Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
CAFTA is a bill that will eliminate tariffs between the CAFTA countries and the United States. Eighty percent for now and all tariffs completely in the next twenty years. Yet, you and these other "experts" that is not enough for you. You want the bill also to include labor and environmental protections or you don't vote for it. This does not make sense.

You're not reading very carefully. CAFTA includes provisions about, e.g., labor protections as well. For whatever reason -- I'm banking on a hostility to labor protections -- it does not included the sorts of enforcement provisions that have been in previous free trade agreements. You don't seem to what to defend this on the substance, you just don't want to talk about it.

Those provisions of NAFTA were included to buy Democrat votes. The business community did not want them.

This make no sense. Most businesses that have to abide by environmental and workplace protections want their competitors to have to play by the same rules. This is why market-based emissions-credit trading programs work.

Is there some reason why you want U.S. businesses to have to compete on an unfair playing field? Are you just that hostile to the idea of protecting the environment, or workplace safety?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Is there some reason why you want U.S. businesses to have to compete on an unfair playing field? Are you just that hostile to the idea of protecting the environment, or workplace safety?

I'm not sure it's that, so much as a preference to take one's trading partner where one finds them, and an unshakable faith that trade is an elixir that will lift labor requirements, environmental standards, and dental hygine all on its own.

Considering such factors as part of the treaty-negotiating exercise delays the time at which American companies can move in and set up shop, and therefore is extraneous at best, and at worst fucks up a really good tarriff-elimination plan. The market will solve these problems, as long as it doesn't relate to SDI or stem cells.

It's quite simple, really.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually no - in the Defense industry it is in the pecuniary interest of many companys to come up with great new weapon systems (like SDI). However, the risk is way to great for them to take the chance. That is why we can't wait for companys to come up with SDI on there own. The government needs to pay for the research otherwise it becomes to risky.

I think you have this backwards. The risk is not the problem, the return is.

Companies always take risks on possibly failing products, because there's a reward of selling something profitable. They take calculated, reasonable risks.

The reason there's no private development of SDI is because the market is very limited. There's one customer (sorry, no US company is going to be allowed to sell to anyone else), and they'll probably drive a hard bargain. Given that's the situation, the government has to commit to making a purchase in advance, but funding the development and guaranteeing a purchase of some sort (or at least funding the costs, so that the company doesn't throw away the money).

So it's not like disease research, other than in very limited circumstances (e.g., Orphan Drugs), where we do provide money to research cures for rare diseases, as market incentives (i.e., too small a market) would be insufficient to develop cures.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is there some reason why you want U.S. businesses to have to compete on an unfair playing field? Are you just that hostile to the idea of protecting the environment, or workplace safety?

So what are your thoughts on Larry Summers's proposal to export toxic waste to third-world countries?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually no - in the Defense industry it is in the pecuniary interest of many companys to come up with great new weapon systems (like SDI). However, the risk is way to great for them to take the chance. That is why we can't wait for companys to come up with SDI on there own. The government needs to pay for the research otherwise it becomes to risky. That is true of the A-Bomb, Nuclear Submarines, etc. The same is true with disease research. Sometimes the risk is to great so companys don't get invovled. And disease prevention helps everyone. It is part of national secuirty. So just like we compensate defense companys for researching SDI and other weapon systesm (and the government does some if its own research) the government should also subsidize companys that are working on disease prevent and cures. The market would work eventually over time but who wants to wait.

This is the most sensible thing I have ever seen you post.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Threads
Your comments should be applied to all federally funded research. There is no reason to single out stem cell research for exclusion from federal funding, except for the religious beliefs regarding when human life starts.

Commercial interest in ES cell work is not particularly high compared to other areas of biotech, because it is far from a marketable product, requires licensing WARF patents, cuts off the company from federal money, etc.

Whereas the pure science interest is extremely high, and could provide a route to understanding many basic processes in development, including approaches for treatment of some untreatable degenerative diseases. Some of this research requires the creation of new ES cell lines, which is prohibited except by private funding.

But for the religious beliefs of the current administration, proposals for such work could be evaluated in the context of all ongoing research, and funded according to its merits.

2.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So what are your thoughts on Larry Summers's proposal to export toxic waste to third-world countries?

I am not familiar with it.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you have this backwards. The risk is not the problem, the return is.

Companies always take risks on possibly failing products, because there's a reward of selling something profitable. They take calculated, reasonable risks.

The reason there's no private development of SDI is because the market is very limited. There's one customer (sorry, no US company is going to be allowed to sell to anyone else), and they'll probably drive a hard bargain. Given that's the situation, the government has to commit to making a purchase in advance, but funding the development and guaranteeing a purchase of some sort (or at least funding the costs, so that the company doesn't throw away the money).

So it's not like disease research, other than in very limited circumstances (e.g., Orphan Drugs), where we do provide money to research cures for rare diseases, as market incentives (i.e., too small a market) would be insufficient to develop cures.

In stem cell research (and other extremely long-tail research projects) the potential return is too far into the future to justify the expenditure on normal risk-reward metrices. This is a functional equivalent of defense research, where thed market is too attenuated to be accounted for.

There's actually a greater case for stem cell funding at this stge than there is for orphan drugs, because the potential market is zero and will be for decades. At this point, we don't even know that embryonic stem cells can be trained to develop in the needed way. Once that has been determined, the health care industry is still looking at extensive development to get to the testing stage.

The reason to fund stem cell research is that it has the potential to one day cure diseases which are not currently curable, and to reverse conditions which are not currently reversible. The possibility is simply too great not to fund.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're not reading very carefully. CAFTA includes provisions about, e.g., labor protections as well. For whatever reason -- I'm banking on a hostility to labor protections -- it does not included the sorts of enforcement provisions that have been in previous free trade agreements. You don't seem to what to defend this on the substance, you just don't want to talk about it.

I know there are labor provisions. What makes you think I didn't know. I just explained why the labor enforcement provisions in this bill are less stringent than in NAFTA. I could get into a substantive debate about that, but one step at a time. The whole labor thing is really a side issue that does not affect the free trade issue. First I was trying to point out that no matter what the bill says about labor, it is still a good bill because it reduces tariffs. The bill is better than the status quo - wouldn't you agree with that?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This make no sense. Most businesses that have to abide by environmental and workplace protections want their competitors to have to play by the same rules. This is why market-based emissions-credit trading programs work.

Is there some reason why you want U.S. businesses to have to compete on an unfair playing field? Are you just that hostile to the idea of protecting the environment, or workplace safety?

I am sure american businesses will be glad to hear you are on their side. I think American business knows what is good for them and you don't need to tell them what is. American business don't want labor provisions or environmental provisions becase they want free trade. They understand that the elimination of tariffs is good for everyone. Full stop. This other stuff does not really help and just prevents good deals from getting though. I saw Anna Eshoo make this ridiculous pitch at a high tech meeting to a bunch of businesses that did not have any employees outside of the US. There response was, we just want free trade. If we can sell our products over seas we can compete we just need the chance. Like I said, we can trust businesses to know what is good for them.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This is the most sensible thing I have ever seen you post.

Mistake

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In stem cell research (and other extremely long-tail research projects) the potential return is too far into the future to justify the expenditure on normal risk-reward metrices. This is a functional equivalent of defense research, where thed market is too attenuated to be accounted for.

There's actually a greater case for stem cell funding at this stge than there is for orphan drugs, because the potential market is zero and will be for decades. At this point, we don't even know that embryonic stem cells can be trained to develop in the needed way. Once that has been determined, the health care industry is still looking at extensive development to get to the testing stage.

The reason to fund stem cell research is that it has the potential to one day cure diseases which are not currently curable, and to reverse conditions which are not currently reversible. The possibility is simply too great not to fund.

2. And you are part of the fourth column if you disagree because you want Americans to stay weak and diseased so the Chinese can take us over.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. And you are part of the fourth column if you disagree because you want Americans to stay weak and diseased so the Chinese can take us over.

If anyone is concerned about weak and diseased Americans being enslaved by the Mongol hordes, I suggest there are more cost-effective ways to treat them than funding stem cell research.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In stem cell research (and other extremely long-tail research projects) the potential return is too far into the future to justify the expenditure on normal risk-reward metrices. .

I hear that argument a lot for businesses generally--they underinvest in things for which the return comes too slowly. While there may be such a systematic bias, I don't see how one can distinguish between using taxpayer dollars to overcome that bias with respect to stem cells, but not with respect to a host of other things that business purportedly irrationally fail to invest in.

Moreover, even within the medical research arena, the distribution of federal funding is influenced more by interest group politics than any rational calculus of risk and reward. I'm not sure how one can pick out stem cell research for some favored treatment just because it offers such promise.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I hear that argument a lot for businesses generally--they underinvest in things for which the return comes too slowly. While there may be such a systematic bias, I don't see how one can distinguish between using taxpayer dollars to overcome that bias with respect to stem cells, but not with respect to a host of other things that business purportedly irrationally fail to invest in.

Well, then I guess I have a reason to be thankful you aren't setting our national health care policy, don't I?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I know there are labor provisions. What makes you think I didn't know. I just explained why the labor enforcement provisions in this bill are less stringent than in NAFTA. I could get into a substantive debate about that, but one step at a time. The whole labor thing is really a side issue that does not affect the free trade issue. First I was trying to point out that no matter what the bill says about labor, it is still a good bill because it reduces tariffs. The bill is better than the status quo - wouldn't you agree with that?

I think I already said that the question is not whether the bill is better than the status quo -- it is whether the bill is better than a different bill. Under the status quo, we were negotiating a free trade bill. With CAFTA adopted, there will be no will to return to these questions, I think.

I am sure american businesses will be glad to hear you are on their side. I think American business knows what is good for them and you don't need to tell them what is. American business don't want labor provisions or environmental provisions becase they want free trade.

I swear to God, it's like you're not bothering to read my posts. Please, show me some sign that you've read what I said re this.

They understand that the elimination of tariffs is good for everyone. Full stop. This other stuff does not really help and just prevents good deals from getting though. I saw Anna Eshoo make this ridiculous pitch at a high tech meeting to a bunch of businesses that did not have any employees outside of the US. There response was, we just want free trade. If we can sell our products over seas we can compete we just need the chance. Like I said, we can trust businesses to know what is good for them.

OK, I can play the game your way. Business wants to compete on a level playing field with foreign businesses. That's what they all want. Why do you want American businesses to try to compete with one hand behind their back? Why do you hate America?