Putin calls USA a parasite on the world economy!

[Faux Pas]

Ponder this for a second. Cancer is the dedeferentiation of cells. In lymans terms a basal cell is born and has no function. This cell goes thhrough a deferentiation process trigered by RNAs and becomes a functional cell (skin cell, lung cell, etc.) Somewhere in the process one of the "switches" are turned off and RNAs go back sending messages that it is time to go back so the cell reverts to its basal form (dedeferentiation).
 
Now consider ED. There is a slew of conditions that give rise to ED. You name it and it is there. Impossible to determine. Somewhere in another universe there are pharmacological tests to determine marketability of an effective dosage for hypertension. This is a controlled experiment with human beings. This is typical; I participated in a few. The response was not the one expected. Too drastic a drop in BP but massive hard ons on all subjects. Oops, we found a gold mine. Spent countless hours and $$ to come out with an effective dose. Since this is a protected procedure, other pharmas have to start from scratch. Think about the money spent. (Getting to my point, bear with me)
In comes genome mapping. Not complete mapping, just what they need to know. Again, put a price figure on this. How long it took the other pharmas to challenge Viagra? A couple of years? At what cost?
 
Genome mapping. The most certain way to get to the bottom of dedeferentiation.
 
 
Did you hear me say it is wrong to have wealth beyond their wildest dreams?

I do understand and agree. However, you are entering another sphere here with intellectual property. Prolly, another topic

[BC]

BC

You lost me here. Either you completely misread my post/point. Which was, the advances of medical science is "because" of the capitalist system.

FP,

apologize.. I thought you referred to advances in diagnostic equipment and other such advancements.

As for the capitalistic approach, yes where business see's an 'in' with favorable economics, investments abound.

But all in all, I think there is a lot more 'bang for the buck' in the field of prevention.  I think the US would benefit most from allowing access to free preventative medicine and diagnostics.

I sort of recall that the tax on cigarettes would be geared towards finding a cure for lung cancer and covering health related costs - I may be wrong though..

How about the gasoline tax to build and maintain roads?

Maybe a 'burger tax' to combat obesity and related health implications?

I think taxes should serve a specific purpose and not end up in the general expenditure fund. - that's the only way taxes can be increased or decreased according to the actual demand...

But I think that's not happening.

Instead revenue is revenue and it does not have any relation to spending.

I'd like to see a defense tax and see how the public reacts to such.  Or a health tax.

An 'interest on the federal debt tax' would surely open eyes...

Breaking it down a bit in a visible fashion would at least let the common folk know what they are paying for.

[TheTraveler]

Maybe a 'burger tax' to combat obesity and related health implications?

If someone else chooses to smoke or eat too many cheeseburgers, why must he pay more to fund the government?
 
Besides, one of the most vocal, self-appointed members of the food police is Michelle Obama, and every time I turn around she's shoving some outrageously fatty or sugar-filled food into her mouth, only further enlarging her already big butt.
 
As long as they're only hurting themselves, I don't have a problem with people's personal bad habits.  It's part of living in a free society.

[Faux Pas]

FP,

apologize.. I thought you referred to advances in diagnostic equipment and other such advancements.

As for the capitalistic approach, yes where business see's an 'in' with favorable economics, investments abound.

But all in all, I think there is a lot more 'bang for the buck' in the field of prevention.  I think the US would benefit most from allowing access to free preventative medicine and diagnostics.

I agree wholeheartedly. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As it stands that is only a side-effect, by-product, if you will. The race to funded medical R&D started at the turn of the 20th century and has never looked back. Most all of the research is looking for a homerun rather than bunt singles. Homeruns or grandslams bring bigger bucks. Even with that in mind, mankind had benefitted greatly from this approach. Can you imagine medical science would be if it depended on funding from any of the world governments?

I sort of recall that the tax on cigarettes would be geared towards finding a cure for lung cancer and covering health related costs - I may be wrong though..

That was the initial fleeting idea. It didn't last long

How about the gasoline tax to build and maintain roads?

Maybe a 'burger tax' to combat obesity and related health implications?

I think taxes should serve a specific purpose and not end up in the general expenditure fund. - that's the only way taxes can be increased or decreased according to the actual demand...

But I think that's not happening.

Instead revenue is revenue and it does not have any relation to spending.

I'd like to see a defense tax and see how the public reacts to such.  Or a health tax.

An 'interest on the federal debt tax' would surely open eyes...

Breaking it down a bit in a visible fashion would at least let the common folk know what they are paying for.

Only in a perfect world. You may detect my complete distain for all politicians. It is for good reason. This is one of them, they never have the subject matter at heart when they enact new taxes on services or goods. To your run-of-the-mill politician, it is nothing but a revenue stream for funding the "cause du jour" or making some funds available to their district or themselves.


A number of states sued the tobacco companies and won a huge settlement that was divided among all the states. "Supposedly" these funds were to be used for tobacco education and prevention. The loophole was the states could do as they pleased with the money. Little if any of that money went to education and/or prevention. Immediately most states enacted stricter taxes on tobacco. My state passed numerous smoking laws and increased a $2 per pack tax on cigarettes. It was never about education/prevention or to help those who killed or damaged themselves with tobacco. It was only about making the Big Tobacco pay and more money for the politicos to shovel out.

[Gator]

As long as they're only hurting themselves, I don't have a problem with people's personal bad habits.  It's part of living in a free society.

However, WE pay for it with medicare if they live that long, and medicaid now if they have low income.
 
When I got knocked unconscious last winter I was taken to a Level III hospital ER by ambulance.  My sons picked me up when released, and we walked through the waiting room.  It looked like a crowded social gathering of the needy.   Just one observation and hopefully my last.

[Faux Pas]

However, WE pay for it with medicare if they live that long, and medicaid now if they have low income.
 
When I got knocked unconscious last winter I was taken to a Level III hospital ER by ambulance.  My sons picked me up when released, and we walked through the waiting room.  It looked like a crowded social gathering of the needy.   Just one observation and hopefully my last.

Gator there is the argument that no matter how many abuse themselves, the amount that you or I pay will always be the same. The idea that "we" pay for it is looking for a boogeyman  and highly subjective IMHO

[TheTraveler]

However, WE pay for it with medicare if they live that long, and medicaid now if they have low income.
 
When I got knocked unconscious last winter I was taken to a Level III hospital ER by ambulance.  My sons picked me up when released, and we walked through the waiting room.  It looked like a crowded social gathering of the needy.   Just one observation and hopefully my last.

If we're talking medicare and social security...
 
Which person collects more than what he paid into medicare/social security?...
 
the smoker who dies from lung cancer at age 60 before he ever gets to collect social security or medicare?... or mr. clean living who dies from <whatever> at age 90 after collecting 25 years worth of social security and medicare benefits?
 

[OlgaH]

Regarding tort awards, I understand the reasoning behind them on individual cases, yet taken on the whole it has reached a luxury level that we probably can not afford as a nation. Similarly, a strong military has always been important, yet it too has been taken to a level that we can not afford.

Luxury level for who? The tort reform first of all plays into hands of such doctors as Dr. Michael Rosin and the clinics who purposely misdiagnose patients and performs unnecessary treatments surgeries and sucking money not only from their patients but from Medicare. 

Who should pay for a person's disability physical or mental due to a doctor's imperfection and mistakes, due to a corporation's greed and irresponsibility? Taxpayers? 

Yes, each case is individual. But BS case means in general BS money or not any money at all.

The number of multimillion cases in comparison with number of cases where compensation doesn't reach even 300K and sometimes just 5K is a very small number.

Most cases are settled during mediation, and when a plaintiff asks for example for 500K it doesn't mean he will get it, his case can be settled for less, because every side counts its expenses, and every side understand the risk they take when they go to a trial. There is always someone from Insurance Company CEO presented during mediation calculating and making final decision to spend money on trial or to settle the case.

I also remember a case when a plaintiff's lawyer did not agree at mediation and the jury's award was absolutely 0. The lawyer had to "eat" his expenses.

[TheTraveler]

Who should pay for a person's disability physical or mental due to a doctor's imperfection and mistakes, due to a corporation's greed and irresponsibility? Taxpayers?

One could make a pretty good case that plaintiff's attorney greed is a big cost, too.
 
Perhaps the contingency fees should be capped at 25% maximum?... or maybe less?
 
When the plaintiff's attorney takes 40% of the jury award, that's money right out of the victim's pocket... money that could go a long way toward helping the victim support his disability.

[Anotherkiwi]

...But when put to paper, every lib proposal that I've seen regarding taxing the wealthy starts by increasing taxes on middle class families who earn $250K+ per year.

If they thought they had a valid point, why the need to be deceptive about whom they're targeting for redistribution?
 
The main relevance to RWD is that the average Russian woman is far too smart to not recognize the inherent class envy... and it's unattractive in a man.

Of course I don't live in the USA, so my thinking may be somewhat skewed (as we've had examples of in previous threads), but I think you're being somewhat disingenuous.  Whatever definition of "class" you come up with, most people would regard someone earning $250,000 a year as well-off or rich, even though they may well agree that "middle-class" is the easiest tag to define them.  We all know the difference between that person and Bill Gates, but the simple fact is that 99% of the people on earth (not just in your country) are never going to earn anything remotely near that figure.
 
Let's assume for the sake of argument that a flat tax rate of 25% was introduced, with no allowances to muddy the waters.  Your person on $250,000 still has $187,500 a year to play with after tax (enough to do pretty much anything they like), wheareas someone on $25,000 has only $18,750 left and would struggle to pay rent, let alone eat.
 
On a progressive tax scale you might get tax-free incomes of $150,000 and $22,500 respectively - still plenty of money for the first person, and now the second one can afford to eat every second day!
 
The "envy" which you refer to is not about the "class" as such - it's simply the envy of a better lifestyle, which is inherent in just about all of humankind!  Unattractive it may be in a man, but why should it be any less so in a woman?  If your wife (or potential future wife) is so materialistic, then you will have an awful lot of trouble in your future.

[OlgaH]

One could make a pretty good case that plaintiff's attorney greed is a big cost, too.
 
Perhaps the contingency fees should be capped at 25% maximum?... or maybe less?
 
When the plaintiff's attorney takes 40% of the jury award, that's money right out of the victim's pocket... money that could go a long way toward helping the victim support his disability.

The lawyers percentage varies. When the jury's award or a mediation settlement doesn't reach expected amount the lawyers down their percentage. If the case goes to "toilet" the lawyers eat all the expenses that sometimes over 100K. Plus lawyers have to pay for their firm running, pay to paralegals and assistants and so on (videographers, court reporters, photographers, illustrations, animation - accident recreation and many other expenses)  . They have to pay for mediators. 1 hour of doctors, experts' testimonies, statements, depositions cost from 2K to 10K.
Yes this is true that the more a lawyer gets for his client the more the lawyer gets too. The number of big rewards also shows how good a lawyer is. 

[Misha]

This from The Moscow Times:

"A new crisis would surely be terrible news for Russia in particular. It would lead to an significant drop in oil prices and the ruble, and we are already seeing the first signs of these downward trends since the meltdown began last week.

The Russian budget can remain balanced only if the price of oil holds at $115 per barrel. According to the Finance Ministry, if oil were to fall as low as $45 per barrel, Russia would be forced to borrow so much money that by the 2013-14 fiscal year government debt could amount to 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product."

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/us-meltdown-bodes-poorly-for-russia/441819.html#ixzz1UaP0voZF

Without the American "parasite" oil prices will collapse and if prices stay low, Russia's economy will follow.

[possum]

This from The Moscow Times:

"A new crisis would surely be terrible news for Russia in particular. It would lead to an significant drop in oil prices and the ruble, and we are already seeing the first signs of these downward trends since the meltdown began last week.

The Russian budget can remain balanced only if the price of oil holds at $115 per barrel. According to the Finance Ministry, if oil were to fall as low as $45 per barrel, Russia would be forced to borrow so much money that by the 2013-14 fiscal year government debt could amount to 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product."

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/us-meltdown-bodes-poorly-for-russia/441819.html#ixzz1UaP0voZF

Without the American "parasite" oil prices will collapse and if prices stay low, Russia's economy will follow.

You forgot to mention Putin's regime will collapse and the economy will begin to be diversified, so this could be a good thing.. To put it another way, America is responsible for the Putin regime.

[chivo]

Well it is in the opinion section.
 
There are a lot of holes in the article. First the benchmark price for oil to balance the budget has always been $70 per barrel, not $115. Secondly, oil hasn't reached $115 in 3 years with May of this year coming closest at $114 and change. And lastly, there are more if, and's or but's to last a lifetime for this person.
 
Oil basically has been around $90-100 constantly for the last couple of years with a few jumps here and there. The prediction was that if oil could sustain above $70 that the budget would balance around mid 2012. They have all but replenished the money in their reserve fund which they spent to stabiize the ruble back in 2008-09. And the biggest worry was/is oil would go to $120 per or more, which would give everyone here who can actually make a decision that matters  a "fools gold" mentality and put the thought of diversification on the back burner.
 
Oil will never stay under $50 long term (and I said this 3 years ago when most in the westen press and this forum were screaming about the fall of Russia, that oil would be below $30 per long term and the ruble would totally collapse). If it didn't happen during the crisis of 2008, it won't any time soon.
 
Just on a side note; did anyone really panic when the Dow lost 500+  points on Monday? My first thought was it would rebound on Tuesday, what a shock when I woke this morning to find it was up close to 500.
 
What a game the Wall St  fear mongers (and all associated) play with everyone. 
 

[Misha]

You forgot to mention Putin's regime will collapse and the economy will begin to be diversified, so this could be a good thing.. To put it another way, America is responsible for the Putin regime.

That is true. Were it not for high oil prices, Russia would be quite different today, and you are right likely much more diversified.

[BC]

You forgot to mention Putin's regime will collapse and the economy will begin to be diversified, so this could be a good thing.. To put it another way, America is responsible for the Putin regime.

With only 2% of oil imports to the US coming from Russia?  I doubt that makes much of a difference.

[possum]

That is true. Were it not for high oil prices, Russia would be quite different today, and you are right likely much more diversified.

Realistically, though, a simple regime change wouldn't do a whole lot to diversify the economy.. It would take more than that to make up for the 70 years of running in place, followed by 10 years of running in place facing the other way! 

[Misha]

With only 2% of oil imports to the US coming from Russia?  I doubt that makes much of a difference.

BC, you should understand that oil is a global commodity. If the price of crude oil sold in the United States goes down, then it goes down everywhere. The United States is still the world's largest consumer of crude oil and if their consumption goes down then global price of crude oil invariably goes down and the price that Russia gets for the oil its sells anywhere in the world goes down as well.

[Misha]

There are a lot of holes in the article. First the benchmark price for oil to balance the budget has always been $70 per barrel, not $115. Secondly, oil hasn't reached $115 in 3 years with May of this year coming closest at $114 and change. And lastly, there are more if, and's or but's to last a lifetime for this person.

Yes, and that is why the Russian Federation is now running a deficit. Fortunately for Russia, the price of oil was still quite high even though much of the world was in a recession. China can be thanked for that, but if we enter into another recession, that may not be enough to keep pushing oil prices higher.

Here is nonetheless another source citing Kudrin also affirming that Russia needs $115-a-barrel oil to balance its books:

The budget deficit may narrow to less than 0.5 percent of gross domestic product this year if oil prices average $115 a barrel, according to Kudrin.

Oil prices tumbled to the lowest level in four months today after the International Energy Agency said its members would release crude from strategic reserves. Urals crude, Russia’s benchmark export blend, has averaged about $108 a barrel this year and dropped 5.2 percent to $105.83 today.

By 2015, Russia won’t be able to cover the shortfall in the pension fund even if oil stays at the current break-even level of $115, Ulatov said.

 
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/russia-may-face-debt-crisis-like-greece-by-2030-world-bank-says.html

[BC]

BC, you should understand that oil is a global commodity. If the price of crude oil sold in the United States goes down, then it goes down everywhere. The United States is still the world's largest consumer of crude oil and if their consumption goes down then global price of crude oil invariably goes down and the price that Russia gets for the oil its sells anywhere in the world goes down as well.

Yes, that is understood, but the rest of the world needs oil too and RU is a major supplier for both EU and China.  In addition if oil prices take a big dump, producers will reduce output raising prices.  Why work for less? 

Just saying there are some buffers and compensation factors.

In any case I believe RU has a 'heads up' about diversification and are doing things to try and compensate.  Internal reforms will continue to be slow, but by most modern measures they are doing ok and have good potential to improve.  I see their outlook as positive.

Look at where they were just a couple decades back..  It's hard to say they haven't achieved anything.. In fact for a relatively short period of time they have accomplished a lot.  They surely are not immune to crisis, but are resilient, even more so than we in the west.

[BC]

By 2015, Russia won’t be able to cover the shortfall in the pension fund even if oil stays at the current break-even level of $115, Ulatov said.

What's the US outlook for 2015?

[Misha]

Yes, that is understood, but the rest of the world needs oil too and RU is a major supplier for both EU and China.

Sure, and we all know the problems that Europe is facing and that China risks facing.

In addition if oil prices take a big dump, producers will reduce output raising prices.  Why work for less?

Or, they will try to sell as much as they can because they are desperate for money driving prices down even more... 

Just saying there are some buffers and compensation factors.

Sure, but there are no guarantees that oil prices will stay high.

In any case I believe RU has a 'heads up' about diversification and are doing things to try and compensate.

What have they done so far? In the last decade, what new industries have been built in Russia? How have they diversified their economy when they had billions in budget surpluses? They haven't really invested what they had to in the oil and gas sector to ensure that they will be able to maintain production in the medium term and its largest company, GAZPROM, is IIRC $70 billion dollars in debt... 

Internal reforms will continue to be slow

In other words nonexistent.

but by most modern measures they are doing ok

Sure, they are doing better than Zimbabwe

and have good potential to improve.

All countries have potential to improve. 

I see their outlook as positive.

I am not quite as optimistic.

Look at where they were just a couple decades back..  It's hard to say they haven't achieved anything.. In fact for a relatively short period of time they have accomplished a lot.  They surely are not immune to crisis, but are resilient, even more so than we in the west.

In many ways they are still living parasitically off what was achieved in the Soviet epoch. The military is practically using what was developed in Soviet times, the oil and gas industry is living off what drilled and developed in Soviet times, etc....


In other words, it is the Soviet Union with a facelift 

[SFandEE]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAdsdlq42nE[/youtube]


Some posters on this thread have been confused about the concept of institutional corruption in the US (banks, oil, government, healthcare, military) that leads to parasitic behavior by non-traditional parasites as defined by Republicans and Democrats. 


This "Network" moment on Tuesday 8/9/11 by Dylan Ratigan does a good job of hopefully taking this out of politics and talking points, by putting the concept into rolling up sleeves and getting to work at removing the institutional corruption that rigs America to be a parasite and has created a serf class in the US.


Number one debtor nation
Number one importer
Number one salesman of military

[tfcrew]

Don't mention it, always glad to help the poor natives with their own language.

 Sideline...
Flu is called gripa in Spanish and also in Russian [грипп] .

[Muzh]

Sideline...
Flu is called gripa in Spanish and also in Russian [грипп] .

Ahem, gripE in Spanish, but I give you the similarity.
 
Many times I ask my wife what she just said when talking to her family and she translates to English. Same word or very similar in Spanish whatever I ask her to translate.
 
Edit to add: I forgot you are saying it in English. The E in Spanish is pronounced like A in English. So, you are (sort of) correct.