Knicks · OT Vivek Ramaswamy (page 17)
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:
Lots of love for the other guy who has been on team Randle since day one but a lot of what you say here is wrong. Has any government ever had as good a run of China from 1973-2023? China had a billion dirt poor people and now a billion in the middle class. Really hard to quantify the benefit to human happiness of lifting so many people out of poverty.That is, until someone asks what had made people in China dirt poor by 1973.
1st Opium War
Taiping Rebellion
Second Opium War
Sino- French War
Boxer Rebellion
Sino-Russian War
Japanese Invasion: WW2 (second most casualties after USSR)
Chinese Civil War
No doubt the first 24 years of CCP rule (1949-1973) were also full of turmoil.
period from 1952 to 1978, China’s growth was 3 percent per year, according to Xiao dong Zhu, Understanding China's Economic Growth: Past, Present, and Future, 2012.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronaviru...
I can say anecdotaly that no one I knew here had coviid before 2023 until after most of the population had already been vaccinated. Those numbers might also be different because from what I understand China only counted deaths that were a direct result of Coviid and not s Co-morbidity factor like in the USA. Still, it can't be doubted that China's 0 Coviid policy saved lives despite economic disruption.
gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:
Lots of love for the other guy who has been on team Randle since day one but a lot of what you say here is wrong. Has any government ever had as good a run of China from 1973-2023? China had a billion dirt poor people and now a billion in the middle class. Really hard to quantify the benefit to human happiness of lifting so many people out of poverty.That is, until someone asks what had made people in China dirt poor by 1973.
1st Opium War
Taiping Rebellion
Second Opium War
Sino- French War
Boxer Rebellion
Sino-Russian War
Japanese Invasion: WW2 (second most casualties after USSR)
Chinese Civil War
No doubt the first 24 years of CCP rule (1949-1973) were also full of turmoil.period from 1952 to 1978, China’s growth was 3 percent per year, according to Xiao dong Zhu, Understanding China's Economic Growth: Past, Present, and Future, 2012.
Why start with the 1st Opium War, not the Hunnu incursions?
What's the Sino-Russian war? I know of only two: the siege of Albazin fortress in 1685, and the border skirmish on the Ussuri river in 1969. Couple of hundred fighters on the Russian side, several thousand on the Chinese. Both actually won by China, but at the cost of much greater military casualties.
Turmoil? Some understatement.
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:
Lots of love for the other guy who has been on team Randle since day one but a lot of what you say here is wrong. Has any government ever had as good a run of China from 1973-2023? China had a billion dirt poor people and now a billion in the middle class. Really hard to quantify the benefit to human happiness of lifting so many people out of poverty.That is, until someone asks what had made people in China dirt poor by 1973.
1st Opium War
Taiping Rebellion
Second Opium War
Sino- French War
Boxer Rebellion
Sino-Russian War
Japanese Invasion: WW2 (second most casualties after USSR)
Chinese Civil War
No doubt the first 24 years of CCP rule (1949-1973) were also full of turmoil.period from 1952 to 1978, China’s growth was 3 percent per year, according to Xiao dong Zhu, Understanding China's Economic Growth: Past, Present, and Future, 2012.
Why start with the 1st Opium War, not the Hunnu incursions?
Turmoil? Some understatement.
Because prior to the 1st Opium War China was the richest and most powerful country in the world. It took a long time for them to become one of the poorest.
gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Why start with the 1st Opium War, not the Hunnu incursions?
Turmoil? Some understatement.Because prior to the 1st Opium War China was the richest and most powerful country in the world. It took a long time for them to become one of the poorest.
And all it took to defeat the richest and most powerful country in the world were 20 thousand troops and 40 ships. Compared to almost 700 thousand troops on the allied side in the Crimean war.
Coming back to the "Turmoil". In 1952, Mainland China's per capita income was $46, Taiwan's was $50. By 1980 Mainland's per capita income was $256, Taiwan's $2,278.
Hmmmmmmm.
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Why start with the 1st Opium War, not the Hunnu incursions?
Turmoil? Some understatement.Because prior to the 1st Opium War China was the richest and most powerful country in the world. It took a long time for them to become one of the poorest.
And all it took to defeat the richest and most powerful country in the world were 20 thousand troops and 40 ships. Compared to almost 700 thousand troops on the allied side in the Crimean war.
Coming back to the "Turmoil". In 1952, Mainland China's per capita income was $46, Taiwan's was $50. By 1980 Mainland's per capita income was $256, Taiwan's $2,278.
Hmmmmmmm.
You're going back 43 years for that statistic. I'm not sure how relevant that is.
gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Why start with the 1st Opium War, not the Hunnu incursions?
Turmoil? Some understatement.Because prior to the 1st Opium War China was the richest and most powerful country in the world. It took a long time for them to become one of the poorest.
And all it took to defeat the richest and most powerful country in the world were 20 thousand troops and 40 ships. Compared to almost 700 thousand troops on the allied side in the Crimean war.
Coming back to the "Turmoil". In 1952, Mainland China's per capita income was $46, Taiwan's was $50. By 1980 Mainland's per capita income was $256, Taiwan's $2,278.
Hmmmmmmm.
You're going back 43 years for that statistic. I'm not sure how relevant that is.
Goes to show that before the good run from 1973, the Mainland Chinese government had a not such a good one from 1952. Not a good one at all.
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Why start with the 1st Opium War, not the Hunnu incursions?
Turmoil? Some understatement.Because prior to the 1st Opium War China was the richest and most powerful country in the world. It took a long time for them to become one of the poorest.
And all it took to defeat the richest and most powerful country in the world were 20 thousand troops and 40 ships. Compared to almost 700 thousand troops on the allied side in the Crimean war.
Coming back to the "Turmoil". In 1952, Mainland China's per capita income was $46, Taiwan's was $50. By 1980 Mainland's per capita income was $256, Taiwan's $2,278.
Hmmmmmmm.
You're going back 43 years for that statistic. I'm not sure how relevant that is.
Goes to show that before the good run from 1973, the Mainland Chinese government had a not such a good one from 1952. Not a good one at all.
And they have had the best run in human history since then, which was exactly my point.
gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Goes to show that before the good run from 1973, the Mainland Chinese government had a not such a good one from 1952. Not a good one at all.And they have had the best run in human history since then, which was exactly my point.
When a company manages to return to growth after nearly going bankrupt, it also posts some incredible growth rates. But such stories hardly merit "best run in history" accolades. More like "back on the road to normalcy". Long road too, traveled a lot sooner by the other Asian tigers who did not get into the communism game.
Soviet Russian between world wars had made great progress as well. But Gulags and near enslavement of rural population labor was used to great advantage. China? Similar and in both situations the lack of lawful upholding of property rights paved a path to just go thru villages and take what is needed "For the people".
That so much wealth was not returned to a the Russian treasury but instead to private sector via favors hurt the people. Putins war and need to put the things back is clear sign his economic policy is failing.
China's central planning ambitions is also coming to a bubble. Planning GDP growth without market demand is both a miracle and a bubble builder. China is currently staring at that with its real estate over build and massive Everguarde collapse.
With state sponsored growth of its industrial complex and the build out if a massive middle class propelled its growth from emerging market economy to the powerhouse it is now.
Done without military expansion and conquest is very impressive. What china faces is a shrinking population at a very fast rate over the next 70 years, lack of natural resources
(coal sucks), and limited water. By comparison we can control our population rates by immigration (Legal) and we have the greatest source of fresh water in the world just north of us with Great Lakes and many others as well.
Best vs.........
I not doing this. Im recognizing trends of how we got here and how and why MAYBE others will hit walls. I find the notion by Americans that we have to be no. 1 when it does not affect the individual. Trump and others can go off on how great we are and need to be but does that mean jobs? Prosperity?
"Trump wins, I win"........
"They are coming after me, they are coming after you".....Trump.
Brilliant strategy to suck the money out of supporters.
We do it here.
"Knicks win, I win".
"Knicks lose, blame someone and fire them, I don't lose!!!"
ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Goes to show that before the good run from 1973, the Mainland Chinese government had a not such a good one from 1952. Not a good one at all.And they have had the best run in human history since then, which was exactly my point.
When a company manages to return to growth after nearly going bankrupt, it also posts some incredible growth rates. But such stories hardly merit "best run in history" accolades. More like "back on the road to normalcy". Long road too, traveled a lot sooner by the other Asian tigers who did not get into the communism game.
ESOM, your missing the point that in China's case you are talking about 1/5 humans on the planet. It's a lot easier to develop a population of 24 million than one of 1.2 billion.
Nalod, I first heard the Chinese bubble argument in 2000. I'm skeptical.
gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:gradyandrew wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Goes to show that before the good run from 1973, the Mainland Chinese government had a not such a good one from 1952. Not a good one at all.And they have had the best run in human history since then, which was exactly my point.
When a company manages to return to growth after nearly going bankrupt, it also posts some incredible growth rates. But such stories hardly merit "best run in history" accolades. More like "back on the road to normalcy". Long road too, traveled a lot sooner by the other Asian tigers who did not get into the communism game.
ESOM, your missing the point that in China's case you are talking about 1/5 humans on the planet. It's a lot easier to develop a population of 24 million than one of 1.2 billion.
Nalod, I first heard the Chinese bubble argument in 2000. I'm skeptical.
Seriously? Ghost cities and Everguard and your skeptical? Issues with largest home builder Country Garden in todays news.
China youth unemployment 20%, so bad they stopped reporting it. Look it up, Im not making this shit up.
Its not how bubbles burst, its how you recognize the loss on the ledger sheet.
Japan bubble burst in 1990 and for 23 years its GDP has not come close to what it did in the 23 years prior. Its what happens when your force things.
No two are a like and china is not japan. What they did with their issue was save face and spread it out. USA usually over responds, over regulates, indicts, punishes, then helps its. Is that the “Best Way”? Who can tell, but its constant. In the last few years it has curbed back on tech, scaled back on entrepreneurship (Jack Ma for example) and went on a “corruption” binge to ready what is happening.
Communist Gov’t market sets the policiies rather than market forces. You know, “Supply vs. Demand”.
Capitalism has its issues and faults. Im not here to defend the downsides. The key is recognizing things when they happen. Totalitarian controlled economy intent might be a really good on paper, but in the end humans are greedy creatures and it bleeds out.
I don’t have the answers anymore than most but I do have questions and can read enough to at least cut thru the bullshit.
Vmart wrote:What do you guys think about Biden sending 500 million to Tiawan for military purchases. So US is officially on a two front war. By the time he leaves office we will be a shell of a country.
Vmart, I appreciate your participation in this thread but I don't know what your point is.
All you do is try to find something that could be hypothetically wrong. You take a fact and create a perspective that it has to be bad for Biden and/or maybe good for Trump and then write stuff.
No one who is trying to understand something better does this.
Would you care for an exchange or back and forth? Cause you don't really participate in those either.
So, what gives and what is your point? At this point your are just blurting words out there. Little to no meaning, no point, no background information. Just frustrations without meaning? I don't get it.
Vmart wrote:What do you guys think about Biden sending 500 million to Taiwan for military purchases. So US is officially on a two front war. By the time he leaves office we will be a shell of a country.
On the surface its about assisting Taiwan and Ukraine defending their sovereignty.
I donate money to provide human relief to Ukraine. You know, feed babies and people displaced by the invasion.
Its called " humanitarian aid".
To dive deeper, I understand the complexity of Taiwan's existence and to be fair China makes a good argument legally. This dates to Japan's occupancy starting in 1895 and ending in 1945 when a democracy was formed. Bottom line is China claim is fair, but so is an independent Taiwan. I support their continued independence. If they wish to be annexed and be part of China then that is their call.
I gather not everyone shares this view. Vmart, grabbing snippet of propaganda without context does not further any exchange of ideas.
martin wrote:Vmart wrote:What do you guys think about Biden sending 500 million to Tiawan for military purchases. So US is officially on a two front war. By the time he leaves office we will be a shell of a country.Vmart, I appreciate your participation in this thread but I don't know what your point is.
All you do is try to find something that could be hypothetically wrong. You take a fact and create a perspective that it has to be bad for Biden and/or maybe good for Trump and then write stuff.
No one who is trying to understand something better does this.
Would you care for an exchange or back and forth? Cause you don't really participate in those either.
So, what gives and what is your point? At this point your are just blurting words out there. Little to no meaning, no point, no background information. Just frustrations without meaning? I don't get it.
Trump turrets?
martin wrote:foosballnick wrote:The only concern I have is that Pharma Companies may opt to terminate future potential drug programs in order to focus on what will be profitable over what will be beneficial. Takes about 10 years and ~$1 Billion to bring a drug to market with probably 80% more wasted on targeted programs in development that do not move forward beyond clinical trials because they are either not effective or not safe.To be fair, that could be true but it probably isn't.
That is the sales line the pharma industry keeps repeating to get away with the galactic sized profits they do today.
There is no reason why the gov't shouldn't be able to negotiate drug prices. We are a capitalistic country, right? And if those costs for program development are too high, perhaps this should be taken over and then subsidized by a gov't entity, right?
It's the same as filing taxes. The gov't already knows the tax amount for like 80% of the normal filers and could VERY easily just have those people electronically upload their info/payment without cost but companies like Intuit had enough lobbyists to block that simple feature. As does/had the pharma industry with Medicare-D negotiations.
I know you may not have intentionally intended to do so but you just passed along a well lubricated sales pitch from the pharma industry.
Was that your intention?
Do you have a background in this industry that perhaps you could share with us? I'd love to be better informed on this topic.
Apologies - took me a while to respond (been pretty swamped at work so I've just been browsing quickly here on ultimateknicks the past few weeks).
To your last question - I've had about 20 years total experience with various companies in Pharma and Biotech development including R&D, Drug Product Development, Contract Manufacturing and clinical specialty laboratories.
In my experience R&D costs are somewhere between 20% - 25% of total gross revenue. So when you think about "big" pharma think in the $10 - $20 Billion dollar range annually. To successfully launch a product these days it takes passing a high degree of regulatory, safety and quality scrutiny. Note that this is not limited to the FDA, but rather each region or country may have it's own regulatory requirements that need to be evaluated and met. Most pharma rely on outsourced partnerships or suppliers for Central Clinical laboratories (to recruit potential patients, run the trials as well as analyze efficacy data), Analytical Laboratories (potentially hundreds of different assays related to product quality, chemical and structural analysis, packaging testing, release/stability testing etc), Contract Manufacturing, Formulation, Chemical Synthesis, Drug Safety, Purification steps, Process Development etc. Every new drug candidate has somewhat custom processes and custom test methods that will be analyzed and need to be approved by the various regulatory bodies. There are 4 Stages of Drug Development after Basic Chem and Bio Research.....clinical phases 1-3 and a 4th for lifecycle management. Each clinical program can take an average of 9-10 years to go through a cycle from Basic to Drug Filing for approval. Note also that each program (drug candidate) will have multiple studies within each development phase and may also have multiple trial streams going on at once based on different formulations, dosage level or regimens etc. The trials produce safety and efficacy data which could impact forumalation changes or bump a program forward, back or to termination based on results. If a Pharma company has ~100 Pre or Clinical Programs in development at any given time, if just 1 or 2 make it to regulatory approval in any given year - it is considered a success. Perhaps over 90% of the programs in development never make it to approval. Pharma can terminate programs for a variety of reasons even beyond safety/efficacy. Sometimes for instance drug formulations work in a laboratory setting but cannot be scaled up successfully. Drug Development is leaning more and more towards biologics, cell and gene therapy programs which can be extremely expensive. For instance - I recently worked on a Phase 1 drug candidate that is projected to cost $1M per dose for a clinical patient. It is likely that such formulations will be too expensive to commercialize - but hopefully this type of activity sheds some light on the expense basis in Pharma Development.
The mRNA Covid vax was very fast tracked. It can certainly happen in emergency situations but note that it required a high degree of government alignment/intervention with regards to Warp Speed alignment of manufacturing & supplies as well as available Patient population. Also the mRNA technology was leveraged from already in development SARS vaccine work which started in the early 2000's.
foosballnick wrote:
Apologies - took me a while to respond (been pretty swamped at work so I've just been browsing quickly here on ultimateknicks the past few weeks).To your last question - I've had about 20 years total experience with various companies in Pharma and Biotech development including R&D, Drug Product Development, Contract Manufacturing and clinical specialty laboratories.
May I lean some on your expertise with pharma, and ask for your opinion on whether the following holds any water: US patients effectively "subsidize" the rest of the world, because Big Pharma gets the biggest margins on the relatively unregulated US market, while sellilng the same drugs cheaper in other parts of the world, where prices are either regulated or controlled via having the local government as the only or the biggest purchaser and/or where patent protection is not as robust?
ESOMKnicks wrote:foosballnick wrote:
Apologies - took me a while to respond (been pretty swamped at work so I've just been browsing quickly here on ultimateknicks the past few weeks).To your last question - I've had about 20 years total experience with various companies in Pharma and Biotech development including R&D, Drug Product Development, Contract Manufacturing and clinical specialty laboratories.
May I lean some on your expertise with pharma, and ask for your opinion on whether the following holds any water: US patients effectively "subsidize" the rest of the world, because Big Pharma gets the biggest margins on the relatively unregulated US market, while sellilng the same drugs cheaper in other parts of the world, where prices are either regulated or controlled via having the local government as the only or the biggest purchaser and/or where patent protection is not as robust?
Lots of truth in your statement. Don't misunderstand my post as entirely supportive of the higher drug costs in the US as I'm on one of the listed medications - probably for life, so I'm a benificiary of lower consumer prescription costs. My posts on the topic more reflect potential changes in Pharma as a result of capped revenue. One may very well be hogher revenue streams in other markets. But there could also be potential negative fallout. Pharma companies for instance may abandon development of low patient genetic diseases that are mostly a sunk cost. They also may reduce patient assistance programs to those in who are financially challenged. They may also choose to abandon or terminate emerging clinical programs based purely on financial assessment over efficacy or just to reduce development costs.
Nalod wrote:Vmart wrote:What do you guys think about Biden sending 500 million to Taiwan for military purchases. So US is officially on a two front war. By the time he leaves office we will be a shell of a country.On the surface its about assisting Taiwan and Ukraine defending their sovereignty.
I donate money to provide human relief to Ukraine. You know, feed babies and people displaced by the invasion.
Its called " humanitarian aid".To dive deeper, I understand the complexity of Taiwan's existence and to be fair China makes a good argument legally. This dates to Japan's occupancy starting in 1895 and ending in 1945 when a democracy was formed. Bottom line is China claim is fair, but so is an independent Taiwan. I support their continued independence. If they wish to be annexed and be part of China then that is their call.
I gather not everyone shares this view. Vmart, grabbing snippet of propaganda without context does not further any exchange of ideas.
China makes the same argument that Lincoln did in 1861.
The best argument against that I ever heard was made by John Bolton in 2000, that democratic elections trump this claim.