Worst person of the year

[The Captain]

Sept 28, 2015 14:21:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 28, 2015 14:07:32 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Is that why so many other countries have a lower poverty rate than the USA? Because you do more to help the poor than any other country on earth?

Myth....meet reality.

Not True...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

[djAdvocate]

Sept 28, 2015 14:26:07 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Sept 28, 2015 14:21:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Myth....meet reality.

Not True...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

i was referring to poverty statistics.  so was weltz.  and it is a fact:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/

we are 34th in child poverty among developed nations.  i really don't understand how we can thump our chests and say how great we are with statistics like this, which are not only profoundly embarrassing, but absolutely fixable.

[weltschmerz]

Sept 28, 2015 14:26:07 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Sept 28, 2015 14:21:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Myth....meet reality.

Not True...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

We're talking about raising the poor out of poverty. Giving to an animal rights NGO or the Mormon church to buy up more shopping centers doesn't really count.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 28, 2015 14:35:45 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Sept 28, 2015 14:26:07 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Not True...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

We're talking about raising the poor out of poverty. Giving to an animal rights NGO or the Mormon church to buy up more shopping centers doesn't really count.

furthermore, that index is based on a response to these questions:

Gallup asked people which of the following three charitable acts they had undertaken in the past month:[2]

donated money to an organisation?
volunteered time to an organisation?
helped a stranger, or someone they didn’t know who needed help?

and sure, we are a giving people.  not going to take anything away from that.  but on a $ PER CAPITA BASIS we have a lot of room for improvement, there, as well:



it seems like we could learn a lot from Finland both in terms of charitable giving AND in terms of poverty. 

[weltschmerz]

You're 34th out of 35 in child poverty. Not much to thump your chests about.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/

However, keep insisting you do more to lift the poor out of poverty than any other country! It's cute.

Yet another FAIL from PBP. At least you're consistent.

[The Captain]

Sept 28, 2015 14:32:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 28, 2015 14:26:07 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Not True...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

i was referring to poverty statistics.  so was weltz.  and it is a fact:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/

we are 34th in child poverty among developed nations.  i really don't understand how we can thump our chests and say how great we are with statistics like this, which are not only profoundly embarrassing, but absolutely fixable.

Those charts measure household income only. To a certain extent it is fixable, and patches are already in place.

I would like to see the same charts once social support (such as WIC, SNAP, Medciaid, EIC, childcare subsidies, TANF, housing subsidies, etc) are factored in. 

In addition, I also challenge how the baseline for "poverty" is determined. From the article:

More than one in five American children fall below a relative poverty line, which UNICEF defines as living in a household that earns less than half of the national median.

As one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, the median is going to be comparatively higher than other nations measured.   Now I acknowledge the income gap is driving increasing disparaties, but that is a whole different topic for discussion.  The demographics hardest hit by the last recession is also the most likely to have higher birth rates (younger people, recent immigrants, etc). 

I once lived in an area where the majority of the school children qualified for free lunches.  I must be a pretty simple person because I didn't see standards of living that were different (and honestly - better) than what I had growing up.

Finally, people tend to have children in their younger years when their income has not yet hit it's peak.  That simple reason alone puts children in a demographic where the household income will tend to be less than the national median.

The logic used for measurement is flawed in many ways.

[djAdvocate]

ok, fine- this is from the CIA World Factbook.  i am presuming you are OK with that source and that methodology.



not as bad as the child poverty numbers, but plenty of room for improvement.  and no, we are not Africa.

[djAdvocate]

i would like to add one more thing, if i may.

the way that we treat child welfare in the US is systematically underreported and repressed in the US.  i have been watching this carefully since i read an article on it in 1995, which was voted the most censored story that year by Project Censored.

[weltschmerz]

Those charts measure household income only. To a certain extent it is fixable, and patches are already in place.

I would like to see the same charts once social support (such as WIC, SNAP, Medciaid, EIC, childcare subsidies, TANF, housing subsidies, etc) are factored in.

In that case, you'd also have to factor in the social support of other countries, such as welfare, aid to families with dependent children, childcare subsidies and housing subsidies. It's not only the US that has them.

You'd still be near the very bottom.

[fishy999]

Sept 28, 2015 7:34:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 24, 2015 12:39:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this kind of incident is why socialism seems appealing to a fairly wide segment of the population.

Including, apparently, the worst person of the year.  It's like he's crying out for someone to stop him, lol...

And even if true- judging by your posts that are at best questionable- what the hell does a political party have to do with this jerk?  Kim Davis is a hero and a Democrat- well until she switched parties after the Cruz/Huckabee love vest that is going to get her a book and a tour on the right wing talk circuit.

[fishy999]

Go away Zimmerman- the right wing has a new flawed hero to hitch their shitwagon to



***BTW George is retweeting pictures of the body of the kid he killed now and bragging about it- way to pick 'em folks.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 28, 2015 22:10:46 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Sept 28, 2015 7:34:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Including, apparently, the worst person of the year.  It's like he's crying out for someone to stop him, lol...

And even if true- judging by your posts that are at best questionable- what the hell does a political party have to do with this jerk?  Kim Davis is a hero and a Democrat- well until she switched parties after the Cruz/Huckabee love vest that is going to get her a book and a tour on the right wing talk circuit.

It sounds like you are doubting me.  You should not doubt me.  Ever. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 28, 2015 22:14:28 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Go away Zimmerman- the right wing has a new flawed hero to hitch their shitwagon to



***BTW George is retweeting pictures of the body of the kid he killed now and bragging about it- way to pick 'em folks.

You realize that idiot is a democrat, too, right?

[fishy999]

Suuure man- Zimmerman, Davis, Schlockhole or whatever his name is are all demoncrats right?  If you thought for two goddamn seconds you would realize the flaw in your thinking.  If you do not know what that problem is then accept the fact you are a large part of it.

[weltschmerz]

Sept 28, 2015 13:58:58 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

and who here thinks that we have the best prison system in the world, in terms of cost, efficiency, justice, and humane treatment? anyone?

We have the best prison system if the goals are to generate private profits from incarcerating people, and producing better criminals than the ones we sent to jail in the first place.

If the goal is to prepare criminals for a productive life post incarceration, then we suck.

Our prisons here are so overcrowded that the local constabulary is forced to bring suspects home with them.

www.ctvnews.ca/canada/stubborn-goat-arrested-after-refusing-to-leave-saskatchewan-tim-hortons-1.2585279

[happyhoix]

Sept 28, 2015 22:14:28 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Go away Zimmerman- the right wing has a new flawed hero to hitch their shitwagon to



***BTW George is retweeting pictures of the body of the kid he killed now and bragging about it- way to pick 'em folks.

Zimmerman is an idiot, and sooner or later a relative of the kid he shot is going to find Zimmerman in a dark alley and blow him away.

I don't approve of vigilante justice, but when you start bragging about getting away with shooting an unarmed kid, that's poking karma with a stick.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 28, 2015 22:24:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Suuure man- Zimmerman, Davis, Schlockhole or whatever his name is are all demoncrats right?  If you thought for two goddamn seconds you would realize the flaw in your thinking.  If you do not know what that problem is then accept the fact you are a large part of it.

Just as a courtesy, you're all out of posts which ignore the issue and take it to the personal.  I never report a poster without first giving them a heads up where they're headed.  If you want to address any of the issues I've brought up-- for example, if you doubt the information which has been supplied to you, you could refute it citing your sources.  

The problem is big government, plain and simple.  This man made a fortune as a hedge fund trader by lobbying bureaucrats to keep drugs off the market while shorting the stock. This doesn't work when you can't lobby government to wield enormous power to act on your behalf.  And the solution to the problem is certainly not to give that same government more power.  I understand that people don't experience invisible harm directly.  The people that suffered, the people that died because this man successfully lobbied government to keep treatments from them will never know why. It is difficult to explain the complex ways government hurts ordinary people every day.  Alternatively, it is relatively simple to promise government will "help" you.  All you have to do is say it, and people instinctively want to be helped.  It is difficult to be on the other side of the claim that government will, or even that government can help, in spite of the fact that we are armed with all the fact and information because our argument can be boiled down by advocates for big government to: those mean old nasty conservatives are just selfish and don't want to help you.  It is an argument fueled by deception by people like this guy who know full well how they benefit from the harm government does; and fueled by desperation of those that need help from someone, somewhere; and fueled by the ignorance of the masses who vote- but who do not necessarily think.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 29, 2015 7:14:19 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 28, 2015 22:14:28 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Go away Zimmerman- the right wing has a new flawed hero to hitch their shitwagon to



***BTW George is retweeting pictures of the body of the kid he killed now and bragging about it- way to pick 'em folks.

Zimmerman is an idiot, and sooner or later a relative of the kid he shot is going to find Zimmerman in a dark alley and blow him away.

I don't approve of vigilante justice, but when you start bragging about getting away with shooting an unarmed kid, that's poking karma with a stick.

Zimmerman has nothing to do with this issue. It was just a bomb lobbed into the thread to avoid discussing the issue.

[The Captain]

Sept 28, 2015 17:11:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, fine- this is from the CIA World Factbook.  i am presuming you are OK with that source and that methodology.



not as bad as the child poverty numbers, but plenty of room for improvement.  and no, we are not Africa.

DJ - I'm not trying to be difficult, but I will never say I'm comfortable with a source and mythodology unless I have a chance to look at the data and criteria used to establish a result. 

Just like using anything as half of a national average in a very wealthy country as a baseline to call a standard of living "poverty" is laughable, I don't know what the baseline or unit of measurement was for the above chart.

[The Captain]

Sept 28, 2015 17:17:29 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Those charts measure household income only. To a certain extent it is fixable, and patches are already in place.

I would like to see the same charts once social support (such as WIC, SNAP, Medciaid, EIC, childcare subsidies, TANF, housing subsidies, etc) are factored in.

In that case, you'd also have to factor in the social support of other countries, such as welfare, aid to families with dependent children, childcare subsidies and housing subsidies. It's not only the US that has them.

You'd still be near the very bottom.

Do you know that for a fact?  Do you have a source for your assumption?

Using the same argument, you 'd also need to factor in the average age of the mother at first birth.  Not surprisingly there is a very high correlation between poverty and having children at a young age.  Shocker I know, but true.

I'd love to see a chart by country that compared the childhood poverty rate by country when the age of the mother at first birth was 28.  What do you think that would look like?

I also go back to DJ's post, define poverty in a term most parties would agree is truly representative of what the word is supposed to mean, then come up with a measurement, and I will argue that US children living in "poverty" still have enormous advantages over most of the world.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

overlawyered.com/2015/09/yes-that-750-generic-pill-is-a-pure-artifact-of-regulation/?utm_content=buffer1b847&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Yes, that $750 generic pill is a pure artifact of regulation

As you probably know if you follow the news, a man named Martin Shkreli in charge of a startup firm called Turing Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to a drug called pyrimethamine (brand name Daraprim), used in the treatment of AIDS and malaria, and announced that he was jacking up its price from $13.60 to $750. Massive outrage resulted, which has echoed through social media for the past week.

Pyrimethamine is long since off patent. It is not difficult to manufacture, and sells cheaply in Europe. But under the distinctive food and drug laws of the United States you can’t just start turning out pills in your factory to compete with Shkreli, at least not without compiling and submitting a huge pile of regulatory paper with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This calls on the services of lawyers and scientists, costs a lot of money, and takes time, and you might or might not be able to recover the costs from the relatively small pool of users.

Alex Tabarrok and commenters explain, and pharmaceutical blogger Derek Lowe has much more detail in a series of posts:

The FDA grants market exclusivity to companies that are willing to take “grandfathered” compounds into compliance with their current regulatory framework, and that’s led to some ridiculous situations with drugs like colchicine and progesterone. (Perhaps the worst example is a company that’s using this technique to get ahold of a drug that’s currently being provided at no charge whatsoever).

Among laws that used the “marketing exclusivity” technique to award monopolies on older drugs, on the logic that otherwise no one would step forward to handle the heavy costs of getting those drugs regulatory clearance, were the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, better known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, originally introduced by Sen. Charles Mathias (R-Md.), and the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) (We covered the issue briefly in this 2011 post.) In various ways that backers appear not to have foreseen, opportunistic actors have succeeded in seizing the legal-monopoly status made available for various compounds without always providing as much public benefit in return as had been expected. To enforce their legal monopoly, some of these companies sue rival drugmakers to force them to pull their competing offerings off the market.

Underlying it all — but seldom asked — was whether the gigantic costs of regulatory approval are really a necessary evil. Libertarian-minded critics were especially inclined to question whether hugely expensive studies and paperwork should really be required in the case of grandfathered or “generally recognized as safe” drugs, many of which have been familiar to the medical profession for decades or even centuries, allowing for a collective sense to emerge of their safety and effectiveness. But the view that progressives tended to champion — which prevailed — was that older compounds and those used for rare diseases should be held to no less stringent a standard than any other, and should either be withdrawn from the market or have their safety and effectiveness proved at someone’s expense.

At the Niskanen Center, Will Wilkinson ties together several of these themes. “Martin Shkreli… bought himself a monopoly made entirely of health-and-safety red tape,” he notes. The most-hated businessperson of the year is “cashing in precisely because the American pharmaceutical market is so far from free.”

Meanwhile, today’s moralistic politicians denounce the resulting fiasco without acknowledging the role of yesterday’s moralistic politicians in helping to bring it about (cross-posted in adapted form at Cato at Liberty).

[djAdvocate]

Sept 29, 2015 8:34:52 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Sept 28, 2015 17:11:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, fine- this is from the CIA World Factbook.  i am presuming you are OK with that source and that methodology.



not as bad as the child poverty numbers, but plenty of room for improvement.  and no, we are not Africa.

DJ - I'm not trying to be difficult, but I will never say I'm comfortable with a source and mythodology unless I have a chance to look at the data and criteria used to establish a result. 

Just like using anything as half of a national average in a very wealthy country as a baseline to call a standard of living "poverty" is laughable, I don't know what the baseline or unit of measurement was for the above chart.

i would tell you, but i can't honestly remember.  i knew at one time, but have forgotten.

[fishy999]

Sept 29, 2015 7:59:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 28, 2015 22:24:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Suuure man- Zimmerman, Davis, Schlockhole or whatever his name is are all demoncrats right?  If you thought for two goddamn seconds you would realize the flaw in your thinking.  If you do not know what that problem is then accept the fact you are a large part of it.

Just as a courtesy, you're all out of posts which ignore the issue and take it to the personal.  I never report a poster without first giving them a heads up where they're headed.  If you want to address any of the issues I've brought up-- for example, if you doubt the information which has been supplied to you, you could refute it citing your sources.  

The problem is big government, plain and simple.  This man made a fortune as a hedge fund trader by lobbying bureaucrats to keep drugs off the market while shorting the stock. This doesn't work when you can't lobby government to wield enormous power to act on your behalf.  And the solution to the problem is certainly not to give that same government more power.  I understand that people don't experience invisible harm directly.  The people that suffered, the people that died because this man successfully lobbied government to keep treatments from them will never know why. It is difficult to explain the complex ways government hurts ordinary people every day.  Alternatively, it is relatively simple to promise government will "help" you.  All you have to do is say it, and people instinctively want to be helped.  It is difficult to be on the other side of the claim that government will, or even that government can help, in spite of the fact that we are armed with all the fact and information because our argument can be boiled down by advocates for big government to: those mean old nasty conservatives are just selfish and don't want to help you.  It is an argument fueled by deception by people like this guy who know full well how they benefit from the harm government does; and fueled by desperation of those that need help from someone, somewhere; and fueled by the ignorance of the masses who vote- but who do not necessarily think.

You took the discussion into political waters posting a stupid picture containing some 'fact' (I'll take it on your word) that the loser gave money to Democrats with the 'occupy liberals' message in the photo.  You want to claim that is not an insult to some people?  I bet the guy gave money to Republicans as well- could even research that but it isn't the point.

You are part of the problem in this country because everything has to be black and white, us vs. them with you.  You could have made the government is the problem argument without any of that but you didn't- so don't be surprised when you catch a little flak when you intentionally stir the pot.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 29, 2015 21:44:26 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Sept 29, 2015 7:59:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Just as a courtesy, you're all out of posts which ignore the issue and take it to the personal.  I never report a poster without first giving them a heads up where they're headed.  If you want to address any of the issues I've brought up-- for example, if you doubt the information which has been supplied to you, you could refute it citing your sources.  

The problem is big government, plain and simple.  This man made a fortune as a hedge fund trader by lobbying bureaucrats to keep drugs off the market while shorting the stock. This doesn't work when you can't lobby government to wield enormous power to act on your behalf.  And the solution to the problem is certainly not to give that same government more power.  I understand that people don't experience invisible harm directly.  The people that suffered, the people that died because this man successfully lobbied government to keep treatments from them will never know why. It is difficult to explain the complex ways government hurts ordinary people every day.  Alternatively, it is relatively simple to promise government will "help" you.  All you have to do is say it, and people instinctively want to be helped.  It is difficult to be on the other side of the claim that government will, or even that government can help, in spite of the fact that we are armed with all the fact and information because our argument can be boiled down by advocates for big government to: those mean old nasty conservatives are just selfish and don't want to help you.  It is an argument fueled by deception by people like this guy who know full well how they benefit from the harm government does; and fueled by desperation of those that need help from someone, somewhere; and fueled by the ignorance of the masses who vote- but who do not necessarily think.

You took the discussion into political waters posting a stupid picture containing some 'fact' (I'll take it on your word) that the loser gave money to Democrats with the 'occupy liberals' message in the photo.  You want to claim that is not an insult to some people?  I bet the guy gave money to Republicans as well- could even research that but it isn't the point.

You are part of the problem in this country because everything has to be black and white, us vs. them with you.  You could have made the government is the problem argument without any of that but you didn't- so don't be surprised when you catch a little flak when you intentionally stir the pot.

Well, you're obviously new here.  Of course I find it particularly amusing when liberals are caught with one of their own violating their impossible not to violate "principles" like nobody should ever make a billion dollars because who needs that much money, and why doesn't government take it and do good with it, but I'm just going to ignore the fact that if people knew it would just be taken from it, there'd be nothing to take and no good to do because why would someone earn that much money in the first place if they knew it would just be taken and Venezuela what? Where's that? I don't know what you're talking about. 

[fishy999]

How were liberals 'caught'?  Nothing wrong with making a billion dollars either- depends on how you make it and what you do with it- that's where the scrutiny lies.

I take issue with you because your argument goes down the same old senseless road-  some one shoots up a school (must have been a liberal), Zimmerman- liberal, this guy- liberal.  So I mention the heroes on the other side of the fence, strangely also Zimmerman the liberal, Kim Davis the liberal, Bundy the racist criminal, and others.

So do you want to claim this guy and put him in the lunatic binder with George and Kim- who are obvious Republicans now?  We don't want him.  That's why the topic was worst person of the year, not worst liberal or conservative person of the year

After all that- you have a good point about the FDA and there is no doubt that needs improvement- any drug this old and cheap to manufacture should not have high barriers to competition that provide such an opportunity to come in and price gouge the country.

Talked to a friend of mine who is a surgeon about this guy- and the way he explained it this guy did nothing but but buy the rights, set up a shell company and simply buys the product from the same people that have been manufacturing it, slaps a new price tag on it and resells it- no doctors, researchers, squat working for this company- so the claim of using the money for R& for a better drug that is not needed to start with is just hot air.  He also said this same kind of thing happened a while back with another drug that suddenly got expensive but that it wasn't overnight like this- something that the vet industry picked up on first- can't remember what it was.  It is shameful whatever it was.

[fishy999]

Scary I mention school shootings and the next day- here we go again.

So Mr. Paul would you like to call out this latest madman as a liberal?  

[djAdvocate]

Oct 23, 2015 8:13:09 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

And the latest on the Worst Person and his drug scam.....

www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/imprimis-offers-dollar1-alternative-to-turings-dollar750-pill/ar-BBmlUI2?li=BBgzzfc

A specialty drugmaker said it would sell for less than $1 a version of Daraprim, an anti-infective drug at the heart of allegations of "price gouging" involving Turing Pharmaceuticals after it hiked the price by over 5,000 percent to $750 a pill.

Ha, ha... the free market at it's best!

indeed.