Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Are they going to split this up? How is that going to work at all.
2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Are they going to split this up? How is that going to work at all.
Perhaps -calls this the Overtakh conjecture if you will- it was the fact that Fox featured only/mostly rightwing ideological hacks and shills for its ‘balanced content’ while other networks have innocently tried to play with an ‘even field’ and the only way to counter this is to get people with different opinions onto Fox.
Nonsense.
Companies plan in hopes of influencing markets.
For this to be a useful discussion, you need clearly defined terms. Without them it is all smoke and mirrors.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
They are splitting it into two groups. They tried to break the groups up such that neither would be the 'must watch' debate.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Looks like Warren got a good spot. I like Gabbard but she's polling as low as those other no names. Booker's her stiffest competition and he folds like a cheap suit when pressed.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
NPR and PBS both talked about how she got a prime spot as well. She's the only one in her group polling above ~5% or something like that. Everyone else at her level of polling got lumped into the second night. I think it's a bit unfair but not enough to care about. Plus I want her to win 
Berzerker
Deity
I like Gabbard the most because of foreign policy but I dont know her views on the drug war, Yang 2nd followed by Warren and Buttigieg, maybe O'Rourke
By reimportation do you mean drugs produced here and sold abroad being resold here? I think the rationale at least from big pharma is they export drugs regulated by other countries' price controls and they dont want people buying their drugs at lower costs and then undercutting them domestically. Americans end up subsidizing countries with price controls. We would pay less and other people would pay more if price controls were eliminated.
By reimportation do you mean drugs produced here and sold abroad being resold here? I think the rationale at least from big pharma is they export drugs regulated by other countries' price controls and they dont want people buying their drugs at lower costs and then undercutting them domestically. Americans end up subsidizing countries with price controls. We would pay less and other people would pay more if price controls were eliminated.
Last edited:
On the other hand more people might tune in to the second debate because there are more people they know there. So maybe it has downsides for Warren. Also if she wanted to be aggressive on Biden (or one of the other centrists) it won't work.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
There are going to be a lot more debates, and I think ending up in the first group is good for Warren. It removes her from the inevitable catfight between Biden and Sanders allowing her to avoid attacking 'the establishment Democrat' too early on. The only other serious candidate in Warren's group is Booker. Klobuchar was always running for VP and has had a thoroughly uninspiring campaign so far, Gabbard has weird links to the Hindu far-right and was supporting gay conversion therapy into the mid 2000s, Beto's only coherent position is that he is not Ted Cruz and enjoys standing on tables, and the rest are firmly in the "Who are they?" category.
On the other hand, my approval of Yang has gone up slightly because he seems to have a sense of humor:
Andrew Yang said:
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Klobuchar", "Hickenlooper", "Buttigieg"... Do these people realise that not just any surname gets to follow the word "President"? There are standards, surely.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
That's really funny
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
IIRC Buttigieg is Maltese for 'Lord of the Poultry', and given how 2016 turned out, selecting leaders by the amount of poultry they own doesn't seem to be a terrible idea.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Nothing's worse than a happy Yang
Spoiler :
https://www.deviantart.com/obstinatemelon/art/Final-Fantasy-7-Page318-328724623
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
That subsidizing crud is just the lie they sell us to get away with gouging American consumers simply because they can. Whenever they get these guys in front of Congress they can almost never justify their pricing. Especially when the representative has the numbers for research, marketing and manufacturing costs compared to profits right in front of them. All of this is available to Congress via SEC filings. Theres a reason the pharmaceutical industry is a top political donor. It's a good investment to keep politicians in their back pocket.
No, Americans just stupidly allow this to be done to them.
It's a weird math if other countries are subsidized by other American taxpayers or not. If those foreign customers didn't exist, it's not like the R&D would be easier or cheaper. Foreign markets make drug profits easier, because the marginal cost of production is pretty low. An extra customer just adds more money.
If other countries didn't bargain for better prices, they'd get gouged. But large buyers always negotiate pricing.
If other countries didn't bargain for better prices, they'd get gouged. But large buyers always negotiate pricing.
Zardnaar
Deity
Good news.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-paint-bleak-picture/?utm_term=.db76872c478c
Not looking good for the Orange cheeto.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-paint-bleak-picture/?utm_term=.db76872c478c
Not looking good for the Orange cheeto.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
After all these years you don't understand how any of this works do you?
There's some kind of misinformation mill pumping all the same lines into people, I've heard this subsidy argument every single time the topic comes up.
If the drug companies weren't still making money, they wouldn't be distributing their goods to these other countries with price controls. I mean come on, this is capitalism 101
If the drug companies weren't still making money, they wouldn't be distributing their goods to these other countries with price controls. I mean come on, this is capitalism 101
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
and if they were for some insane reason losing money outside the US, stopping that would not preclude a drop in prices here it would just preclude them going up over there. I mean could you imagine the shareholder outrage over them dropping prices out here? People would be sued left and right.
- Status
