Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Running for President...

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Running for President...
Post by biochem   » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:40 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

I'll take some time to read this and discuss each point. In the interim I'd just say, I'm glad that you are in another country on another continent. We have Enough RWNJs and SELs here, but none as extreme as you seem to be from this list. I had forgotten that you have previously defended drug companies charging 1000% profits on life saving drugs, so it does fit.


1000% profit is a bit excessive, not sure where you're getting that particular number. In general the problem with the drug companies is that R&D is currently running 2-3 billion per new drug. Someone has to pay for that. Bill Gates and fellow travelers are doing a great job of paying for research in tuberculosis etc but even they don't have big enough pockets to support the entire industry. Governments are funding the basic R&D that drug research depends on but the ones funding most of the applied R&D is the stockholders in the pharmaceutical companies, most of which are run by sociopaths. These guys won't research drugs unless it makes them an enormous amount of money. The risk/reward ratio simply isn't there. They'll just fund the latest software startup instead. I'd love a better system but right now there isn't one if you want to keep getting new drugs.

The only 1000% profit I know of was Martin Shkreli. That was a regulatory problem not a R&D problem. The way the regulations are set up, he knew his competitors couldn't get regulatory approval fast enough to keep him from making huge $$$ on an ancient generic! Fortunately the compounding industry was able to make an end run around him. Now the Epipen folks are doing something similar. Again the problem is the excessive regulations keeping competitors of a generic off the market. Unfortunately since it is a medical device, the compounders haven't been able to help this time. It's an area ripe for regulatory reform.

Clear cut the national and stare forests


That wasn't on the list either. Dialing back the dramatic overreach, something in the area of increased forest products should have been on the list. The timber towns in the west look like the rust belt. They are in bad bad shape. The mills have closed and the towns are slowly dying. Sure there was way to much timber production in the post WWII era but now there is very little. Most of the extreme clear cutting that the environmentalists like to point at is off of private lands not public. Little is being cut on public lands anymore. There can be a balance.

Incidentally, when cutting lodgepole pine you want to clear cut it due to the nature of the root system of that particular tree. The trick is to get the size of the clearing correct. Forrest regeneration in clearings that are too large is sub-optimal.

Reduce non-management pay to federal minimum wage.


The minimum wage is a complex subject and there is no point trying to raise it until exporting of jobs is fixed otherwise you'll just increase unemployment. So it's not a year 1 thing and given how long it will take to fix the economy and renegotiate treaties, it's probably not a year 4 thing either.

pack the courts with the most rectionary judges educated at Liberty U. who use the bible to interpret law.


Actually I'm aiming for the closest 110 clones of Antonin Scalia that I can find.

Pollute the water and the air to increase cancer, COPD and other respiratory problems.


Actually preventing that sort of thing sounds like a good new direction for the EPA. They've forgotten places like Flint and spend their time torturing landowners over puddles and inventing new carbon rules for which they don't even have a legal right to do.

ELIMINATE the US department of education. In 40 years it has spent almost 1.5 trillion dollars and accomplished.......absolutely nothing, besides putting up a hideously expensive building that those of us who paid for it are not even allowed to see inside. Government education is not one bit better today than it was back in the 60's and 70's; if anything, it's worse.


It's worse.

You're understating the problem. Sometimes up to 120% of the donations go to for-profit 'fundraising' companies. That's right. The 'charity' hires a 'fundraising' company and loses money.

Who runs those 'fundraising' companies? Where does the money go? Nobody knows. They're not subject to the disclosure rules for non-profits.


Yep.
Top
Re: Running for President...
Post by WeirdlyWired   » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:53 am

WeirdlyWired
Captain of the List

Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:08 pm
Location: 35 NW center of nowhere.

biochem wrote:
Clear cut the national and stare forests


That wasn't on the list either. Dialing back the dramatic overreach, something in the area of increased forest products should have been on the list. The timber towns in the west look like the rust belt. They are in bad bad shape. The mills have closed and the towns are slowly dying. Sure there was way to much timber production in the post WWII era but now there is very little. Most of the extreme clear cutting that the environmentalists like to point at is off of private lands not public. Little is being cut on public lands anymore. There can be a balance.

Incidentally, when cutting lodgepole pine you want to clear cut it due to the nature of the root system of that particular tree. The trick is to get the size of the clearing correct. Forrest regeneration in clearings that are too large is sub-optimal.

Reduce non-management pay to federal minimum wage.


The minimum wage is a complex subject and there is no point trying to raise it until exporting of jobs is fixed otherwise you'll just increase unemployment. So it's not a year 1 thing and given how long it will take to fix the economy and renegotiate treaties, it's probably not a year 4 thing either.

And here in Oregon it takes 75 years to grow a Douglas Fir to harvest size. AS late as the 70s they were logging way more than 1/75 the acreage. NOT SUSTAINABLE.

If the Bundys and their supporters get their way the forests will be clear cut.

Complex or not complex with no federal minimum these republican states will drive their minimums to Zero. Nikki Haley certainly will. So will Scott Walker

May not be "the agenda" but it is the logical consequence of their proposed actions.
Helas,chou, Je m'en fache.
Top
Re: Running for President...
Post by biochem   » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:40 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

And here in Oregon it takes 75 years to grow a Douglas Fir to harvest size. AS late as the 70s they were logging way more than 1/75 the acreage. NOT SUSTAINABLE.


OK. So we'll set the annual timber harvest on federal forest lands in Oregon excluding lands in a federally designated wilderness area as of Nov 7, 2016 (Obama has been going a bit crazy with the executive orders) to 1/75 of the forest acreage. Sounds reasonable to me.

Note that since forests grow at different rates based on local climate and dominate tree type, that number would be different for the other western states.
Top
Re: Running for President...
Post by WeirdlyWired   » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:39 pm

WeirdlyWired
Captain of the List

Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:08 pm
Location: 35 NW center of nowhere.

biochem wrote:
And here in Oregon it takes 75 years to grow a Douglas Fir to harvest size. AS late as the 70s they were logging way more than 1/75 the acreage. NOT SUSTAINABLE.


OK. So we'll set the annual timber harvest on federal forest lands in Oregon excluding lands in a federally designated wilderness area as of Nov 7, 2016 (Obama has been going a bit crazy with the executive orders) to 1/75 of the forest acreage. Sounds reasonable to me.

Note that since forests grow at different rates based on local climate and dominate tree type, that number would be different for the other western states.


yes, I do realize that, having once been a Forestry major at LSU. SYP takes only 20 years. And Mansard oak dies in 20 so it can be harvested after 18-20.

And the timber industry has NEVER practiced sustainable logging. Canada quit selling timber to the US because all US purchasers are doing is selling it directly to the japanese or chipping it and exporting the chips to japan. japan converts it to OSB and exports it back to the US. So even logging more will no more than marginally increase sawmill jobs.

And withoutUSDA inspectors to manage the harvest, what except lack of greed and pressure to boost quarterly earnings will prevent timber companis from overharvesting and blaming unions or regulations or TPP for the loss of jobs. SEEtread why there are fewer US jobs
Helas,chou, Je m'en fache.
Top
Re: Running for President...
Post by Annachie   » Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:03 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Really need to ban logging on state lands* and make lumber companies log private forests. No doubt selling some forests to private companies to get it started.

IE: tree farms.

More complicated than it sounds no doubt, but then where I live is surrounded by privately owned tree farms. Or farm really as it might be all owned by the one family.

*obviously barring management logging if needed of course

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Running for President...
Post by biochem   » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:16 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

Annachie wrote:Really need to ban logging on state lands* and make lumber companies log private forests. No doubt selling some forests to private companies to get it started.

IE: tree farms.

More complicated than it sounds no doubt, but then where I live is surrounded by privately owned tree farms. Or farm really as it might be all owned by the one family.

*obviously barring management logging if needed of course

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


Which is how it works in the eastern us (Maine for example). In the west the Feds own most of the forest land which is why the virtual halt of logging on federal lands is so devastating.
Top
Re: Running for President...
Post by WeirdlyWired   » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:53 am

WeirdlyWired
Captain of the List

Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:08 pm
Location: 35 NW center of nowhere.

biochem wrote:
Annachie wrote:Really need to ban logging on state lands* and make lumber companies log private forests. No doubt selling some forests to private companies to get it started.

IE: tree farms.

More complicated than it sounds no doubt, but then where I live is surrounded by privately owned tree farms. Or farm really as it might be all owned by the one family.

*obviously barring management logging if needed of course

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


Which is how it works in the eastern us (Maine for example). In the west the Feds own most of the forest land which is why the virtual halt of logging on federal lands is so devastating.

Weyerhauser is a HUGE forest land owner in Oregon and Washington. It bought out Willamette Industries in a hostile takeover for its lands. And uses its size and economic power to challenge property tax assaeements every year.

The way (back in the 1980s) logging private land worked: We'll pay you $x per board foot if we have to follow the law and replant your land. We'll pay you $(x+10%) if you waive the replanting requirement.
Helas,chou, Je m'en fache.
Top

Return to Politics