stand point, I don't care about that, but it would lower economic activity in the corporate sector and dissuade people from investing (and inflating) the stock market.
The materialistic profit motive that has driven our economy has built an authoritarian state where money buys you freedom, and the more money you have, the more freedom you have as well.
To create a freer society it must be more egalitarian and not based on increasing economic activity.
Also in the long run it will lower government revenues and slow imperialistic ambitions abroad.
Furthermore people will be happier not trying to become millionaires and building a life rather than making a living.
Excellent idea! This way, we can absolutely kill small businesses, the backbone of our entire economy, and collapse the whole thing and stand in line for bread just like they are doing in Venezuela now!
For profit medical companies like Johnson and Johnson that are responsible for these advancements cut funding and focus only on immediate benefit. That is why public funding is needed to find new inventions/discoveries, not applying old technology in new ways which is what Apple R&D and other forms of corporate research practice in.
J&J for example cut funding on Alzheimer research which medical experts were counting on.
You don't seem to know much about anything related to economics especially this stuff.
I took me 3 seconds to find that J&J killed it's BASE Inhibitor Alzheimer's drug because proportionally many early trial subjects suffered severely elevated liver enzymes.
In this case the immediate benefit was patients avoiding the liver transplant list.
______________
Apple creating the first legit smartphone was not some sort of minor incremental advance either.
You don't seem to know much about anything related to economics especially this stuff.
I took me 3 seconds to find that J&J killed it's BASE Inhibitor Alzheimer's drug because proportionally many early trial subjects suffered severely elevated liver enzymes.
In this case the immediate benefit was patients avoiding the liver transplant list.
______________
Apple creating the first legit smartphone was not some sort of minor incremental advance either.
1. It was a choice between making better moral decisions or cutting costs. And they choose the latter, which isn't just a free market decision, but a major set back for the medical community that was relying on the private industry.
2. The iphone was great for market consumers, but it was not a technological advance, just a showcase of new technology. The satellite connection, telecommunication, semi-conductors, and hardware programs either came from public institutions or government subsidized works:
"For example, let’s just take the iPhone. The iPhone was not something that was invented in Apple’s labs. The iPhone has a touchscreen — well, Apple didn’t invent the touchscreen, the touchscreen was invented by an NSF grant to the Library of Congress for their visitor program. The iPhone can tell you where you are on the Earth’s surface — well those are GPS satellites, launched by the military, now a highly commercialized role, initially only a military role — but Apple did not invest in these satellites to make its iPhone find where you are on Earth. So who would’ve thought you could take these things, put them together, and have that become your product."
1. The iphone was great for market consumers, but it was not a technological advance, just a showcase of new technology.
So, new technology is not technological advance[ment]? I learnt a new definition of technological advancement today.
Have you ever looked at a patent? Almost all patents are built on prior art. I'd think that the patent examiners know what is new invention better than you or the Verge columnist do and they awarded plenty of patents to iPhone. Even if all the components of iPhone existed for other purposes (maybe the hardware components did but the software did not), just to put them together and putting it to new use via software and ecosystem is an invention.
You obviously live in a very simple world and that's fine. Just don't try to pretend that you understand how the entire world and economy works. Again, that's fine, everyone does not have to understand everything.
And you are not the only one. I am seeing plenty of examples where people listen to a few ted talks or watch a few youtube videos and assume that they know more than the experts. I am just glad that they are not in charge of running things (yet).
For profit medical companies like Johnson and Johnson that are responsible for these advancements cut funding and focus only on immediate benefit. That is why public funding is needed to find new inventions/discoveries, not applying old technology in new ways which is what Apple R&D and other forms of corporate research practice in.
J&J for example cut funding on Alzheimer research which medical experts were counting on.
And companies like spaceX that look to the future of technology, not just the market, are heavily subsidized.
Even solar energy had to be subsidized by the government, as well as research into semiconductors.
New technology will never come from the private industry, because they can’t measure the cost/benefit risk for their shareholders.
Pentagon funding has been the largest driver of new technology, and it is scientists like Tesla who drive this progress without doing to try and squeeze out a profit.
Wrong. Most large pharma, including J&J, screen their libraries on a continual basis looking for new targets. These are not listed as pipeline programs until they have an identified target compound (post tax studies). Regardless, the investments in early stage research are small. The largest investments come in later stage trials. You can typically move a target to IND FOR $2 to 4 million. Phase 3 programs can run in the hundreds of millions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
