Ordinary people?
1 Like
I think it’s a bad look and the push probably comes from her constituency. I imagine the caucus sees this as an easy win since it was recently added, punitive, and directed at blue states. I think it’s especially a bad look since doing nothing means it expires in 2025 and it doesn’t sound like they’re interested in compromise. My hope is they make it permanent in exchange for raising the cap and tying it to inflation.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that article smells a bit suspicious to me. Is it normal to only point out the political party along with the name when it is a Republican? I feel like that’s something I see in partisan news stories. I haven’t dug into the sources or crunched the numbers, but my understanding is the Alternative Minimum Tax would effectively be the backstop if the cap wasn’t in place. So the statement about who is affected may technically be true, but the impact could still be towards the middle (maybe upper-middle) class.
Yes, as in people who have a neurotypical relationship with large numbers. The human brain isn’t normally wired in such a way to fully grasp concepts like the difference between a million and a billion without things like visual aids. We may understand such things academically but we usually don’t feel them without a solid point of reference.
7 Likes
That makes a lot of sense.
1 Like
For a guy who makes 24 million dollars a year he sure didn’t seem to know much about his own company.
2 Likes
I think it’s a valid choice to make it harder to claim some opposing lobbyist made it for her. And yeah, from a semiotic perspective it does work well to make sure not only the question is framed well, it limits the witnesses’ ability to bullshit, obfuscate, pretend differences aren’t that great. We have to translate all written quantities into visuals in our brain to properly compare, the whiteboard here saves us mental processing so that we can actually weigh the merits of the argument.
5 Likes
Believe me, there is nothing more I’d want than for this to be hyperbolic. I suppose her appointment (or do they volunteer?) could be a tactic to keep the legislation on an even keel. 
3 Likes
Well, yes, no, more complicated than that.
Original research is often done funded by governments, universities, non-profits etc… If that results in anything interesting a company might snap it up, that bit is true. But they then do the more practical stuff like large scale testing, the design of manufacturing, delivery systems, etc… That does cost a lot of money that other non-commercial parties can’t (or won’t) pay.
Then the company has the patents and the rights but that is true all over the world while the US prices are much higher. That is caused by insurance and billing practices, not only the industry.
Beware what you wish for. If states take away patents companies will stop investing. That only works if governments (not jus the US) again pay for the whole research and not just the cheap bit in the beginning. That is how it used to be, that is why for example rabies, polio and tetanus vaccinations are so dirt cheap.
1 Like
Oh yes, it sure does.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
