Yes, but not just from the transplant. The immunosuppressant drugs following a transplant also increase your risk of cancer. Dramatically for certain types of cancers.
The horse market is like the piano market. Exceptional specimens are exceedingly expensive but at the low end you can probably just find one for free that no one wants anymore.
Look, this is absurd. Yes, it's illegal but so what? Plenty of people have MMJ cards, have scanned their ID at a dispensary, or have applied for state cultivation licenses.
The idea that academia is somehow prevented from engaging in this field because it's federally illegal is not credible and it tarnishes the integrity of the field.
I imagine that in some locales, the political climate is such that what Thriptic is saying is quite the reality -- it is much too risky.
That being said, with acceptance of cannabis legality growing, there does seem to be a shift where more formal organizations are involved in research, like the CMCR (https://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/) mentioned in the Factcheck article. CMCR is located in the University of California in San Diego -- it is not surprising to find out that a formal research base is in a state more politically and legally friendly to cannabis.
I agree that it is absurd that we cannot study weed legally. At the end of the day when it comes down to illegal studies, it all comes down to risk tolerance: Is an individual willing to lose their ability to practice academic science (in that they can't get a university position, can't get federal funding, and may have to absorb a felony) in order to perform a study that the government says is not ok? For most people including me, that answer is no. How you choose to proceed is up to you, but I will tell you right now that embarking on such a study will end poorly.
Are you really asking me for a source to prove that being caught doing something massively illegal will result in negative consequences? I'm going to assume that when we talk about running a study, we are talking about using marijuana in humans in a study, meaning a clinical trial.
In order to perform a clinical trial with marijuana, by law investigators would need to get an IND (investigational new drug) application approved by the FDA as FDA does not recognize marijuana as a safe and effective drug for any indication. Part of this involves DEA review, and DEA will almost certainly say no. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you do not care about getting approval to run your study. If you do not get an IND approval and you run a clinical trial anyway, your physicians will almost certainly lose their medical licenses, all participants will be subject to multiple criminal offenses, the group will lose all their funding, they be slapped with enormous amounts of fees, and participants will likely lose their university and / or hospital appointments.
I don't have a concrete example for as to what will happen because to my knowledge no one has been stupid enough to give the FDA the middle finger and run an unlicensed clinical trial. FDA would never let this go unanswered because it would completely undermine their regulatory authority and set a horrible precedent. In effect, this is a perma-ban level offense, and people that do it should expect to get massively punished.
Civil disobedience surely looks stupid through the lens of the oppressor, but perhaps someone with the ability and connections will sacrifice their livelihood to show us how we as a society are sacrificing ours.
> In order to perform a clinical trial with marijuana... investigators would need to get ... approved by the FDA... Part of this involves DEA review...
It only took you 3 coarse and unhelpful posts to answer my legitimate question. Thanks for your cooperation. (5 Whys? Only 3 Whys were needed here.)
Yeah true, sorry for being a dick. I'm sick today, exhausted, and surviving on stimulants; hence my aggression and suboptimal reading comprehension. I shouldn't be expecting other people to deal with me in that state, so again my bad.
Sure if you completely ignore how research is funded, how one makes a career out of performing research and why research is performed in the first place. Specifically, anyone performing medical research on marijuana is likely to lose any grants they have, is likely to lose their job for putting their employer at risk, is likely to not be able to find future employment for being so cavalier in their research and is likely to not see any meaningful result from their research because the drugs can't be produced in the first place.
Taxi service regulation in the US are why those systems are unusable. I can't get a taxi if there aren't enough medallions issued.
There's no regulatory body preventing me from getting into the car I purchased. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that suddenly we need regulation simply because I rented the car in a particular way instead of driving it myself.
The regulations that matter with respect to taxi services are those that protect consumers -- there is no basis for using regulation to limit a consumer's access to the service.
I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to undermine the credibility of the larger environmental effort.
Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing.
When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening.
This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.
It's actually worse than just "virtue signaling". It sends a political hat-trick of bad to the right side of the political spectrum: It curtails real freedom, lectures condescendingly, and proportionally doesn't actually help.
It reminds me of some of the extreme positions the NRA has taken. Like talking about arming all teachers in response to school shootings. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights.
I'm realizing that positions like that, or this straw thing... the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.
I don't think arming teachers is a good idea but I do know people that literally do. And Betsy DeVos has apparently been floating the idea of using federal funding to purchase those guns. [1]
On the flip side, I've seen an op-ed in NYT or Washington Post (I don't recall) calling for the repeal of the second amendment - and I can't imagine how incredibly stupid the person making that must be. It will never happen and yet it plays exactly into the "Obama wants to take our guns"-type arguments. Of course, that author isn't actually stupid, they just aren't motivated by gun control legislation but rather by getting themselves attention.
It was in the NYT and it was by Justice John Paul Stevens [1]. I don't think it's stupid and certainly doesn't seem like a ploy for attention.
Repealing the second amendment does not mean banning firearms altogether. Writing a new amendment with better scope might be an option, or relying on congress to enact sensible limits might also be an option. But I do agree with you that such an amendment would be received as "[the left] wants to take our guns." That's the challenge of politics: you have to meet that criticism head-on and be clear about what sort of policies would get changed. This is no different from debating critics of socialized medicine who quickly throw up their hands and say "Death Panels!"
You're probably right given who it was that it wasn't a call for attention. However, the more respectable, more established someone is, the worse it makes this. It's hard to brush off the claims that the left wants to take away their guns when it's not just a bizarre fringe. I do think this is qualitatively different from arguing for socialized medicine - in this analogy that would be equivalent to talking about increased mandatory background checks, increasing the ability of police to seize guns, etc. The analog of arguing for repealing the second amendment would be to actually propose making things called "death panels."
I know that the slightest thing gets misconstrued by the other side (regardless of what side) but you don't have to serve it to them on a silver platter!
>> Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights.
I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one as I believe all gun laws on the books today are clearly violations of the pain reading of the 2nd amendment, any federal gun laws would require the passage of a constitutional amendment.
I also support the idea that any teacher that has the desire to be armed for their own defense and the defense of others should be allowed to be under the law. No teacher should be forced to carry as a condition of their job however no teacher should be prevented from it by law either.
That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea, but in fact is widely supported in libertarian circles, as well as actual gun rights circles.
If you believe "no one" supports it then I would question if you exist in a echo chamber
I don't want to debate the actual particulars here but it's peculiar that you use the word 'extreme' to describe your point of view and then suggest that the parent's use of the word 'extreme' is unfounded. Your post appears to contradict itself.
> I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one ...
> That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea ...
You have to tailor the message to the audience. In my family/original community (before moving out west), I was considered 'moderate' at best on firearms. For this crowd and the West Coast in general, I (like GP) am considered 'extreme'. Case in point - I don't think it's a terrible idea to arm the teachers _who want to arm themselves_. Forcing teachers who don't want to carry to do so is incredibly short-sighted and dangerous. However, there's a non-trivial number of teachers (generally far away from the Left Coast political enclaves) that very much would like to carry, but are hamstrung by federal law. Those are the ones I believe we should allow to carry, IF the desire is there. Just my $0.02.
The NRA positions itself as a civil rights organization, but is really a trade group. The NRA has been pushing these extreme positions with their conservative politician pals because guns were an old man thing that was dying in the 90s. Now it’s one of the three legs of the conservative stool (taxes, abortion, guns)
If you read an old copy of the American Rifleman (nra magazine), it was a very different agenda, mostly focused on hunting and skills. Problem is that hunting is a dying sport... and the gun industry could not and cannot survive in its old form.
Enter the rise of fringe politics and talk radio, where 24/7 paranoia has convinced a generation that they need to stockpile guns. The fact that people who are otherwise intelligent are advocating arming teachers and pushing concealed carry shows how effective this type of marketing is.
People like me left the NRA because they focused too much on hunting.
We want them to focus less on hunting and more on civil rights, I am not a hunter. I do not own guns for hunting. I want an organization that will stand of for my right to own a gun, not to hunt
I respect where you’re coming from, but your position is sowing the seeds to destroy the rights that you care deeply about.
Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection, and that will be the (tragic) end to the issue. The urban population doesn’t get any of the culture around guns at all, and their vision of freedom and independence just doesn’t line up with yours.
Their vision of freedom and independence is not freedom or independence
"Urban" aka liberal culture openly advocates surrendering all liberties for security and safety. Surrendering all libertarians to achieve "social justice". etc
From free speech, to the ability to engage is commerce the "urban" culture believes everything should be regulated, controlled, and approved by a central authority
>>Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection,
Unlikely, the most likely scenario is that the "urban" culture will attempt to use people with guns they employ to violently seize the guns from people they do not employ.
I understand that my view on the constitution is extreme, I admit that, even in gun right circles my position on the constitutionality of gun laws are viewed as extreme as most gun rights advocates believe under the current legal foundation the government does have the authority to regulate things like Automatic weapons where I believe they lack this constitutional authority. That is the extreme position.
However The position the NRA has on teachers and self defense is not in fact an extreme one at all in gun rights circles
It feels like you’re strongly supporting his closing point: the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.
For the 99.9% who don’t define themselves through group membership as whatever version of libertarian you are, and out ideology far above practicality it’s nuts. What you’re saying however does strongly proclaim your membership in that group, sort of like a communist carrying around a little red book. The fact that it turns off everyone else is a bonus proving your devotion.
>>What you’re saying however does strongly proclaim your membership in that group,
I did not really proclaim my membership in either group I mention, I stated what the opinions of people in those groups are
This was done not "define myself through group membership" but to refute the position that "no one" or very few people support such a position.
HN has a echo problem, most people on this site lean in a single political direction, and share a singular political view, that of the Silicon Valley left..
The point of my comment was that the entire nation does not in fact share they view and to believe "no one" shares the "extreme views" of the NRA highlights nicely that echo chamber
HN has a echo problem, most people on this site lean in a single political direction, and share a singular political view, that of the Silicon Valley left.
I’m neither in SV, nor am I enough of dove to be “Left” in any reasonable measure. I object to the American characterization of politics as a binary “L/R” formulation. I’m hawkish on defense, anti-communist, anti-fascist, pro-gun, pro gun control, pro universal healthcare, I’m for calling people whatever pronoun they prefer and against being told to stop using gendered pronouns in general. I’m pro-Israel, but I’m not Islamophobic. Im pro-immigration, but not for 100% freedom of movement, and honestly I don’t entirely know what the balance should be. I accept that there are a lot of problems I don’t have good answers to.
I’m not part of anyone’s echo chamber, because sooner or later one of my views sees me excommunicated from either of the rigid American political poles. You seem to be arguing that such poles don’t exist, America has two parties with any power and has for decades and decades. Both parties are to the Right of most of Europe, even today, and both parties are incredibly similar to an outside view unless you talk about guns or abortion.
In my limited experience here, the most dominant ideologies seem to be some bastardized version of libertarianism, and whatever you call the desire to get rich and retire early. Left and Right don’t seem to enter into it as much as the desire for personal advancement, and a general sense that people here are so smart that given the right conditions they can solve anything, even if they don’t understand the problem.
I find myself sort of in that camp. I think rolling coal is stupid, but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. I think the larger goals of environmental protection lose some credibility when obviously inconsequential stuff like that becomes the message of the day.
It seems to me there’s a lot of trash on it. The trash is many different things. Each causes its own problems. There’s Shovels, balls, dod poop bags, Pizza boxes, carryout bags, trash bags, napkins, paper plates, cups, lids, and yes, there’s lids with straws, and individual straws. But there’s a lot more of everthing else.
Fixing the trash problem by choosing one item to vilify each year is going be glacially slow.
Wouldn't it make more sense to address the trash problem?
Not one straw, my point is that straws on beaches do not come from landfills. They come from illegal dumping operations and cruise ships and maybe tourists who litter at the beach. Most people do not need to change they way they dispose of straws. This is a problem caused by a minority and no matter how few straws the rest of us use it will not address the problem even a little bit.
This is wrong. Plastics can and do escape landfills. Also it doesn't seem to be the case that all, or even most, single-use plastics are properly disposed of and make it to landfills.
as I recall, normal disposal regularly involves shipping it out to landfills or other countries - essentially a large “not in my back yard” supply chain.
Once there, it worms itself back into the environment, part of which is the ocean.
To address your first point -- I am sure it is the case that idiot bubble people on the internet who don't believe in climate change will use phrases like "virtue signalling". What is not supported is the claim that they would otherwise go along with environmental initiatives, if only the right ones were chosen. It may simply be the case that the class of people you are talking about are always going to drag their heels and oppose everything, and they simply choose the manner of how they'll yell about it based on what they're responding to.
Coal rollers aren't people who are responding to "nonsense laws" (in this case, apparently, ten-year regulatory plans to marginally improve emissions standards and fuel efficiency) -- they're just people who have been convinced climate change is a liberal hoax to destroy their way of life, lashing out angrily. They get no benefit other than a performative one by "rolling coal". Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one.
In general arguments like "virtue signalling" are a process argument. The words say "You can't possibly mean what you're saying", but the intent beneath them are "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you can't possibly mean what you're saying". They're not a reaction to the mode of argument being presented against them, they are the default mode of argument to show contempt.
Ditto for the exact same group of people bemoaning "identity politics" while having twitter bios that read "Conservatarian #TradLife Proud to be who I am #MAGA The only thing right of me is the wall" or whatever.
It may be the case that straw bans are, specifically, as a matter of policy, counterproductive. I don't think all laws which prescribe policy or all messages which lecture are, but it may be the case that straw bans are. I don't have a strong feeling either way. But when it comes to 4chan weirdos whose literal slogan is "Fuck their feelings", no, I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.
Just because someone has legitimate criticism on a small (and particularly stupid) portion of an environmental movement (who, let's face it, aren't known for their members' intelligence to begin with) does not mean they're extremists of the other camp.
I am sick and tired of this attitude that people keep having. There are a great many environmental standpoints, and there are idiotic morons on either side. But what sometimes looks like the entire environmental movement has adopted this "with us or with the devil" attitude. And of course, these organisations push things like travel, with their videos images and activities which are hugely damaging to the climate.
Note the shoes ... note the glasses ... note the cellphones ... the T-shirts that are obviously created just for that one event and will probably be thrown out immediately ... note the freaking beverages ... all damaging to the environment. If your criticism against others is that they're hypocrites, you might want to look in the mirror a bit.
In fact, let's just describe a bit of reality here. There are 1000 people worldwide who have any decent knowledge of climate models. 1000 (and even that seems pretty high). That means that on either side of the debate, all but 1000 of them are BULLSHITTING. Incidentally, statistically, that means that there are far more environmentalists who don't know anything about what they're saying than denialists. So if that's really going to be your standard for stupid and unfair ... well that's just not going to reflect well on your side.
> Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one.
Maybe ... just maybe ... they're just doing the same as the people they're protesting. You know, as a protest.
Imagine that.
And ... "cruel and evil" ? Hardly.
You're no longer allowed to use the words "cruel" or "evil", they are value judgements and mostly reflect a clear lack of tolerance on your part.
Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue? Science has never been enough to pursuade people. That approach is not working. It is political and moral in exactly the same way as other contentious issues and that means that people will argue about it. I want people to virtue signal about the environment. That is better than indifference.
> Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue?
No, and I don't see where the GP claims that. It's inherently moral.
We can avoid making the stability of our civilization a divisible issue. It takes some real work to push people against this, and stuff like forbidding people from using harmless stuff they are used to is part of that work.
I've never heard of this phenomenon and find it interesting as someone who does advocate for such policies from time to time. I'd love to read some reasearch on the topic if you have any? (Genuinely interested not trolling).
For those who want to skip the Youtube video, it's troglodytes removing their diesel truck emissions controls in order to spout large amounts of particulates in order to appear as if their vehicle is coal fired.
I don't think the poster was claiming Trump invented this phenomenon, but it is undeniably more visible because of recent political events. Being pro-environment has been a political stance for decades, so there's no longer away of not making it political.
Maybe you're not spending any time outside of San Francisco and the other major cities. There is a whole other half of America that feels very differently about all this. There's even many people in the big cities who feel this way, but they stay quiet out of fear.
Yep, "the silent majority" that created The Tea Party and lead to Trump in the White House?
I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper) and 20-some-odd years later created "the plastic bag crisis". Now local supermarkets are making a big thing out of getting rid of plastic in favor of paper or (preferably) reusable bags.
Yes, you can always invent self-serving narratives ("And that's why Trump was elected!") but that doesn't mean these self-serving narratives have any basis in reality. The right-wing reactionaries who get hopped up about California's straw bill are not actually reacting to anything. Anti-environmentalism is part of their core identity and if they weren't whining about one bill they'd be parroting conspiracy theories about Musk. The reactionary pose is just a pose, the sort of thing teenagers do -- it's not any kind of rational position supported by the facts or intelligent analysis.
> I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper)
You do understand that our understanding of the world evolves over time? That science progresses? Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are and in the last twenty years plastic use has exploded. Now people are trying to do something about this. This is called progress. It's not an indication of some plot but rather the natural process of discovery and change that drives civilization forwards.
> Yes, you can always invent self-serving narratives...
Sure you can but that's not the argument posed -- saying "the silent majority" is a mere illusion totally discounts that most people aren't a member of radical {left,right} leaning groups who make a bunch of noise and get the headlines. This kind of reasoning is basically "you're either with us or against us" and serves no useful purpose in reasonable debates.
> Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are...
All I’m saying is that there’s a lot of people who feel differently about this kind of stuff. And that you wouldn’t know it if your world is the major cities. I don’t understand your reaction here and elsewhere in this thread.
Nothing personal, but I find this kind of naive ideological sentiment to be one of the least endearing features of Hacker News. For whatever reason, a lot of technical people were sold on conservative ideas under the banner of libertarianism, and it permeates any sensible conversation you try to have.
The conservatives in the US are building concentration camps for children, yet people on this site want to lecture about how straw bans are "virtue signaling", or will cause toddlers to intentionally destroy things, or reduce freedom.
It's a straw. People are capable of getting over it. And to halt progress because some dude in a MAGA hat might make fun of straw bans or crying Indians is a terrible strategy.
Your liberty ends when your actions begin harming others. I'm not worried about a few trolls rolling coal. I'm worried about cynical libertarian rhetoric that gives political cover for destroying helpful regulations.
The people you describe are going to intentionally destroy the environment anyway. They aren't reachable by reason and we shouldn't factor them into any initiatives unless necessary and then we should simply assume they're part of the problem to be worked around or blocked.
To be honest, there is a virtue signalling aspect to all this, it's pretty obvious that companies exploit this to increase sales. In my very honest opinion, does anybody with a bit of sense really think the boardroom at $corp care about Gay Pride in any real and considerable way - other than to exploit customer's desire to show their virtue about it with flashy rainbow mugs?
I would be careful, since you quite quickly shot towards being bias, by disregarding any merit to the side that you very obviously disagree with. Just like how you said they deride, you just did exactly the same. How is the problem of devisiveness and the environment going to be solved like that?
You're missing the forest for the trees, you've bought the latest excuse given to reject environmental measures. These are the same people who look at the scientific evidence for climate change and actively deny it, and you're taking their reasoning against environmental legislation as if its being made in good faith.
Virtue signalling didn't cause anyone to oppose climate change and environmental legislation, it's post hoc reasoning that blames others for their existing apathy towards the environment.
Environmental activism shouldn't be held hostage at the whims of people who will find any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to oppose it.
I drink out of the same cup every time without the use of a straw - imagine that. If they stopped selling straws tomorrow it could be years before I would notice.
However, I know people who prefer to drink fizzy sugar drinks that come in one-use containers. If there was some instant ban on plastic straws then these folk would not get as far as mid morning before wondering 'where have all the straws gone'.
It is through this latter group of people that my awareness of the plastic problem has been raised. I have even seen a friend buy glass straws (delivered in a huge box by Amazon) so the problem is being taken seriously by these sugary-beverage folk. The consumerist ethic isn't going to change for these folk, there is no question in their minds that straws are vital (think of the children), it is just a matter of recycling plastic straws responsibly rather than flushing them out to sea (as if they ever did, living 50 miles from the coast).
Really there should be prizes for the most futile campaigns that demand the smallest of lifestyle adjustments. However, sometimes, e.g. through the plastic straws conversation, you do get a wider discussion going.
I don't lecture my fish eating, fizzy beverage drinking friends on things, I would prefer to save my breath. They don't want to know how many decades it has been since I last used a plastic straw. I would be there all day if the full tirade on their consumerist life was given. Nothing would be achieved in doing so, nobody would change their lifestyle choices.
However, I have detected lifestyle choice changes and a lower propensity to use plastic amongst my consumerist friends in recent months so maybe we do actually need these low-lifestyle-change campaigns because they do lead people to ask the questions that can lead to modified behaviour.
On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to see.
That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.
How are you measuring leisure time? My impression is that great gains were made in the union heyday of the 40s-60s, but that leisure time for most workers has been declining since then. The move to almost universal dual income households means outside-work time is spent doing the stuff that used to be done during the day. Also many more people have a second job. I’d be greatly heartened by data showing leisure time had increased in, say, the last 50 years.
If the context here is the development of human history leading up to notions of private employment then our timeline is in the tens of thousands of years and variations within past decades become almost irrelevant. Comparing hunter-gatherers or roaming tribes with modern city dwellers? Enough said.
I'm not sure I disagree with you about the last 50 years. I think it's a bit of a hard topic to dissect because the notion of a "workday" is relative and changes over time. I think a day of work is a lot easier now than in the 1950s and I think the ancillary work we perform to care for ourselves and our homes is reduced. By how much, I'm not sure how to quantify.
I recall Hans Rosling did a great talk along these lines, "The Magic Washing Machine." It's mostly talking about the mechanization of household labor in the mid century which we agree took place. I think since then we no longer spend as much time cooking, or cleaning, maintaining our appliances or cars. I think improvements in communication systems save a surprising amount of time -- consider how many hours a month you might waste if cell phones didn't exist? If you had to drive to a place to sign paperwork instead of fill out an online form?
There's nothing so large as the washing machine in the last 50 years but I think we have a significant amount of small improvements. Coupled with work becoming more palatable (part of why work/life becomes blurred is that some large percentage of us enjoy working) I think there's a possibility that labor has shrank in the last 50 years even if people work longer hours. Which they may not, factoring in household labor.
I know many people who do not need to work as hard as they do -- some who do not need to work at all. Yet they still do, even when the requirement is removed.
My opinion about the last 50 years is fairly weakly held, I'm basically just thinking freely. My strong comments above are in reference to the development of much more basic notions like "private employment."
Having a system to enriches the few who don't need more wealth reinforced by impoverishing the many is better than chattel slavery and worse than a system which offers real choice and ownership of ones labor.
maybe. History shows me that, unregulated, our system makes kings and queens that own not only own land and wealth but people as well.
If i wanted to make a system that insured the absolute minimum advancement and progress, the absolute maximum misery and poverty, while giving a random few almost god like powers..
UBI doesn't work because it depends on people working to fund it. The amount of money required for poverty level UBI in the US (one of the richest countries) is more than all of the federal current tax revenue, which comes from working people.
We can't all decide we are going to live for free and magically still get to drive cars, live in houses, eat food, have running water, etc.
The entire point of the economic system is to motivate people to help each other. If the money motivation goes away, people either stop helping each other or you have to motivate with violence.
The funding for UBI would require more funding than the current federal tax revenue. One of the things that would be necessary to make it work is redistribution of wealth. Taking taxes large corporates who are increasingly making more money through automation and the removal of jobs, so that it can be used to fund a better lifestyle for the majority of people.
Sadly I don't see a political environment where that's actually viable any time soon, but at some point we're going to have to see a move in that direction because there will be an ever decreasing pool of jobs that require actual people.
The cost of UBI depends entirely on the magnitude of the benefit; your position is indefensible given we haven't established the magnitude.
Obviously increasing welfare implies increased taxes. I don't see anything controversial there? I do agree the USA currently lacks the political will to move much in this direction.
..in your opinion. But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority..
The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few. If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
>But in reality the current system doesn't work and needs constant massive bailouts and public funding R&D to just barely operate for the minority..
Says an HN comment..
Maybe try to rework this sentence, because it doesn't appear to be true. While things may not be excellent for everyone, clearly the "system" works to some extent.
>The entire point of the current economic system is to motivate the masses to enrich the few.
Do you have a source on this? What do you consider to be the current system? The Federal Reserve System?
>If the motivation goes away then maybe people will work to enrich their own lives.
Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now? I can tell you that I'm posting this to enrich mine.
The current state of our market system requires massive bailouts and massive funding into research and development, massive subsidies (e.g. arms), and an overworked and underpaid workforce to limp along and pay out a healthy dividend to the richest(few) investors.
>source on this?
Just look at any multi billion dollar company; whats the difference between shareholder payout and worker payout? How else would you define this system where a company can declare hundred million dollar profits while paying minimum wage?
>Do you seriously not think that people work to enrich their own lives right now?
We try. for the last 8 hours i worked to make money that would enrich my life, but my work made someone else a hundred times this amount so 1% of my last 8 hours was for me.
If somebody else is making 100x off of just your work you need to quit yesterday and find somebody to pay you 2x what you are currently making. They will be more than happy to do so as they will still be making a 50x profit on you.
Either that or you have absolutely no clue as to how much value you actually create for your company. Nobody generates 100x profit, not even slaves.
I thought your point was that somebody else is actually making 99-100 dollars for every dollar that you make. I would like to know how you came to that number.
i worked out those numbers roughly for myself. My point though, was; most of, or at least the majority of my working life is to enrich someone who is richer that could can ever be. This is the nature of the relationship between the shareholder and the common worker.
ubi isn't doing away with markets or the profit motive. it's just: here is enough money you don't die. so more people can pursue their passions. OP is probably excessively optimistic that will be science. in reality it will probably not be. but it's a lot better than useless bureaucracies, inefficiencies and the willingness to do whatever so you don't die
Could it be possible that financially well-off people feel less stigma about suicide because the people they leave behind would not be affected as negatively as if they were poor?
For example, a poor inner-city parent committing suicide would leave behind children in danger of falling into poverty. But a wealthy parent would know their children could be "all right" living off of the insurance and inherited wealth from the parent.
Yes and no. If you look at the difference in general, average of lives:
- poorer people have more friends whom, by poverty, aren't as able to move as much as first-world people, more physical labor (exercise), more children depending on them and fewer choices / expectations / freedoms... the net effects of these factors lead to less idleness, less depression and more happiness
- rich, first-world people have shallower friends whom move a lot, less physical work (more sedentary, less exercise), fewer children and infinite choices... more idleness, more depression and less satisfaction.
Also, if your entire Maslow hierarchy of needs is met, what do you do? What's your purpose? What meaningful problem can you solve or world condition can you change? These sort of existential crises, I think, lead to most suicides because people feel they have no purpose, no function, no power, no influence and therefore don't matter.
I've read that income was negatively correlated with suicides.
From your time article:
> the study’s authors do point to findings that higher income generally lowers suicide risk. For example, an individual with family income less than $10,000 (in 1990 dollars) is 50% more likely to commit suicide than an individual with income above $60,000.
It didn't really, though. That's the marginal income rate, not capital gains -- it's a tax rate for an empty bracket. It was super effective wartime grandstanding which is still fooling everyone decades later.
Capital gains -- the rate the upper class actually pays -- has never risen above 35% at the federal level. And that's within a few points of 2018 marginal rates when we factor in state level taxes for places like California. The tax moved from federal to state (or to earmarked federal, like NIIT)
Capital gains:
1945: 35% federal + 6% state = 41%
2018: 25% federal + 3.8% NIIT + 13.1% state = 41.9%
Prior to losing SALT, wealthy Californians paid slightly lower marginal rates than in 1945. Trump's changes cause the current marginal tax rate for wealthy Californians to be higher than in 1945 -- the year you're calling out as a peak.
It did affect certain people, though, like movie actors like Ronald Reagan. His stated rationale for supply-side economics was that back during WW2, him and his peers would do 2 movies/year and then be done working, because doing a 3rd would put them in the top tax bracket and the government would get all the money.
It's a strictly incorrect metaphor. Radio stations aren't liable in this scenario. Neither are newspapers with illegal personal ads for discriminatory housing.
There's no way they can be liable because they can't know if the ads are illegal or not. The legality of a given ad depends on many factors not always present in the ad itself -- such as whether the landlord lives in one of the units. All of the above selection criteria are perfectly OK to filter by if a landlord occupies a unit in a building with less than 4 units.
This is why it's legal to advertise for particular genders in a shared apartment scenario. It's also legal to advertise for other criteria like race in these cases -- though it's not socially acceptable.
It's impossible for Facebook to know whether a given ad is legal because of these hidden criteria.
>Neither are newspapers with illegal personal ads for discriminatory housing.
Yes they are!
The FHA specifically applies to housing ads!
>The legality of a given ad depends on many factors not always present in the ad itself -- such as whether the landlord lives in one of the units. All of the above selection criteria are perfectly OK to filter by if a landlord occupies a unit in a building with less than 4 units.
No, discriminatory ads are illegal (other than sex in a roommate situation) even though discrimination in selection is legal in some cases.
>It's also legal to advertise for other criteria like race in these cases -- though it's not socially acceptable
No, it's not legal.
If you post a housing ad on Craigslist, they tell you all this.
As I explained, the FHA applies to certain /kinds/ of housing ads. The determination of whether the FHA applies at all is dependent on a multitude of factors which an advertising middle-man cannot easily know.
Some advertisers opt to respond by applying broad content bans, but this is not reflective of the underlying law.
You will not develop an accurate understanding of the law by trying to reverse engineer it through reading various corporate policies.
> No, discriminatory ads are illegal (other than sex in a roommate situation) even though discrimination in selection is legal in some cases.
This is flatly incorrect. There is no differentiation whatsoever in the FHA between different types of discrimination. They are all uniformly referenced and exempted. See 42 U.S. Code § 3604 Sec 804.
The exemptions mean the FHA restrictions do not apply at all. Nowhere is gender discrimination carved out differently from any other type.
> No, it's not legal.
Yeah, it is. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is a fact not a preference.
You are making a common error by ascribing common sense and reasonability to the law. Sometimes this can help frame broad tenets but in this particular case it is leading you to a demonstrably false conclusion.
"Worth the time" is relative. Some people really enjoy shows which other people consider to be "junk."
I suspect Netflix realizes this. I don't mind them not being suggested, but I'd be really upset if "junk" shows became unavailable. There's a bunch of popular content which I don't enjoy and I wouldn't be surprised if a sizable portion of content I do consume is "junk" according to popular opinion.
> Some people really enjoy shows which other people consider to be "junk."
A matter of learning to appreciate a genre. For example I like certain types of reality tv which others think is 'stupid'. But first I didn't say all reality tv and also there are things I could point out to show why it is I appreciate it to anyone watching (one is learning from facial expressions at least in people that are not botoxed). By the same token I have no appreciation of sports. I wouldn't call it 'junk' simply because I realize others have learned to really like it. But it's no different than anything else. And the reason most people wouldn't criticize sports is because they see it's widely accepted mainstream. So they are not going to be the one to go out on a limb and call it out. Although they would something else (like shooting guns as a hobby).
Americans will regularly criticize soccer. A lot of people will regularly criticize baseball. Both for being boring or what have you. Sports are definitely not immune. Just more tolerated and accepted as you say because of their sheer popularity and cultural significance.
Perhaps it's relative as far as entertainment value is concerned, but not as far as artistic merit is. I for one don't enjoy wading through an endless stream of consumerist drivel helmed by yes-people who just want their big break, or who otherwise are simply involved for the pay and career.
>I suspect Netflix realizes this
Yes, because they collect all kinds of user data and have statistics to back up viewership and retention. E.g. the Adam Sandler films they produced come to mind. I don't think anyone would claim they're worthwhile films, but nonetheless Netflix has stated they got lots of views, which is important for their platform, especially to quantify investment returns.
My theory is that since Netflix is global, foreign audiences further skew the quality:views statistics, as many such countries' media is dominated by Western media, and "Western" may very well be enough to make it appealing simply because it contrasts with domestic media and arts. But I suppose the West does this as well by awarding an Oscar to the "Best Foreign Film" that might very well not be as acclaimed or otherwise not viewed as such in its own country.
I think that's an awful example. Adam Sanders movies fairly consistently do well on very low budgets, because he consistently delivers a certain recipe: feel-good relatively low brow comedies that don't take themselves very seriously. They are worthwhile exactly because of that - once you've seen a couple you know exactly what you get, and when that is what you feel like it's an easy choice. That makes them extremely 'Netflix friendly' - if you've liked a couple, you're likely to like a lot of them. You don't need to sell them very hard past his name - people who like his movies will watch them when that's what they're in the mood for.
