Trump

[pogo]

Trump is wrong on trade, as he is on almost everything else. Globalisation and free trade has been a massive force for good for everyone. It certainly has helped poorer countries most, but it has benefitted rich countries too.

Trump’s argument (“Make America great again”) is largely that everything was better 30 or more years ago, before it was ruined by Democrats/immigrants/globalisation. But was it? On globalisation in particular, the reason Japanese goods took over the world is they were better, not cheaper – at the time Japan was a high cost, high wage place. Later waves of globalisation brought low-income countries like China into the world economy, driving down costs but with the same quality.

You can’t roll back globalisation and undo all this progress. Trump knows that, being a large beneficiary of global trade. Even if you tried, by e.g. introducing trade barriers, it would not bring back the high paying manufacturing jobs that have been lost. Firms would do it with far fewer people, such as automation, or not at all. People would still buy foreign goods with the added cost of the new tariffs.

[Darkflame]

Isn't it also the lack of free trade partly to blame for Americas drug prices being so high?
Selective free trade as and when it suits the corporations backing politicians I think is the standard system.

[pogo]

Drugs are mostly excluded from free trade agreements I think, with different patent laws, different approval processes. American drug prices are one aspect of their totally borked health system. No candidate except Sanders is proposing to fix it, and even his plans are dead on arrival.

Here there’s only one customer, the NHS. Monopolies are in general a bad thing but here it works for us as the drug companies have no choice but to accept the price the NHS will pay. They can try and influence people by telling sob stories about how their drug will help people and save lives, but that’s why we have NICE, to make decisions about which drugs and treatments are worth paying for. No chance that the US will switch to a single payer system like ours soon.

[Duck Turkin]

Isn't it also the lack of free trade partly to blame for Americas drug prices being so high?
Selective free trade as and when it suits the corporations backing politicians I think is the standard system.

Its mostly hospitals trying to secure the best payments from health insurance companies. By offering a high quote they appear more 'reasonable' when the insurance company talks them down by 50-60%. Still ends up with stupidly priced medicine though. That and the lack of a major healthcare buyer that can negotiate more reasonable prices (Medicare pays less than other insurance companies due to the large number of people it covers).

[Darkflame]

This is (I think) fairly separate from that though - this is just the cost of drugs, not just at hospitals, but at regular pharmacy's and such. Hospitals dont set those prices - the drug company's do. Many of those prices are many times higher then elsewhere, even excluding the UK as a special case.
I think this must be due to drug imports being illegal. After all, if it was legal, that pricing difference couldn't last long things would balance out (minus import costs).

Also bare in mind in the US the majority of a drugs cost (2/3rds) is advertising and marketing, not R&D;
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223
(just in case anyones heard the "our prices are expensive because we sponsor everywhere else's drugs" argument)

[noodles]

Given the extent of extreme poverty worldwide, that's probably a good thing overall, though it may take a few decades to work through to the point that inflation in "the west" takes off again.

You're confusing poverty with overpopulation. Whatever gains are made in "poorer" countries they will be annulled by the demographics of the following generation.
Hoping the birth rate diminishes in parallel to greater overall wealth is wishful thinking at the very least and will probably take centuries with the current numbers and tendency of savage capitalism to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Also impoverishment of the middle class is a very bad idea if you want social stability and progress.

[gumboot]

I think this must be due to drug imports being illegal.

I'm almost certain my regular prescription is made in India. I'll try to remember to check when I get home. Maybe I'm remembering all the way back in the UK.

[zip accident]

Given the extent of extreme poverty worldwide, that's probably a good thing overall, though it may take a few decades to work through to the point that inflation in "the west" takes off again.

You're confusing poverty with overpopulation.

No, I don't believe I am. There is a huge amount of food wasted in the world.

[pogo]

Thinking on it, patents are the key. After discovering and developing a drug a patent on it gives a company a monopoly, a right to charge whatever they want, in every place they get a patent for it. And generally drugs can be easily patented. The short duration of patents means they need to charge a high price to recoup their development costs.

They are free to charge individual customers such as the NHS less. Once they have customers in the US willing to pay a lot any further sales are just profit. The fact that the NHS buys in bulk helps justify it. And of course they know with decisions made by NICE on cost-effectiveness grounds, charging too much could lose them the sale. They don’t sell to end users at low prices, to prevent a grey market arising, though that still happens over the US-Canada border.

As for what would happen if the US adopted single payer and forced down costs, I’m sure drug companies would cope. They would not need to do so much advertising for one. If they really could not cope and cut research then the government could step in and pay for research directly, which would let them direct research in more socially useful directions. The US drugs industry comes up with a lot of drugs for rich people’s problems. Third parties such as the Bill Gates Foundation do more for the poor in other countries.

[pogo]

Anti Trump advert:

Made by other Republicans, though it’s unclear what they hope to achieve with Trump beating the other candidates convincingly. Democrats must be enjoying this, the Republicans are writing their adverts for them.

Super Tuesday II today. Not so many states but two important winner takes all ones. Ohio is Kasich’s home state and he should win it but it’s unclear what he does then as it will be his first and the only one he is expected to win. If only he had translated his good second places into wins it might be different, but he may resign after.

The other is Florida, one of the largest states and Rubio’s home state. His recent strategy has been to stay in the race and win there, but Trump is in the lead in Florida and looks likely to humiliate Rubio, leaving Rubio little reason to stay in. But Trump looks certain to win most delegates now, whatever the result. The other candidates and Republican establishment seem to be banking on denying him an outright majority of delegates then beating him at a brokered convention, even though that would be highly contentious and unpredictable.

[pogo]

Kasich won in Ohio and is still in the race, but Rubio as expected got his ass whupped in Florida and has left the race. Interestingly he is the first candidate to drop out who has a non-trivial number of delegates already pledged to him, though not enough to make a difference, especially as what his delegates do now varies from state to state.

Rubio was not only the last establishment candidate, but the one Democrats were most scared off. They are the real winners tonight. Both Cruz and Trump look very beatable, as divisive and extremist candidates. Also a ticket headed by either will likely turn off many mainstream Republicans, at the same time as motivating democrats. This could help them in other races both nationally and locally. The Senate in particular, where Republicans have only a narrow lead.

[gravy]

Wow

Volunteer for Trump and you have to sign an NDA / contract with stricter terms than most game deals I've signed. And at least we get paid for those. Mostly

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/donald ... nt-clause/

And it's term is in perpetuity

[gumboot]

Both Cruz and Trump look very beatable, as divisive and extremist candidates.

So how about Kasich, then? I can't really be bothered doing the research, but he seems superficially to be the least offensive of the bunch.

Now, of course, being the only one left who's simultaneously not-Trump and not-Cruz he seems the perfect candidate.

[pogo]

Both Cruz and Trump look very beatable, as divisive and extremist candidates.

So how about Kasich, then? I can't really be bothered doing the research, but he seems superficially to be the least offensive of the bunch.

Now, of course, being the only one left who's simultaneously not-Trump and not-Cruz he seems the perfect candidate.

Now Rubio is out Kasich is by far their best candidate to beat Clinton. His problem is he has never looked like winning. Rubio had won a couple of states already and if he had claimed Florida, the largest of the first wave of winner takes all states, he would have have had a theoretical path to victory. Cruz has been second in delegates from the start. Both could look at Trump’s seeming inability to get 50% of votes and see how they could beat him one on one, if only they looked like the presumptive alternative.

But Kasich has never looked like winning. He has won his home state Ohio, better than Rubio managed with Florida. But though also winner take all that’s only one state, not an especially big one, and he has never looked like winning anywhere else. In theory as other mainstream candidates have folded Kasich should have benefitted, as should Rubio, but no. Republican voters seem unwilling to elect anyone at all seen as mainstream/establishment.

[Absolute_Zero]

Right now, the biggest threat to Hillary seems to be Hillary... don't completely overlook her potential to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Otherwise -as anticipated from the start of this mud wrestle- 4 more years of demographically-dwindled, not-Republican rule.

I can't see her going two terms. 2020 could be interesting... possibly the demise of the two party setup.