ldrews

Why? Is this thread not about Trump? Is not one of the current issues Trump's relationship with North Korea/Kim Jong Un?

In competitive environments one of the most successful strategies is Tit-For-Tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat It would appear that Trump is using such a strategy with North Korea. If Kim Jong Un threatens, then Trump threatens. If Kim Jon Un says nice things, then Trump says nice things. Can you suggest a better strategy? And all of a sudden North Korea wants to talk with South Korea. What do you think encouraged such a change? Perhaps Trump knows something about negotiation.

I wasn't asking multiple people, I was asking winstonm. Are you winstonm?

How would you handle North Korea? They seem to have a 25 year history of using negotiations and agreements to stall while continuing their nuclear program. Kim Jong Un is a blustering bully threatening nuclear strikes against the US. He seems to have no incentive or motivation to seek an amicable agreement which removes their nuclear weapon capability. So what would you do?

And it seems to me that very few people allow ethics to influence their business or political lives. It seems to be a universal constant.

I am a libertarian. I strongly favor limited government. What we have is not limited government, and over my lifetime has become more and more intrusive. The push to reduce regulation, reduce staff in agencies, and reduce taxes are all actions that I support and believe to be much needed. The performance of the economy, while important in its own right, is a separate discussion.

If I read the charts correctly, the last 3 quarters GDP growth under Obama's direct influence were declining, finishing up at 1.2% in the 1st quarter of 2017. Immediately after Trump's inauguration the GDP growth rate jumped dramatically to 3.1% then 3.2%, and the 4th quarter looks to come in at 4+%. This is not a continuation pattern by any stretch. Downward trend followed by dramatic reversal after a key event smacks of causality. I know you would like Trump to look bad or ineffective, but really, the data does not support you.

Why would you invite either to dinner? But I might hire them to clean the restrooms.

There does seem to be some significant evidence that the Steele Dossier, which was paid for by the DNC and Clinton Campaign, was dressed up and used as justification for the FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign staff and Trump himself. The FBI has already confirmed that they are unable to validate the claims in the dossier. Senator Lindsay Graham is calling for another special counsel to investigate this matter since both the DOJ and FBI may be complicit. We live in interesting times!

We should praise the voters for a much needed change in direction of our government. Under Trump's watch we have seen an improved economy, more jobs, less unemployment, higher consumer confidence, record stock market, reduced regulations, reduced taxes for 80% of the taxpayers. That is in just one year. Thank you voters!

I rest my case.

Apparently you cannot read. As I have mentioned many times, I am not a conservative or a liberal, I am a limited government libertarian. But that exceeds that capacity of your two category mind. Oh well.

I support hrothgar in this. If you don't like the way the system works, work on changing the system! Whining and crying foul when your opponent effectively uses the current system against you is just infantile. A major example is the recent Presidential election. The system as constructed uses the Electoral College to determine who wins the Presidency. The frequent and common reference to Clinton winning the popular vote is just infantile whining.

Paul, thank you for the interest. Unfortunately I live in central Mexico and am not available for face-to-face tournaments. The version of Precision that I play has evolved over the last couple of years. I am not embarrassed to say that I stole a few ideas from Dan Neill. If you are interested, check it out at https://www.ansantek.com/StrongClub.

As you point out, lack of appeal to the pharmaceutical companies of antibiotics is a return-on-investment/pricing problem. But if effective antibiotics become scarce the price will rise until it becomes profitable for the pharmaceutical companies to produce antibiotics. Of course that price may not be palatable to a number of people. The only thing that would prevent this sequence of events is government regulation and artificial price capping. If the government steps in and restrains the pharmaceutical companies from charging what the market will bear then the pharmaceutical companies will divert their resources elsewhere and we will have no antibiotics at all. And having the government produce antibiotics doesn't change the financial considerations at all. It just shifts the cost from the users to the taxpayers. And if history is any guide the costs will be significantly higher and the availability will become a political decision. I just plagiarized this quote from MrAce: "It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

Do you have some evidence to back up your assertion?

Not really. You haven't addressed the problem, the incompatibility of goals. Do you want safety? Do you want affordability? Do you want rapid response? For example, can you imagine how long it would take the government to react to a new bacteria/virus? First there would have to be hearings, then impact statements, then further studies, then legislation. We might get the research started in 5-10 years. And then the government could contract for the production, much like the $10000 dollar toilets or the $500 hammers of the past. If one wants new products in a short timeframe at affordable prices, then one must incentivize the private pharmaceutical companies to do the job, and remove the roadblocks. That means rethinking the balance between regulation, public safety, profitability, and pricing. Given the vested interests, not an easy task.

I have no prepackaged alternative solution. I would point out that one cannot have regulation, rapid response, and profitability all at the same time. At least I wouldn't know how to achieve that. Do you? In computer software development, in which I do have some experience, we had the maxim: Budget, Schedule, Quality: you get to choose two of them".

It is interesting that you call one of the most heavily regulated markets in the world a "free market". The reason the pharmaceutical companies gave for abandoning antibiotics is because they are not profitable. One of the primary reasons they are not profitable is the cumbersome, highly regulated processes that must be used to develop and test the antibiotics. What is your alternative solution?

I do not wonder at all. I understand that your psyche cannot tolerate someone who does not agree with you or perform according to your rules. So in defense you mock and ridicule. Completely understandable.

I don't have a "stand" on abortion, i.e. I don't have a lot of emotion tied up in the issue. I do think that pro-choice follows from the basic principles of libertarianism, so I support that position. And as a libertarian who prefers to live in society, I do pay attention to others' views. I don't necessarily agree with those views but I certainly acknowledge that the other person has those views. And I often try to understand how and why the other person holds those views. The issue of pro-choice vs anti-choice does confuse me. The same people who protest against pro-choice are the same people who seem to passively accept the US bombing the hell out of the Middle East and killing thousands of civilians. Or the execution of a criminal. So it can't be about the sanctity of life. So what is it?

And here is an example of one point of view, a bias that Winstonm wishes were imposed on all. "Those damn natives are getting uppity! Sheriff, take care of them!"

Libertarians are not necessarily "rugged individualists". I think you are confusing Ayn Randism with libertarianism.

I agree, there are necessary limits to personal freedom if we are to live peacefully together in communities. The issue is in the definition of necessary.

I seriously doubt it.