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.

foosballnick wrote:

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.

Thank you for your view, very good to know. I think this is a major part of the problem. If Pharma faces more powerful and consolidated bargaining from its counterparties in the US, it will be forced to put a stronger squeeze on other countries to protect its margins. So, less piggybacking from other countries and fairer outcomes for US patients. As for R&D, yes, funding may become more scarce and priorities may shift, but so what, it is a market outcome. Could actually even stimulate more R&D to replace drugs that are no longer as profitable.
I still remember how disgusted I was by Dubya's claim that drug imports from Canada would be unsafe for Americans.

Nalod wrote:

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 **** 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 bull****.

Nalod, there's a lot of good points you make here, I just think that a lot of the Chinese economy is misunderstood in the West.

Re ghost cities,

Chinese cities have developed very rapidly. In the second or third tier city I live in, there have been three additional districts added to the original one over the past 20 years I have been there. Generally, apartments get sold but then take 5-10 years before they are actually populated as there is a significant lag between when the apartments are sold and when infrastructure, especially schools and businesses, are up and running. Since property investment is the major category of household savings, Chinese investors generally have a long term view. It's not uncommon for a family to buy a house for their kids with the idea of gifting it to them in 10-20 years.

China also avoids a lot of the problems associated with property speculation because after their first house, people are required to put about 50% of the price as a down payment for a housing loan. This also avoids the problem of getting caught in a debt-deflation trap since prices have to decline by a lot before the house goes underwater.

My view is that the problems in the housing market are generally a result of Corona virus restrictions. Until Jan 1 of this year it wasn't really feasible to move between cities because the risk of being caught in a lockdown pretty much kept everyone in their current homes. Now that Corona is over, the housing market will likely start to heat up again in the next year or so because of pent up demand. Those developers in trouble still have huge amounts of property under development, they are just waiting for the market to get going again before they start selling. China still has a huge amount of substandard housing so even though the population isn't increasing, there's still a lot of potential demand.

To bring this topic back full circle, it's important to understand the differences in China from 2012 to 2022-23. Ten years ago this country was edging toward a dystopian future. A real fascinating story was happening in the central city of Chongqing. Prior to Bo Xilai becoming mayor and Want Lijun head of police, the city was basically under the thumb of corrupt officials. The police were the mafia and the head judicial official was the Godfather. I'll go out on a limb and say that it probably wasn't the only city like that.

Since Xi has taken over the economy has slowed down some but people's lives have improved greatly. More roads in the country side, most visible corruption eradicated, less crime, just a better all around society. A lot of that has to do with him putting values first. The Chinese core socialist values seem like they were borrowed from the Boy Scout Law.

I think America needs some of the same. Vivek seems like the only candidate at least talking about values and the need to bring the country back together again.

Google "Trump asks china for help" and you'll find many stories based on Boltens book.

Gradyandrew is doing his part.
Is there any doubt Trump has been very overt in his love for Putin and his policies leading up to the invasion were to drive a wedge thru NATO to dilute the response?
Asked Zelensky for dirt on Biden? He got impeached for that.
Ramaswarmy vows to Cut aide that promotes democracy as an independent nation.
He I nothing but an opportunist pandering to a constituency with little logic to the big picture.
This is not hard to figure out for ones self.
But if you want your guy there is little to discuss.

gradyandrew wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

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.

Great stuff.

My question is, of 100 new drugs in the pipeline, how many of them are reformulations of existing products done mainly in order to extend existing patents? I've heard it's something like 75% but your views on this topic would be much appreciated.

Looking at the clinical pipeline (does not include pre-clinical or very early development) for my
cuŕrent company, out of the ~70 programs, less than 10 are reformulations. Note also that reforms are not always just to protect patent life. Sometimes for different targets such as pediatrics or to enhance efficacy or delivery (i.e a regular injection to a pre filled auto injector). Note also that patents for Active Ingredients is different than patent for formulation. The active ingrediant patent generally starts very early in the molecule or compound discovery process and can be ised by other manufacturers with their own formulations etc after patent expiry.

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:I think the non-performing assets in Chinese housing have a pretty close corollary to the money tied up in the US stock market. When a company has an IPO they get an infusion of capital to invest in their business; afterwards stocks aren't productive investments from an economic standpoint. The US economy improves when people sell off their stocks to open a new business or pay for education. Since the Chinese stock market isn't well regulated, most people prefer to speculate on housing prices.

To bring this topic back full circle, it's important to understand the differences in China from 2012 to 2022-23. Ten years ago this country was edging toward a dystopian future. A real fascinating story was happening in the central city of Chongqing. Prior to Bo Xilai becoming mayor and Want Lijun head of police, the city was basically under the thumb of corrupt officials. The police were the mafia and the head judicial official was the Godfather. I'll go out on a limb and say that it probably wasn't the only city like that.

Since Xi has taken over the economy has slowed down some but people's lives have improved greatly. More roads in the country side, most visible corruption eradicated, less crime, just a better all around society. A lot of that has to do with him putting values first. The Chinese core socialist values seem like they were borrowed from the Boy Scout Law.

I think America needs some of the same. Vivek seems like the only candidate at least talking about values and the need to bring the country back together again.

No he isn't. I question your full judgement of everything if that's what you are concluding with regards to Vivek. Vivek is nakedly pathetic. As a reminder, Vivek is fully on the Trump train.

What you are actually talking about is what Biden has been trying to do for the country.

If you take a logical approach, Vivek has an extremely low chance of ever getting elected as POTUS. What he is essentially doing is promoting his name & brand by making populist type commentary that is mostly aligned with Trump's base. This will ensure him some type of position if Trump is elected and if not he will secure a pundit type role on Fox News (or similar) as well as being positioned for other potential runs at Congress to become a power broker in the MAGA wing of the republican party.

I agree. He is running for the #2 spot for/behind Trump in MAGA land. He is also being pushed into this areana by Thiel, reasons and benefits to Vivek are not known specifically (there has to be a ask and reason for this).

Running in this MAGA mode is the antithesis of bringing our country back together again.

I like Joe. I was pretty excited to drive on Joe Biden Blvd. in the Electric City. That being said, there's so much distrust of Joe on the Republican side it's difficult to see him bringing the country together. My feeling going back this summer was that the cultural divide in the country is deeper than ever. I have trouble wrapping my head around how so many good people blithely ignore the homeless and drug addicts in America's cities. Seems like that should be at the top of everyone's list.

martin, you made the correct point that Joe has already beat Trump in an election. There's also a lot to be said for not catering to the MAGA base's total disconnect from reality. My big worry is if there's a rematch between Joe and Trump, Biden will come off too old in the debates and we'll be stuck with another four years of Trump.

In Vivek's defense, he calls out a lot of people by name in his book. He doesn't seem like a stooge of the donor class.

gradyandrew wrote:Every Republican is running for the number 2 spot behind Trump. Vivek seemed to tack noticeably to the MAGA side during the debate. Previously he had said that he wanted to pardon Trump in order to put that chapter behind the country. I think it's very dangerous for a country to make a political figure choose between the chief magistracy and prison (see Julii, Gains Caeser).

I like Joe. I was pretty excited to drive on Joe Biden Blvd. in the Electric City. That being said, there's so much distrust of Joe on the Republican side it's difficult to see him bringing the country together. My feeling going back this summer was that the cultural divide in the country is deeper than ever. I have trouble wrapping my head around how so many good people blithely ignore the homeless and drug addicts in America's cities. Seems like that should be at the top of everyone's list.

martin, you made the correct point that Joe has already beat Trump in an election. There's also a lot to be said for not catering to the MAGA base's total disconnect from reality. My big worry is if there's a rematch between Joe and Trump, Biden will come off too old in the debates and we'll be stuck with another four years of Trump.

In Vivek's defense, he calls out a lot of people by name in his book. He doesn't seem like a stooge of the donor class.

When a lot of people are willing to get behind and vote for a sexual predator and legal rapist who stole classified documents and was stupid enough to store those classified documents in a bathroom, I don't think the problem is with Biden's outreach. Every Democratic candidate will have that same problem. How to tackle that problem is hard, but let's point to the problem, not something else. The fact that it is even conceivable that Trump would get on a stage to debate is another subject altogether, let us not forget that Trump just skipped a Fox debate.

So your very first question should be: Will Trump even get on a debate stage?

Also, it is hard for me to digest these 2 statements by you, they don't jive. And they matter and shouldn't just be tossed about:

- "Vivek seems like the only candidate at least talking about values and the need to bring the country back together again."

- "Previously he [Vivek] had said that he wanted to pardon Trump in order to put that chapter behind the country."

Whimsically pardoning people like Trump - along with all of the other Jan6 participants as Vivek has mentioned he would do - after they have been convicted by a jury of their peers, is not a path to bringing the country together, there is just no 2 ways about that.

Vivek lies constantly. Vivek thinks "the climate change agenda" is a hoax. Etcetera.

Those are not the words of a serious person who is trying to bring solutions to our country or bring the country back together again.

We need to get past that very quickly. Otherwise, you fall into that time tested barrel of "What have we got to lose [by electing Trump as president]?" That is colossal failure and we just experienced 4 years of it.

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:Every Republican is running for the number 2 spot behind Trump. Vivek seemed to tack noticeably to the MAGA side during the debate. Previously he had said that he wanted to pardon Trump in order to put that chapter behind the country. I think it's very dangerous for a country to make a political figure choose between the chief magistracy and prison (see Julii, Gains Caeser).

I like Joe. I was pretty excited to drive on Joe Biden Blvd. in the Electric City. That being said, there's so much distrust of Joe on the Republican side it's difficult to see him bringing the country together. My feeling going back this summer was that the cultural divide in the country is deeper than ever. I have trouble wrapping my head around how so many good people blithely ignore the homeless and drug addicts in America's cities. Seems like that should be at the top of everyone's list.

martin, you made the correct point that Joe has already beat Trump in an election. There's also a lot to be said for not catering to the MAGA base's total disconnect from reality. My big worry is if there's a rematch between Joe and Trump, Biden will come off too old in the debates and we'll be stuck with another four years of Trump.

In Vivek's defense, he calls out a lot of people by name in his book. He doesn't seem like a stooge of the donor class.

When a lot of people are willing to get behind and vote for a sexual predator and legal rapist who stole classified documents and was stupid enough to store those classified documents in a bathroom, I don't think the problem is with Biden's outreach. Every Democratic candidate will have that same problem. How to tackle that problem is hard, but let's point to the problem, not something else. The fact that it is even conceivable that Trump would get on a stage to debate is another subject altogether, let us not forget that Trump just skipped a Fox debate.

So your very first question should be: Will Trump even get on a debate stage?

Also, it is hard for me to digest these 2 statements by you, they don't jive. And they matter and shouldn't just be tossed about:

- "Vivek seems like the only candidate at least talking about values and the need to bring the country back together again."

- "Previously he [Vivek] had said that he wanted to pardon Trump in order to put that chapter behind the country."

Whimsically pardoning people like Trump - along with all of the other Jan6 participants as Vivek has mentioned he would do - after they have been convicted by a jury of their peers, is not a path to bringing the country together, there is just no 2 ways about that.

Vivek lies constantly. Vivek thinks "the climate change agenda" is a hoax. Etcetera.

Those are not the words of a serious person who is trying to bring solutions to our country or bring the country back together again.

We need to get past that very quickly. Otherwise, you fall into that time tested barrel of "What have we got to lose [by electing Trump as president]?" That is colossal failure and we just experienced 4 years of it.

Climate change is real, but the agenda is a hoax. You’re not listening. Listen.

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:Every Republican is running for the number 2 spot behind Trump. Vivek seemed to tack noticeably to the MAGA side during the debate. Previously he had said that he wanted to pardon Trump in order to put that chapter behind the country. I think it's very dangerous for a country to make a political figure choose between the chief magistracy and prison (see Julii, Gains Caeser).

I like Joe. I was pretty excited to drive on Joe Biden Blvd. in the Electric City. That being said, there's so much distrust of Joe on the Republican side it's difficult to see him bringing the country together. My feeling going back this summer was that the cultural divide in the country is deeper than ever. I have trouble wrapping my head around how so many good people blithely ignore the homeless and drug addicts in America's cities. Seems like that should be at the top of everyone's list.

martin, you made the correct point that Joe has already beat Trump in an election. There's also a lot to be said for not catering to the MAGA base's total disconnect from reality. My big worry is if there's a rematch between Joe and Trump, Biden will come off too old in the debates and we'll be stuck with another four years of Trump.

In Vivek's defense, he calls out a lot of people by name in his book. He doesn't seem like a stooge of the donor class.

When a lot of people are willing to get behind and vote for a sexual predator and legal rapist who stole classified documents and was stupid enough to store those classified documents in a bathroom, I don't think the problem is with Biden's outreach. Every Democratic candidate will have that same problem. How to tackle that problem is hard, but let's point to the problem, not something else. The fact that it is even conceivable that Trump would get on a stage to debate is another subject altogether, let us not forget that Trump just skipped a Fox debate.

So your very first question should be: Will Trump even get on a debate stage?

Also, it is hard for me to digest these 2 statements by you, they don't jive. And they matter and shouldn't just be tossed about:

- "Vivek seems like the only candidate at least talking about values and the need to bring the country back together again."

- "Previously he [Vivek] had said that he wanted to pardon Trump in order to put that chapter behind the country."

Whimsically pardoning people like Trump - along with all of the other Jan6 participants as Vivek has mentioned he would do - after they have been convicted by a jury of their peers, is not a path to bringing the country together, there is just no 2 ways about that.

Vivek lies constantly. Vivek thinks "the climate change agenda" is a hoax. Etcetera.

Those are not the words of a serious person who is trying to bring solutions to our country or bring the country back together again.

We need to get past that very quickly. Otherwise, you fall into that time tested barrel of "What have we got to lose [by electing Trump as president]?" That is colossal failure and we just experienced 4 years of it.

Climate change is real, but the agenda is a hoax. You’re not listening. Listen.

LOL you’re straight pathetic. Literal zero add to anything you say