Pfizer halts Alzheimer's and Parkinson's research, uses Tax Scam money to buy back stock

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Jan 28, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,820
    From the current perspective, the ones that best improve the economy and make everyone more prosperous in the long run.
    Not in the computer age, no. They used to.
    No, it doesn't.
    The tax structure and inheritance laws of the badly managed economy. However it was that Wyatt Ingraham (above) came to be in line for a seat at the tables of command, with power over a non-infinitismal fraction of the wealth of nations.
    Yep. You can look it up.
    Yes, it does.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    I assume you can agree those a very specific and limited cases?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Actually, I did - you simply chose to do away with the social contract and society responsibility. That's your moral failing, not mine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Neither, apparently, does logic.

    Unpleasant facts you don't seem capable of processing.

    Isn't much of a game for the people dealing with such debilitating diseases. Your lack of empathy simply shows you for the nasty individual you are.

    Aye, you apparently do.

    Yeah, the ape shtick is about the only defense you have.

    Personal, voluntary charity cannot ensure a basic standard of living for the vulnerable among us, when the top 1 to 2 % of the population is hoarding 85% or more of the total wealth of the nation.

    Apparently logic isn't your forte either.

    The trolling is your ape shtick; stick with it though, I'm sure it'll prove your point in the end

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Hardly - you are barely a whimper in the wind. Less than that, actually, since I haven't a reason to give you the attention you are so desperate for any longer. *click*
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I do not agree.
     
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Is that the responsibility of the individual?
    So they don't invest their wealth?
    How do the rich reduce demand?
    The Top 1% is often considered an exclusive, monolithic group, but folks actually rise up into it and fall out of it quite often. That's because their incomes can vary widely year to year.
    ...
    The IRS looked at how frequently the same Top 400 taxpayers appeared on the list over a 22-year period ending in 2013. Some 72% ranked that high for just one year. Only 3% were listed for a decade or more.
    ...
    The same holds true for those lower on the income ladder. While just over half of Americans reach the Top 10% at least once in their careers, only 14% stay in it for a decade or more, Hirschl found. (The minimum income threshold for the Top 10% was $141,000.)
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.html
    Your claim. Support it or not. It's up to you.
    Lack of charity causes poor health?
    So healthy people become less healthy if there's less charity?
    Curious.
    Does moralizing do something for your ego?
    More ego support? Man, you sure seem to feel like you need a lot.
    Glad I'm just an ape.

    I'm just an ape. When an ape I know gets sick, we care for it. We don't demand other tribes care for our apes.
    Just allowing the space to let you be you.
    So you think a basic standard of living is a right?
    Do you think the economy is a zero-sum game?
    Is it logical to let strange anonymous humans get your goat?
    Are you not a primate? Perhaps you feel no familial affinity to your roots.
    I'm glad I don't seem threatening to you. I have no clubs or stones.
     
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    So they refuse medical care for any/no reason?
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It's arbitrary. Based on some old book I think.
     
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Well, which is it?
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Both.
     
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    So a book, containing personal whim.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,820
    It was proposed as the criterion for assessing "best investment", in an evaluation of one's economic setup.
    Some of it. Right now the rich are sitting on quite a bit of cash, along with financial stuff like T-bills and municipal bonds and the like. And gold, and yachts, and real estate, and their houses, and so forth. With the tax cuts they will have quite a bit more.
    By tying up the wealth in inefficient packages, spending much less of their income on goods and services, etc.
    Standard and normal observation.
    Pregnant women and children, of course. Also old people. And those who were injured or ill at some point when they couldn't afford treatment. I've worked with entire crews of men every one of whom had a medical issue that had permanently affected their health or was currently doing so, for lack of means to obtain medical care. One had a dislocated collarbone he'd been living with for three years, for example. These things accumulate - the substandard diet of the growing child, the uncontrolled blood sugar of the post-partum mother, the abuse of painkillers and other drugs to deal with chronic and untreated problems, do damage that can't be fixed later.

    The entire US economy is less productive, and everyone is less prosperous, due to the attrition and drag of untreated or poorly treated injury and disease - treatment that in better run and therefore more prosperous countries everyone receives as a benefit of citizenship, and that the US citizenry already pays for in taxes. It's the stupidest situation imaginable in an industrial economy. And the drug companies do what they can to prevent anyone from improving it.
     
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Okay, so not individual investors.
    You do know that such securities have a maturity date, right?
    Cash typically loses value over time.
    They shouldn't own property?
    But you said the economy wasn't a zero-sum game?
    So healthcare and food are rights? But the drug companies are partially to blame?
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,820
    ? Individual investors do the investing.
    Do you have a point? You seem puzzled by the fact that the US rich are currently sitting on big piles of cash and non-productive or less productive stores of wealth, thereby dragging down the entire economy of the US. Is that news to you?
    Wrong poster - I did not mention rights of any kind.
    The drug companies are to blame for their share of the political influence that has preserved the stupidest and most expensive and worst performing health care system in the modern world.
    Of course. It isn't.
    You keep asking that very simple question - consider it answered, permanently.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2018
  17. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    What's so wrong with saving in a non-zero-sum economy?
    So all that talk about pregnant women and children and old people and injured or ill who couldn't afford treatment and nutrition had nothing to do with providing healthcare?
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It's open to interpretation. Even Mother Teresa was no friend to the poor, read Hitchen's critique of her, The Missionary Position.
     
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Really? Some people feel the need to criticize people who devote their lives to charity? That seems self-serving.
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    She doesn't deserve her reputation.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,820
    So you didn't have a point. Understood.
    Notice: nothing about "rights". You have the wrong poster.
     
  22. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,073
    Vociferous really needs to elaborate upon this "jealousy" aspect, as it seems to be one of his favorite stock rebuttals.
     
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Says the self-serving?
    No answer?
    So what point were you trying to make about charity?
    I'm sorry, do I need to give you a definition?
     

Share This Page