Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_Analytics]

The bill was never voted on so there is no way to determine exactly how many reps and Democrats were for or against it. But the news article made it clear the democrats were the primary opponents. Four sponsors were on the bill, none of which were democrat. In any event, none of this changes the fact that McCain, not Obama:

1. Identified the problem years in advance and

2. Tried to do something about it.

So nobody can blame McCain for sitting on his hands.

McCain most certainly did not identify the problem years in advance. Let me state that again. McCain most certainly did not identify the problem years in advance. All McCain did was co-sponser a bill that addressed a different problem which was identified and publicized by Democrat Armando Falcon of OFHEO. That bill died in committee because of lack of interest in both parties. But even if it would have become law, it would have done nothing to aleviate the current problem (i.e. the one that McCain never identified).

[Guest]

Some of the pharmaceutical companies are already closing the doors of their R&D departments due to the economic slowdown. This will be a permanent development in the event of socialized medicine.

Huh. Their R&D was already a small fraction of their expenditure on marketing anyway.

In the second quarter of 2008, Merck spent 1.3 billion dollars on drug production, 1.2 billion dollars on drug development, and 1.9 billion dollars on "Marketing and Administrative" expenses. Not all of the last category was marketing. In fact, a huge cross-section of it was litigation expenses. Such expenses are inevitable in an industry like pharmaceuticals. Drugs will almost always have long-term consequences that simply can't be anticipated unless we lengthen the FDA approval period and deny people new drugs until decades after their development. Understand: I'm not saying that there isn't a horrific amount of money spent trying to get the idiot masses to advise their doctors about the medications they are to be given. But to say that R&D costs are "a small fraction" of marketing costs is a distortion. Scientifically-rigorous R&D is extremely expensive and consumes something like a fifth of Merck's gross earnings.

EDIT: To add to the above, the government could certainly put limits on pharmaceutical advertising to the public and mandate that the money saved on marketing go to consumers in the form of lower prices. That wouldn't require socializing medicine, though.

[_Yoda]

Moderator Note---Merc...I split out your comment to Telestial. Please keep blatant flaming to the Telestial Forum. Thanks. Liz

[_dartagnan]

McCain most certainly did not identify the problem years in advance. Let me state that again. McCain most certainly did not identify the problem years in advance.

You can repeat it until you're blue in the face. The fact is we have his own documented testimony to that effect and it is open for interpretation just what exactly McCain's concerns were about. It seems clear to me he believed the entire regulatory system needed to be overhauled.

All McCain did was co-sponser a bill that addressed a different problem which was identified and publicized by Democrat Armando Falcon of OFHEO. That bill died in committee because of lack of interest in both parties. But even if it would have become law, it would have done nothing to aleviate the current problem (i.e. the one that McCain never identified).

You assume nothing would have changed, but how do you know? If the system had been reformed, naturally there is a greater chance of it changing than say, if we did nothing as Obama and most democrats preferred.

Have you even read his statement on the Senate floor?

Here it is in its entirety (emphasis mine):

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

You make it sound like he was just responding to one incident, and dealing with one specific problem and as if that problem had nothing to do with the overall crisis today. He has always been in favor of reforming the reguilatory system. This is why the demos dubbed him "anti-regulation." He's always talking about changing it because it is so easily corruptible. And he was proved correct with recent history. Those who oppose want to keep it the same because it is a revolving door of money for them. They send money into it via legitimate means and it gets spat back at them through their lobbyists. Without GSE's, there can be no GSE lobbyists.

Further, there was a similar bill which passed the HoR (H.R. 1461), consponsored by 17 republicans and not nary a democrat, which again illustrates how much of a partisan proposal this really is. It passd with 204 Republicans voting yes, compared to only 122 Democrats. There were fives times as many democrat nays as there were republican. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1461

[_Trevor]

But to say that R&D costs are "a small fraction" of marketing costs is a distortion.

But is was not a deliberate distortion. It was what I had heard on the news a few years ago while living in Philadelphia--the report was covering the entire industry, not one corporation. I do notice that the amount spent of R&D at Merck is still less than what is spent on M&D.

[_consiglieri]

You know, the other side of the coin is to consider what was Sarah supposed to answer to that question? "No, I'm not ready, but this is the chance of a lifetime and I'd be a fool not to take it"?

Really, the only thing she could have said is what she said, regardless of what the realities may be.

And, by the way, I think a long career in politics is exactly the wrong kind of experience for being President.

We've seen where that's gotten us the past 20-years.

I'd rather have Sarah for President than Obama, Joe and John put together!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Trevor]

"No, I'm not ready, but this is the chance of a lifetime and I'd be a fool not to take it"?

I would regard that as a frank answer.

I'd rather have Sarah for President than Obama, Joe and John put together!

All the Best!i

Thanks, we'll sure need it, if your dream of a Palin presidency comes true!

[_Analytics]

McCain most certainly did not identify the problem years in advance. Let me state that again. McCain most certainly did not identify the problem years in advance.

You can repeat it until you're blue in the face. The fact is we have his own documented testimony to that effect and it is open for interpretation just what exactly McCain's concerns were about.

We can infer that the specific bill he co-sponsored addressed his specific concerns, can we not? Interpreting it on any other basis is just hearing what you want to hear.

It seems clear to me he believed the entire regulatory system needed to be overhauled.

If that is what he believed, why didn't he co-sponser a bill that overhauled the entire regulatory system?

All McCain did was co-sponser a bill that addressed a different problem which was identified and publicized by Democrat Armando Falcon of OFHEO. That bill died in committee because of lack of interest in both parties. But even if it would have become law, it would have done nothing to aleviate the current problem (i.e. the one that McCain never identified).

You assume nothing would have changed, but how do you know? If the system had been reformed, naturally there is a greater chance of it changing than say, if we did nothing as Obama and most democrats preferred.

We can look at the specific bill to see what would have changed. You do realize that the fundamental drivers and the scope of the problem go way beyond Fannie and Freddie, don't you? The very most the proposed agency could have done was steered Fannie and Freddie from the risky mortgages. Under that scenario, the investment banks and insurance companies would still have gone under. It would simply be a slightly different group of investors left without a chair when the music stopped.

Have you even read his statement on the Senate floor?

Yes. Have you read the bill he was talking about? Have you even read the summary of the bill he was talking about?

Like I said, it was a great bill--it just didn't address the current issue. If you think it did, you don't understand what the bill said and you don't understand what is going on now.

[_Black Moclips]

A simple guide to subprime:

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1

[_EAllusion]

Here's an aside Alonzo Fyfe brought up that I think bears mentioning:

I have an objection to the headline. And I think this headline is worthy of significant protest. Sam Harris is an atheist, not atheists. I have identified this type of inference from a member within a group to the group as a whole to be one of the purest forms of bigotry.

Harris' remarks have nothing to do with being an atheist, and could have been written by a liberal Christian...

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/200 ... tence.html