Just saw this film. High caliber stuff. Highly recommended.
Quick fun fact: It was directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, director of S1 True Detective
374 karma · joined November 5, 2014
Quick fun fact: It was directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, director of S1 True Detective
Lots of billion dollar medical companies have leading politicians on their board. Donald Rumsfeld was on the board for Gilead Sciences. It is vital for these businesses that to be on good terms with the government, as it is the government helps define what is allowed.
Some would argue that this is just a form of corruption which endangers the lives of patients worldwide.
The only reason why we banned online gambling was banned was because of Sheldon Adelson's lobbying, not because of some inherent moral corruption.
He argues that one of the biggest factors of the prison boom is with the DA having to be 'tough on crime' to further future political ambitions. I don't think anyone can argue with this, as historically being 'tough on crime' has been a vote getter.
A few other factors I think are worthy of considering:
1) The financial incentives of the for profit prison system (which includes for profit prisons, prison guard unions, bail bond industry) which advocates for harsher sentences.
2) The political incentives of having a larger prison population. Many congressmen fight to have a prison in their district for two main reasons. First, it brings jobs to their community. Second, and more importantly, it increases the count of people who they 'represent' even though the felons are not allowed to vote!
3) The criminalization of mental illness- We used to heavily fund mental hospitals. This has been chipped away dramatically starting in the 1980s.
4) Average lifespan of prisoners increasing- I would assume that the average prisoner's lifespan is increasing, hence a bigger prison population. No real evidence to back this up.
5) Drug criminalization leads to more criminals- The professor argues that the population who are in prison for drugs alone is only a small percentage, and that the rest are due violent crimes and property crimes. This is misleading as drug criminalization naturally leads to more criminal activities in other fields. By pushing drugs underground, a group of people will be inevitably become comfortable with the underground. Secondly, drug criminalization leads to higher drug prices, which leads to more property crimes to fuel addiction. Lastly, drug criminalization means people are less likely to get help for their drug problems, increasing the chances they will become socially maladaptive and more likely to develop violent behaviors.
6) The gutting of public defenders- Tied to what the professor argued but surprisingly not really mentioned. Public defenders are extremely underfunded, hence a high likelihood of losing your court case. This in turn leads to a higher prison population.
7) Discrimination against prisoners- As our economy gets more and more competitive, and as background information becomes easier to obtain, it is getting harder and harder for prisoners to get a job. Tied to point #5, a person who would be arrested for drugs could have his future economic career ruined. He has a higher likelihood of reverting back to crime, hence a higher prison population.
8) The removal and policing of public space- One thing I noticed is that public spaces (i.e. parks, stoops, etc) have been routinely removed to make space for private retail. It's way easier to call the cops when you are angering the property owner than if you are on public property. And in those public spaces, you are subject to way more laws (i.e. public intoxication). So it should be no surprise that we have a higher prison population if we're systematically policing more and more areas.
Many of these problems stem back to Reagan in the 1980s with America took a decidedly right-wing turn. Glad to see society is finally changing what it thinks about the over-criminalization of society.
I, for one, have given up on hoping the government will enact forward thinking policies.
How many Democrats are critical of pharmaceutical companies? Barely any.
1) Have full transparency of the placebos being used. Many studies that are published don't fully disclose the placebo being used. Full release should really mean full release.
2) Movement way from the for-profit journal system to a not-for-profit system, to prevent obvious conflicts of interest. Full release means nothing if the means in which information travels is biased.
3) Reining in the benefits pharmaceutical companies can give researchers and doctors. A number of studies have shown even the smallest of gifts can change a doctor's propensity to prescribe a specific drug. Surprisingly this can be as powerful as a journal article.
4) Passing real legislation to reduce the revolving door between the FDA and the rest of the medical industry to prevent a number of other problems.
With the pharmaceutical industry, however, there is no such check. To go against Pharma as a Republican is to go against big business. To go against Pharma as a Democrat is to go against "Science." Add millions and millions spent on lobbying and deceptive PR, you have a very powerful lobby.
It's like eating healthy food. It's a habit you take up to help prevent situations from developing.
1) The only way VCs can make large amount of money for their investors is via a liquidity event. Investors would much rather prefer .25% of a 1B dollar public company than 25% 10M dollar private company, because you can liquidate the former far more easily.
2) Overhead costs are significantly less when you focus on fewer companies, which is what happens when you push all companies to be a unicorn. A VC would much rather care about 5 companies with significant promise than 500 small companies. In the latter situation, you would need way more employees to make sure your investments are safe.
3) Funding a few unicorns is better for marketing purposes. VCs need to raise money from institutional investors, hence need to "wow" them.
Tangential note: I find creating interactive diagrams like these incredibly useful for discussing complicated fields of study. Right now the best programs we have to discuss ideas is Microsoft Word, which is woefully inadequate.
Basically purchase aspiring start-ups that hit some troubled time scaling (Polyvore seemed to be running into some monetization issues). By putting the digital properties into Yahoo's network, the acquired company get lots of free traffic + better monetization (Yahoo already has a great brand sales department + the data Yahoo might have on people could make more engaging ad programmes).
Uber will remain here and their rides will stay cheap. I am, however, very concerned about their drivers. Many of them are making huge investments purchasing new cars with the implicit (and sometimes borderline explicit, depending on the marketing rep you talk to at Uber) that they can have guaranteed work and a guaranteed wage. If über decides to cut driver wages in half and pocket the profits, drivers will be out of luck. This can be catastrophic for poor families, which will be basically be forced into wage slavery. This will have huge effects on the community as Uber gets bigger.
We can all point to how Taxi unions and their lobbyists are evil (as a colored man, it's difficult for me to get picked up by one), how awesome Uber is w/ their investments in autonomous cars, and the free markets are great...but we need real employee protections in this country.
We need real protection for drivers who are making a huge investment. This doesn't have to hurt consumers either, as über can still remain insanely profitable while maintaining lower prices.
Edit: Removed the umlauts
However, a few counter-points:
1) Brand value is critical. Look at Coke and Pepsi. Anyone can create a cola competitor, but no one can conceivably do better than these two. On internet properties, brand value is still important. Look at Priceline.com and Expedia. They still worth billions.
2) AirBnB has operational expertise that no one else has, in large part because they've been solving this problem w/ more funds and more man-hours than all of their competitors combined. More operational expertise = better service = beats out competition.
3) AirBnB is capitalized enough to buy out start-up competitors. Right now, most investors doubt someone can take on AirBnB. As such, most investors will push founders to go for an exit whenever possible.