Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AugustWest who wrote (12690)	2/20/2004 6:44:21 PM
From: arno	Respond to of 14610

Hello folks... Long time, no see. I hope you're all doing well. And, yes, even you, Gloop. BTW, what the hell was that thing Favre threw....a bloated punkin'? <gg> A friend sent me this.... As always, arno __________________________________________ Disregarding Laws We Oppose An Open Letter to San Francisco Civil Authority February 16, 2004 Dear Mayor Newsom (gavin.newsom@sfgov.org), Judge Warren (wsuperiorct@sftc.org) and Acting Chief Fong (sfpdpbaf@pacbell.net), Mayor, I see you are authorizing city employees to perform homosexual marriages, Judge Warren, you are allowing them to proceed, and Chief Fong, you are allowing California law, as enacted by a vote of the people, to be publicly and repeatedly broken without making any arrests. I'm not commenting on that issue, per se, so much as observing that you are all three instigating and abetting the violation of that law. Judge Warren, you went so far as to state that you couldn't issue a restraining order to halt the marriages because, as Reuters reported, "there was not enough evidence presented showing that immediate damage would be done by allowing them." Which leaves me with an interesting dilemma. You see, I also belong to a group that is forced by social prejudices to keep a low profile—often times to hide my choices and practices lest I suffer disapproval and ultimately, life-threatening persecution by the state. I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style. I don't know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don't see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by "coming out of the safe," but I just can't hide the truth any longer. We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child's teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic* prejudice and fear. We don't see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more. Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you. You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit. Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this. So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all? How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you? Please let me know if I have your support. Sincerely,

To: AugustWest who wrote (12690)	2/20/2004 7:03:51 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

AW, I think that is one of the biggest issues facing us. Country after country enacts stringent price controls on medicines. The vast majority of the cost of medicines is in R&D (despite the bad publicity over marketing costs there are less than 15 percent of typical drug company expenses). It doesn't cost all that much in most cases to make more pills of a medicine once it has been invented, but it costs a helluva lot to invent the drug -- to fund the research labs, research scientists, etc., not to mention maneuvering the drug through testing phases and each country's separate regulatory approval process. Let's say Country A has a free market and relative wealth (two related characteristics), and you as a drug company can charge what that market will bear. You will set the price high enough to recoup R&D expenses for the drug and also to fund new research initiatives to keep the drug pipeline full. Now let's say Country B and Country C and Country I and Country Z all say, screw that, we're poor or think we are, we don't really believe in free markets because they might actually cause somebody to feel bad or work harder, so we are only going to let you charge a "fair" price. After all, human beings are "entitled" to this drug once it has been invented. They then define a "fair" price as one which is above your incremental cost of cranking out a pill to put in a bottle, but not enough to fund your R&D efforts. What you will end up doing is remaining in Country B and Country C and Country I and Country Z but forbidding resellers there from exporting the drug to Country A. You will leave prices high in Country A so you can fund your R&D efforts. This works so long as Country A lies there and takes it. Country A is then in a really sh*tty position: If it says, screw this, we are going to put price controls in place too, then no one is left to fund the R&D and new medicines stop being invented. Think about what happens then. Thousands of research labs run by these companies close. Thousands of lab techs and doctors and other research scientists lose their jobs because there is no one to pay them. The personal cost when we lose jobs is high, for us and our families. But when these people lose their jobs from a lack of funding, the consequence is that the next big advance in medicines doesn't happen. Then I guess we don't have to worry about being overcharged for great medical advances, because there won't be any. The dramatic increase in life expectancies of the past century so far is continuing, but I fear that process may soon end because politicians would rather pander to people who want something for nothing than think intelligently about how to solve this problem.