Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 370: Trial of Tears

(+) Yeah! (+)

I know everyone here knows that political campaign fundraising is generally predatory, the GOP fundraising especially so. This article does a good job of quantifying that, and these sections really stood out to me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donations.html

Unlike ActBlue, which is a nonprofit, WinRed is a for-profit company. It makes its money by taking 30 cents of every donation, plus 3.8 percent of the amount given.

Republicans widely hailed WinRed as one of the standout successes of the 2020 cycle, and in a memo last October the company declared itself the trusted, recognizable platform for Republican giving. Scam PACs, shady operators and outright fraud is unfortunately a common occurrence in the online political donation world particularly on the right, the memo stated. WinRed helps civilize the Wild West of the G.O.P. donation ecosystem.

---

Just watched the 15 minute video with aoc. Lots of complaining about nothing to me. Republicans are ghouls, fix your shit Biden. Exactly what I expected

---

Peace___Frog posted...

I know everyone here knows that political campaign fundraising is generally predatory, the GOP fundraising especially so. This article does a good job of quantifying that, and these sections really stood out to me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donations.html

Sounds like a good thing for demorcrats if you want less donations going to trying to win elections by Republicans!

---

masterplum posted...

Sounds like a good thing for demorcrats if you want less donations going to trying to win elections by Republicans!

Imagine a world where we want people not to be defrauded.

---

I might think my mother's husband is a confused moron with suspect morals, but I don't want him to be defrauded!

Potentially good news? Really hope Biden goes through with this
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1375556267050217477

---

Peace___Frog posted...

I might think my mother's husband is a confused moron with suspect morals, but I don't want him to be defrauded!

Potentially good news? Really hope Biden goes through with this
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1375556267050217477

I think this is a really interesting question actually. I think this is the sort of thing you need to do before the research is done.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Just watched the 15 minute video with aoc. Lots of complaining about nothing to me. Republicans are ghouls, fix your shit Biden. Exactly what I expected

Don't let the truth get in the way of sensationalism.
---

masterplum posted...

I think this is a really interesting question actually. I think this is the sort of thing you need to do before the research is done.

What research are you talking about? If there's no patent enforced on proven vaccines, backed by the WHO and first world countries, then the rest of the world can get vaccinated more quickly instead of being left in the dust.

As things stand right now, we're withholding life saving medication from millions of people for no good reason.

---

I think what plum is getting at is that any such IP protection issues would need to be agreed upon before R&D starts - i.e. companies would need to know they're developing a vaccine they can't profit off of (besides the government infusing them with cash to get them to do so.)

It's a very... capitalism problem. From a moral standpoint I think you drop the IP protections to try and help as many people as you can by removing barriers from mass production and distribution that intellectual property protections could cause. But from a capitalism standpoint (not endorsing this view, just saying) the idea that you develop a product under the impression that you can own and profit from it only for the government to go "nah" would play a factor in how willing they might be to spend resources to develop vaccines for a future pandemic because from a pure money/capitalism standpoint you're looking at the profit motive over any moral imperative. In theory they'd be interconnected (not doing something so odious as profiteering off a vaccine in a global pandemic would generate goodwill you could try and build on in the future, etc.) but this post-capitalism society? lol.

---

Maybe we shouldn't expect to profit from saving people's lives an indefinite amount.

---

that would be my position yes

I just think that's the angle plum is raising there.

---

Doing that could help a lot for this pandemic but hurt a lot for the next one. The problem is that it would set a very strong disincentive to actually develop vaccines in the future.

The right way to do it, I think, would be for the government to offer to buy out their patents.

---

Fun fact if we offer them one hundred million instead of 900 million they will still develop for the 100 million profit.

Time to end endless greed when it leads to death.

---

Yeah its a problem because we aren't going to wipe capitalism from the planet and covid 19 is more likely to be a sign of future trends than a once in a lifetime virus.

We had a few close calls since SARS and global travel has only grown in the years since.

LordoftheMorons posted...

The right way to do it, I think, would be for the government to offer to buy out their patents.

That makes sense, but what if the companies all decline the offer because it would make them less money? Do we force them to take the deal?
---

The real solution is investing in global pandemic tracking and control to prevent needing another vaccine like this.

Unfortunately the Trump administration made this more difficult both from a resource standpoint and continued to put strain on the relationship with China which would be a necessary partner on any venture.

Xeybozn posted...

That makes sense, but what if the companies all decline the offer because it would make them less money? Do we force them to take the deal?

I think forcing them to take it would be net bad. If they all refuse the government can always offer more money.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The problem is that it would set a very strong disincentive to actually develop vaccines in the future.

People will defend this.

The Trump administration put 10 billion dollars towards research and development of the vaccine already.

If any shithead biotech company capable and/or willing to develop vaccines for absurd profits decide doing nothing is more worthwhile than developing for the public good, then the government can fund someone else. Im not talking about these people working for free, but when researchers get paid their regular wage and biotech execs get hundreds of billions, I have zero empathy for them.

Not sorry.

---

"But if we tax the rich they'll leave the country"
"But if we don't let Uber/Doordash/Instacart write their own rules they'll leave the state"
"But if we don't let pharma/biotech companies keep their patents they might not make vaccines for us next time"

Same shit over and over. Endless appeasement to the detriment of most people.

---

LotM, I need you to be a little less predictable with the "Ooh, can't do that, bud. It's important we keep the rich getting richer" responses.

---

VintageGin posted...

"But if we tax the rich they'll leave the country"
"But if we don't let Uber/Doordash/Instacart write their own rules they'll leave the state"
"But if we don't let pharma/biotech companies keep their patents they might not make vaccines for us next time"

Same shit over and over. Endless appeasement to the detriment of most people.

That's generally what happens when you have states competing against each other. It's dumb

---

masterplum posted...

That's generally what happens when you have states competing against each other. It's dumb

No it isn't. Its typically the completely empty threat that these companies would give up market share in big States like California that make up such a huge share of their profits. they'd never actually leave. And if they did leave the demand from that sector would be immediately filled because even at slightly smaller margins the profit would be huge.

I mean the biotech companies were a pretty unambiguously good set of actors during this pandemic? If they wanted to charge $1000 per dose for the vaccines they'd surely find plenty of buyers, but they have reasonable profit margins and are providing the world with something enormously valuable. They were undertaking a risk by developing the vaccines, too; their vaccines could have failed to be safe/effective, or other vaccines could have come out sooner or been better. If you make half of the best vaccine developers think that making a vaccine for the next pandemic is likely going to cost them money on net and it takes us an extra few months to develop vaccines for the next pandemic that's a huge harm.

---

If they were unambiguously good actors most of the world would be vaccinated by now.

---

Producing and distributing 14 billion doses of a new type of vaccine is in fact hard to do

---

Just because they did good doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for them to do better.

---

Lotm cares more about pharna execs than he does every day people. This isn't meant to be a hot take, just a reminder.

---

No, I care about not creating bad incentives (because, shockingly, incentives affect behavior)

---

Yes, because the thing that hurts big pharma is their profit margins. Maybe they should spend less on lobbying then.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Producing and distributing 14 billion doses of a new type of vaccine is in fact hard to do

Exactly! Which is why they should allow other people to help with the production!

---

Can't they just meet in the middle and pay royalties or something?
---

I feel like the solution is just... the government reimburses them the cost of developing the vaccine + a bit more b/c opportunity cost, etc. I mean, I'd expect them to price gouge the government as well and I suspect no one would be particularly happy with that kind of arrangement but I think it's the best you can thread that needle.

Well "reimburse the cost" might not be the exact right way to go about it because to ensure you're getting an accurate quote from the companies would likely require a level of oversight the government can't exert over a private company... I guess just have the government just contract it out that way an initial price is worked out ahead of time.

Basically, the government is really the only one I think who can/should shoulder the cost because if it goes down to the public... you've failed because you can't morally put a vaccine behind a price barrier for regular people (I'd say in general but for the purposes of this discussion we'll leave it "in a global pandemic" instead)

---

Leafeon13N posted...

because we aren't going to wipe capitalism from the planet

Too bad, it's the only solution!

fuming posted...

Too bad, it's the only solution!

Only if you have a solid plan for world domination.

---

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1379065726686879746?s=21

Clarence Thomas is absolutely horrible as usual

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1379065726686879746?s=21

Clarence Thomas is absolutely horrible as usual

Thank you Justice Thomas. Excellent as usual!

---

red sox 777 posted...

Thank you Justice Thomas. Excellent as usual!

how is this good?

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

how is this good?

It allows conservatives to avoid consequences for their actions in yet another way.

---

No surprise red sox approves of that.

---

Wow great news: Oracle lost their case against Google (over whether APIs could be copyrighted) 6-2:

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1379072424566788096?s=21

Definitely not what I had predicted based on how the justices were responding during the arguments

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wow great news: Oracle lost their case against Google (over whether APIs could be copyrighted) 6-2:

https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1379072424566788096?s=21

Definitely not what I had predicted based on how the justices were responding during the arguments

The problem is that it would set a very strong disincentive to actually develop API in the future.


---

Whenever I see judgements in cases like these I always assume the judges phone up their grandkids to explain what the fuck was going on for them.

---

https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1379124521924452358

found a new person to follow today

---

Yup, turn against AOC and see how far the Progressive Movement goes.

Spoilers: it involves the GOP ruling like kings for the rest of the US's existence.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Yup, turn against AOC and see how far the Progressive Movement goes.

Spoilers: it involves the GOP ruling like kings for the rest of the US's existence.

Ah yes, because the progressive movement = Democrats

---

the progressive movement is doing a lot of the lifting on getting democrats to do *anything* productive for the people, which the success of the party is more-or-less entirely contingent on at this point

---

I just want to point out the progressive movement didnt really come around until what? 2015 or so it got main stream?

Compare 1996 Clinton with Obama. Clinton looks like a moderate Republican basically. Those were 20 years of Democrat progress without the need for a Progressive movement Demographics are going to push this country left and progressive activists are going to try to take credit for it.

---

masterplum posted...

Ah yes, because the progressive movement = Democrats

Realistically it does. Independants do not have any actual influence, and there's no such thing as a progressive Republican.

---

Check out the 1996 Democrat platform

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1996-democratic-party-platform

Two of the BIG BOLDED sections are Fighting Crime and Welfare Reform (Talking about how democrats will remove federal rules on welfare and force people to work for it)

---

i mean, we now have biden saying "he doesn't expect the government to solve his problems for him."

i'm not convinced that the dems have become all that much more progressive since bill clinton.

---