TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Case Against Obama in a Nutshell
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »

Yeah that is the thing is they went so far right wing they kind of ran into the very fringe left and started working together.

They're called fundamentalist libertarians fellas.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton They're called fundamentalist libertarians fellas.

I know you already said that, so I tried to say it differently. You don't have to tell me I've been a card carrying member of the LP since 2002.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I know you already said that, so I tried to say it differently.

Far right and far left united? I don't think that works.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Far right and far left united? I don't think that works.

Not united, but you understand the saying 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Not united, but you understand the saying 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

Uh huhhh. Truuuuu.

Really though there are only a few fringe left wing CTs. The vast majority are hardcore right wing.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 hmm. I always figured (generally speaking) that hardcore conspiracy theory believers weren't either right wing or left wing as far as the offically recognised parties. It would make more sense if they were independents or just rejected the establishments entirely.

Conspiracy theory is just a meme, btw.

I put forth a lot of effort in researching the underlying facts that surround those topics rather than mindlessly replacing critical analysis with buzzwords (as a few people on here seem to do.)

I enjoyed Orwell's Nineteen-eighty Four but I don't believe in propagating it's Newspeak.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 so, you believe in 9/11, Illuminati and ET/UFO conspiracy theories, but you're a right winger? Hmm.

I believe in Libertarianism as it's the polar opposite of authoritarianism.

I believe in individual freedoms, limited government, noninterventionism, free trade, property rights, self-determination, etc.

I'm probably closer to being a Jeffersonian Republican than anything but of course the Republican party has changed so much that you probably wouldn't know it unless you looked it up.


http://www.answers.com/topic/jeffer...ical-philosophy

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 what happened to them and their system?

LOL! What happened to US and OUR system?!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You do know what a profit is don't you? Or are you just being adversarial?

Profit is how much you make off selling a product compared to what you spent on it, therefore anything spent on R&D is calculated in the production costs, not the profit margin

quote:

With money. How do you pay for therapy?

The same

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Profit is how much you make off selling a product compared to what you spent on it, therefore anything spent on R&D is calculated in the production costs, not the profit margin

I don't follow. R&D is a cost of production, which comes out of your gross margin and directly affects profits. It may be amortized, but it is still a cost. This is precisely why so many drug development/pharmaceutical/biotech companies operate at substantial losses for years before they may ever actually report a profit. Big drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, etc. have profits that they can reinvest into new R&D, without which they would be significantly hindered from searching for novel new drugs and therapeutics. Maybe you do it differently on that side of the pond.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley LOL! What happened to US and OUR system?!

we haven't stopped producing the most advanced technological products, they have!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't follow. R&D is a cost of production, which comes out of your gross margin and directly affects profits. It may be amortized, but it is still a cost. This is precisely why so many drug development/pharmaceutical/biotech companies operate at substantial losses for years before they may ever actually report a profit. Big drug companies like Pfizer, Merck, etc. have profits that they can reinvest into new R&D, without which they would be significantly hindered from searching for novel new drugs and therapeutics. Maybe you do it differently on that side of the pond.

Anything spent on R&D cannot be considered part of the profit, can it?

In fact you admit as such in the first half of your post before returning to your claim that R&D costs are part of the profit!

Make your mind up!

But back to my point (which I assume you've completely forgotten), in 2007, Pfizer made over $8bn profit (from a turnover of $40bn). In 2006 the whole industry in America made $40bn in 6 months, so we're looking at around $80bn of profit over a year. Imagine by how much the cost of drugs would come down to should that industry be nationalised? It would probably earn money for the government which could be used to increase services or lessen the tax burden (for everyone including well of people like yourself!)

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 we haven't stopped producing the most advanced technological products, they have!

Your point only works if I advocate nationalising all industries, I clearly don't advocate that so unfortunately your point is invalid. The fact is, Russia proved that a nationalised industry is more than capable of matching or bettering the same products from the private market...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Anything spent on R&D cannot be considered part of the profit, can it? In fact you admit as such in the first half of your post before returning to your claim that R&D costs are part of the profit! Make your mind up!

I don't understand what the fuck you're talking about. What did I admit? R&D are costs. Costs are not profit, they come out of profits. What is your point? There is gross profit and net profit. Gross profit = sales minus cost of good sold (which would include amortized R&D expenses). Therefore R&D costs ARE a part of the profit--they reduce it. Net profits would be what is left after interest expenses, depreciation of property/equipment/etc., amortization and taxes. i.e. Net Income. If you believe the accounting standards work so differently, please elaborate without one-liners that say next to nothing.

quote:

But back to my point (which I assume you've completely forgotten), in 2007, Pfizer made over $8bn profit (from a turnover of $40bn). In 2006 the whole industry in America made $40bn in 6 months, so we're looking at around $80bn of profit over a year. Imagine by how much the cost of drugs would come down to should that industry be nationalised? It would probably earn money for the government which could be used to increase services or lessen the tax burden (for everyone including well of people like yourself!)

Ad homenim aside, you really are a smug little **** sometimes, aren't you?

According to data available to me, in 2007, PFE reported revenues of $48.61B and reported net income of nearly $12B ($2.18/share for their shareholders.) Maybe adjusted for currency and that's why your figures don't agree with mine, but I'm using the publicly filed financial statements. Currently, PFE pays out $1.28/share in dividends (profits returned to the shareholders) and the rest goes into retained earnings which can be used for future R&D and general business functions.

As to the rest of your comments, you are only exposing yourself as the big government socialist that thinks nationalising an industry somehow creates wealth, that bigger government is better, and that somehow the government is a more efficient allocator of resources than private industry. I don't share the same opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Your point only works if I advocate nationalising all industries, I clearly don't advocate that so unfortunately your point is invalid. The fact is, Russia proved that a nationalised industry is more than capable of matching or bettering the same products from the private market...

i don't know about that. if certain industries are nationalized to the exclusion of others, the effects will still be present. Namely, the nationalization will still reduce the financial rewards of innovating in that industry, and the innovations will certainly slow down as science and engineering students study to become professionals in industries in which their hard work is rewarded more handsomely.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i don't know about that. if certain industries are nationalized to the exclusion of others, the effects will still be present. Namely, the nationalization will still reduce the financial rewards of innovating in that industry, and the innovations will certainly slow down as science and engineering students study to become professionals in industries in which their hard work is rewarded more handsomely.

What makes you think that staff wages will automatically be lowered under nationalisation? The most prestigious jobs, privatised or nationalised will always be the most well rewarded. I see that in my country where doctors' wages are paid for out of tax revenues, but they are the highest paid professionals as a whole. I see no reason why scientists would not also be extremely well compensated for their work

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't understand what the fuck you're talking about. What did I admit? R&D are costs. Costs are not profit, they come out of profits. What is your point? There is gross profit and net profit. Gross profit = sales minus cost of good sold (which would include amortized R&D expenses). Therefore R&D costs ARE a part of the profit--they reduce it. Net profits would be what is left after interest expenses, depreciation of property/equipment/etc., amortization and taxes. i.e. Net Income. If you believe the accounting standards work so differently, please elaborate without one-liners that say next to nothing.

I think we both know we're talking about net income, you're just trying to wriggle

quote:

Ad homenim aside, you really are a smug little **** sometimes, aren't you?

A lot of the time in fact

quote:

According to data available to me, in 2007, PFE reported revenues of $48.61B and reported net income of nearly $12B ($2.18/share for their shareholders.) Maybe adjusted for currency and that's why your figures don't agree with mine, but I'm using the publicly filed financial statements. Currently, PFE pays out $1.28/share in dividends (profits returned to the shareholders) and the rest goes into retained earnings which can be used for future R&D and general business functions.

The exact figures are not important, what is, and what my original point referred to, is that without having to produce profits or pay their shareholders off, their products would be cheaper

quote:

As to the rest of your comments, you are only exposing yourself as the big government socialist that thinks nationalising an industry somehow creates wealth, that bigger government is better, and that somehow the government is a more efficient allocator of resources than private industry. I don't share the same opinion.

You say that like it's supposed to be some kind of insult

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think we both know we're talking about net income, you're just trying to wriggle

Wriggle around what? I still don't think you've made any sense. If I'm following you correctly, you're trying to argue that R&D expenses don't somehow impact profits. I have argued that they are a cost of development (though they get amortized over time) and are therefore a part of COGS. Whether talking about gross profit or net profit is irrelevant as the cost of R&D is one of the first things to come out of revenues and is included in both figures. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? If you do, I would really appreciate you elaborating and explaining exactly what your point is.

quote:

The exact figures are not important, what is, and what my original point referred to, is that without having to produce profits or pay their shareholders off, their products would be cheaper

They are meeting a "need" are they not? The laws of supply and demand still exist. They are not somehow circumventing basic principles of economics.

[uote]You say that like it's supposed to be some kind of insult [/QUOTE]

Take it how you want. I'm just pointing it out.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Wriggle around what? I still don't think you've made any sense. If I'm following you correctly, you're trying to argue that R&D expenses don't somehow impact profits. I have argued that they are a cost of development (though they get amortized over time) and are therefore a part of COGS. Whether talking about gross profit or net profit is irrelevant as the cost of R&D is one of the first things to come out of revenues and is included in both figures. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? If you do, I would really appreciate you elaborating and explaining exactly what your point is.

We're not talking about costs! We're talking about profits! I said it was not ethical to make profits in such an industry and you keep saying that R&D is part of the profits when it obviously is not!

quote:

They are meeting a "need" are they not? The laws of supply and demand still exist. They are not somehow circumventing basic principles of economics.

Wriggle wriggle

They are making a profit off that need. Without that profit the products would be cheaper

quote:

Take it how you want. I'm just pointing it out.

Your right wing pro-corporate views would indicate you hate democracy, just pointing that out...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley We're not talking about costs! We're talking about profits! I said it was not ethical to make profits in such an industry and you keep saying that R&D is part of the profits when it obviously is not!

George, define profit. Profit is what is left after you subtract costs from sales. This was never a question of ethics. R&D is a part of profits in that is comes out of them (i.e. sales - expenses = profits). This is a simple issue that should've been resolved in a single post with no reply. I am seriously baffled at the level of your bullheaded lack of basic understanding of how a basic business model works. It simply defies logic.

quote:

They are making a profit off that need. Without that profit the products would be cheaper

1) who doesn't make a profit by fulfilling a need? Need is what creates the opportunity for a business to exist! You could make the same argument for any industry. Transportation, food, computers, energy, etc. You are arguing that if the government ran everything, it would be cheaper (and somehow the quality would be as good if not better). Funny how you are so against profit, yet 2 posts ago you were talking about the government making money by nationalizing industries (i.e making a fucking PROFIT).

2) So you want every industry to be run as a non-profit. Who will invest in it? What assurances can you give that the quality and technology (among other aspects) will be as good as that provided for by private industry? I've seen the inside of many government buildings and seen bureaucracy in action. Frankly, I do not share your optimism that profitless business is somehow better.

quote:

Your right wing pro-corporate views would indicate you hate democracy, just pointing that out...

How so?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka George, define profit. Profit is what is left after you subtract costs from sales. This was never a question of ethics. R&D is a part of profits in that is comes out of them (i.e. sales - expenses = profits). This is a simple issue that should've been resolved in a single post with no reply. I am seriously baffled at the level of your bullheaded lack of basic understanding of how a basic business model works. It simply defies logic.

This was ALWAYS a question of ethics if you go back and read my first post on the subject to which you have continued to reply to! You also seem to be suggesting that EVERYTHING is part of the profits?!

quote:

1) who doesn't make a profit by fulfilling a need?

The police

quote:

Need is what creates the opportunity for a business to exist!

Yes (to an extent)

quote:

You could make the same argument for any industry. Transportation, food, computers, energy, etc.

I could but I don't because that would be wrong

quote:

You are arguing that if the government ran everything, it would be cheaper (and somehow the quality would be as good if not better).

No I'm not arguing that

quote:

Funny how you are so against profit, yet 2 posts ago you were talking about the government making money by nationalizing industries (i.e making a fucking PROFIT).

It depends what the profit is used for that makes it good or bad

quote:

2) So you want every industry to be run as a non-profit.

If you want to make a valid point I suggest you stop putting words into people's mouths otherwise what you say is irrelevant and doesn't make you look particularly good

quote:

Who will invest in it? What assurances can you give that the quality and technology (among other aspects) will be as good as that provided for by private industry? I've seen the inside of many government buildings and seen bureaucracy in action. Frankly, I do not share your optimism that profitless business is somehow better.

I don't share your opinion that women should not be able to vote

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley This was ALWAYS a question of ethics if you go back and read my first post on the subject to which you have continued to reply to! You also seem to be suggesting that EVERYTHING is part of the profits?!

You originally asked if it was ethical to make a profit in the pharmaceutical industry, not what constitutes a profit. However, you continue to argue that the definition of a profit is something that it isn't. This was NEVER a question of whether those profits were JUST (There is a whole other thread from a while back dealing with this), rather a question of how R&D factored into the bottom-line. You argued that somehow R&D is somehow not associated with profits. I argued (as if an argument is even necessary to state and restate a fact) that R&D are costs related to drug production and come out of COGS which therefore directly impacts profits. I will not address this anymore as you either get it or you are a complete moron. Sorry, George, with every post you align yourself more and more with the latter.

quote:

The police

Suddenly we don't need police to protect us from crime and maintain order? Are you serious? If it's not a need then what the fuck is it?

quote:

Yes (to an extent)

Glad you can at least see out of one eye.

quote:

I could but I don't because that would be wrong

Again with the mountain of supporting evidence to back up your once again erroneous conclusion. Somewhat surprising given your response to the previous point. What industries (besides the police example which makes no sense) do not serve some sort of "need?" I'm genuinely curious. The best I could come up with would be entertainment, but I think you're going into shades of gray at best at that point. We all need entertainment in some way, shape or form.

quote:

No I'm not arguing that

How is not not implicit in your previous response:

quote:

They are making a profit off that need. Without that profit the products would be cheaper

quote:

It depends what the profit is used for that makes it good or bad

Again with good profits and bad profits. I have only been talking about profit as a definition of sales minus costs. I said pharmaceutical companies use those profits to fund future business to come up with new and innovative drugs.

quote:

If you want to make a valid point I suggest you stop putting words into people's mouths otherwise what you say is irrelevant and doesn't make you look particularly good

I suggest you stop acting like a retard.

quote:

I don't share your opinion that women should not be able to vote

I suggest you stop acting like a retard. I don't even know where you are coming up with this shit. For the record, my wife voted today.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You originally asked if it was ethical to make a profit in the pharmaceutical industry, not what constitutes a profit.

Yet here we are for some reason arguing over what constitutes a profit...

quote:

This was NEVER a question of whether those profits were JUST

It was, you just said so above!

quote:

You argued that somehow R&D is somehow not associated with profits. I argued (as if an argument is even necessary to state and restate a fact) that R&D are costs related to drug production and come out of COGS which therefore directly impacts profits.

I never said R&D doesn't affect profits, I said they were NOT profits. EVERY FUCKING THING A COMPANY DOES AFFECTS PROFITS

quote:

I will not address this anymore as you either get it or you are a complete moron. Sorry, George, with every post you align yourself more and more with the latter.

Everytime I make a point you shift the goal posts in order to make an irrelevant point. In this case, I simply said it was not ethical to make a profit in the pharmaceutical industry and for some reason you've spent 5 pages arguing about how R&D is or isn't part of those profits (I don't even think you knwo what point your making any more)

quote:

Suddenly we don't need police to protect us from crime and maintain order? Are you serious? If it's not a need then what the fuck is it?

And you have the nerve to call ME a moron after this reply?!

quote:

Glad you can at least see out of one eye.

quote:

Again with the mountain of supporting evidence to back up your once again erroneous conclusion. Somewhat surprising given your response to the previous point. What industries (besides the police example which makes no sense) do not serve some sort of "need?" I'm genuinely curious. The best I could come up with would be entertainment, but I think you're going into shades of gray at best at that point. We all need entertainment in some way, shape or form.

Are you fucking retarded or something? My "conclusion" was to agree with your point, so why do I need to answer further?

quote:

How is not not implicit in your previous response:

Ah! The classic Shakka and his amazing moving goal post trick again! So you asked me a question about if the "government ran everything" and when I gave you your answer all of a sudden you decide the question was really about the pharmaceutical industry!!!

quote:

Again with good profits and bad profits. I have only been talking about profit as a definition of sales minus costs. I said pharmaceutical companies use those profits to fund future business to come up with new and innovative drugs.

Quite clearly they don't and you've already proven they don't by showing how much shareholders receive from those profits

quote:

I suggest you stop acting like a retard.

I'm sorry mate but you twisted every single point I make even when agreeing with you, so you tell me who's being a retard?

quote:

I suggest you stop acting like a retard. I don't even know where you are coming up with this shit. For the record, my wife voted today.

The point, that you so amazingly missed, was not to invent opinions and try and impose them on other people so you can make a devious attack on them...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.