At 6/30/11 12:18 AM, Newgrundling wrote: So for later stages of life, and speaking purely economically, yes.
explain
Cancer, along with other diseases, are good for the pocketbooks of select people. Unfortunately when people focus all their attention on what's good for their pocketbook, it tends to be to the detriment of the system in which they conduct their business (cite current economic meltdown). So, I'll have to say no.
if thats the case then mass murder is also great economically.
No of course not.
You're using resources/depleting capital in order to maintain a certain standard of living (which yes, includes staying alive).
Despite what moronic keynesians who view the economy as a giant GDP machine might tell you, the point of an economy should be to increase living standards. Cancer ties up resources which could otherwise used to do this.
That's not to say using resources to save people's lives isn't a good thing, but it's not a good thing that these resources need to be used.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 6/30/11 01:05 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Unfortunately when people focus all their attention on what's good for their pocketbook, it tends to be to the detriment of the system in which they conduct their business (cite current economic meltdown). So, I'll have to say no.
This is a load of crap. Making money means providing goods and services either better or cheaper than everyone else, or a mix of both. The only time this isn't the case is when the state interferes.
In the medical field, this means using all kinds of regulations to keep out competition, in the finance field in means creating all kinds of moral hazards and the redistribution of wealth through inflation.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 6/30/11 03:19 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The only time this isn't the case is when the state interferes.
Or when people get scammed.
At 6/30/11 05:47 AM, poxpower wrote: Or when people get scammed.
well true, though the transfer of resources from dumb people to smart people can have positive effects.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
If you mean to say that the invention of an extremely cheap all-purpose cancer cure [hypothetical of course] would look bad on the gdp figures for a few years, the answer is yes.
Hence the danger of taking GDP too seriously.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 6/30/11 01:49 AM, GenGurillacooda wrote: if thats the case then mass murder is also great economically.
In a sense, however the executioners are probably not as well paid due to their job being not very skilled. Doctors on the other hand are skilled and the more money they get in the more money luxury brands get. On top of this cancer kills patients who drain their health insurance companies so win-win.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 6/30/11 01:53 PM, Warforger wrote:
On top of this cancer kills patients who drain their health insurance companies so win-win.
Wait what?
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 6/30/11 01:53 PM, Warforger wrote:
In a sense, however the executioners are probably not as well paid due to their job being not very skilled.
Actually, Executioner, if a paid position would have to pay rather well because there aren't very many people with the lack of mentally sane people who would be willing to take on such a role who wouldn't be devoured by their own conscience after a few, uhh, jobs. Given that I snapped after working at a slaughterhouse for 3 months, I don't think I would handle such a job myself.
Then again, there are a few trials I've seen where I wouldn't mind pulling the lever...
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
If i'm not mistaken lethal injection is a rather complicated process, at least as compared with the traditional methods, [firing squad, axe, gas chamber, and even the electric chair]
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
yes because humans live way too long so cancer helps keep the population kinda low.
At 6/30/11 03:19 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 6/30/11 01:05 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Unfortunately when people focus all their attention on what's good for their pocketbook, it tends to be to the detriment of the system in which they conduct their business (cite current economic meltdown). So, I'll have to say no.This is a load of crap. Making money means providing goods and services either better or cheaper than everyone else, or a mix of both. The only time this isn't the case is when the state interferes.
You mean when business interferes with the state to prompt interference in business to gain more from the state by giving more to business that cycles back into interference with the state to further interfere with business? Yeah, the commercial sector is really suffering from that.
At 6/30/11 05:20 PM, darkrchaos wrote: yes because humans live way too long so cancer helps keep the population kinda low.
Haven't you ever heard of birth control? I think that would be a more ethical way of controlling the population than making people's lives shorter.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
At 6/30/11 07:46 PM, Ericho wrote:At 6/30/11 05:20 PM, darkrchaos wrote: yes because humans live way too long so cancer helps keep the population kinda low.Haven't you ever heard of birth control? I think that would be a more ethical way of controlling the population than making people's lives shorter.
Lower population and life expectancy are not as related as Darkrchaos would probably believe. Usually it is those societies where overpopulation is a problem where life expectancy are lower relative to the most developed, and by overpopulation I mean more people in an area than the 'economy' could support.
of course certain races and ethnicities tend to have longer lifespans than others, but adjusting for that.
When birth and death rates [both general and infant morality] are high, you tend to have a stable though very poor society, most of humanity existed this way for most of history. [many still do], populations tend to explode because higher life expectancies caused by lower death and infant morality rates. Birth rates also tend to fall but not nearly as quickly as infant morality rates. Then gradually the birth and infant morality rates settle and the population rate levels off, and might even decline.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
The Hutch in Seattle pumps tons of money into the city's economy, so I'd have to say yes.
At 6/30/11 06:58 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: You mean when business interferes with the state to prompt interference in business to gain more from the state by giving more to business that cycles back into interference with the state to further interfere with business?
Business doesn't "interefere" with the state, certain (most?) politicians are just crooks. It is only the state who is able to use force in the form of laws. Politicians don't have to do what businesses tell htem to to do, but those entrepreners and small business owners who are crippled by regulations are literally forced to do what the state says.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 6/30/11 08:52 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Hutch in Seattle pumps tons of money into the city's economy, so I'd have to say yes.
in what way does a research center, something that uses up massive amounts of resources in order to produce stuff years and even decades away, 'pump money' into the economy?
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 6/30/11 10:47 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: in what way does a research center, something that uses up massive amounts of resources in order to produce stuff years and even decades away, 'pump money' into the economy?
Are you trying to say that employing a few thousand people (a lot of them quite well), buying supplies, and helping to put cancer patients back to work does not pump money into the economy? Really?
At 7/1/11 08:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 6/30/11 10:47 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: in what way does a research center, something that uses up massive amounts of resources in order to produce stuff years and even decades away, 'pump money' into the economy?Are you trying to say that employing a few thousand people (a lot of them quite well), buying supplies, and helping to put cancer patients back to work does not pump money into the economy? Really?
It boosts GDP numbers. If that is how you define the health of an economy, so be it.
Likewise the rebuilding of New Orleans could have possibly increased GDP figures.
However the only way one could say that the existence of cancer is a NET and LONG TERM good, is if you hold to the assumption that people who presently have cancer would both 1. Do nothing with the income they earn that now does not need to be spent on warding off death 2. Be no happier with cancer than without it.
The better way to think of an economy is the sum total of things produced and/or exchanged by a society which are subjectively valued by individuals.
In a world of where cancer exists, resources are spent attempting to prolong the lives of those that have cancer or even destroy the cancer entirely. These resources take the form of goods and services in the medical industry which have value precisely because they perform the task of preventing, treating, [and perhaps] curing cancer. A miracle cure for cancer would eliminate the need for these things and so one would expect that they would cease to exist. But one would equally expect that the resources no longer used for curing cancer, the labor, the research, and the materials, could never be used for any other purpose than treating cancer. [Perhaps not necessarily the very same resources, but the resources that would have otherwise been used for cancer treatment purposes, I.e people who would have become cancer doctors, resources that would have used to create radiation therapy devices, etc.]
Neither I nor Sadistic could deny that the sudden elimination of cancer would look bad on GDP figures.
However using the latter definition of an economy, the elimination of cancer would not be a burden to the economy.
At any rate, the logic that leads one to believes that cancer is 'good' for the economy is the same logic that believes the destruction of NYC could be good for the economy.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 7/1/11 08:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Are you trying to say that employing a few thousand people (a lot of them quite well), buying supplies, and helping to put cancer patients back to work does not pump money into the economy? Really?
Where does the money come from?
At best, if it comes from the government, then all this means is that Seattle's economy benefits at the expense of wherever the government got money from, and if it for some reason it came from overseas then the American economy would be benefitting at the expense of whichever countries the money came from.
Assuming, however, it comes from individuals from within Washington, then its not good for the economy. Your claim implicitly suggests that resources would lay idle were it not for the cancer research that needs to be performed, but this is of course nonsense. There is always money to be made somewhere, and hence there will always be entrepreneurs/investors willing to employ resources in order to produce something and hopefully make a profit. The funding for the research lab means simply that resources are being used up in order to regain/protect a certain standard of living, instead of outright improving it.
Which, again, isn't to saythat people shouldn't fund research labs, but its not good for the economy that we need these labs in the first place.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 7/1/11 11:19 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: At best, if it comes from the government, then all this means is that Seattle's economy benefits at the expense of wherever the government got money from, and if it for some reason it came from overseas then the American economy would be benefitting at the expense of whichever countries the money came from.
If that is your argument, NOTHING is good for the economy. The money used to pay people has to come from somewhere. In your logic here, because factory A gets money from consumers, even though it provides jobs and incomes for hundred in the community, it sucks money from others to create money, and therefore is a wash...
At 7/2/11 01:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
If that is your argument, NOTHING is good for the economy.
Ah and finally we come to the crux of the argument : D
Cancer is bad for the economy because of its destructive nature. It not only destroys the wellbeing and productivity those suffering, but the treatment of this disease requires vast resources.
Consider this scenario... If there was no cancer and therefore no medical resources toward its treatment, then those funds could likely go towards not only enhancing overall human productivity, but also maintaining productivity by years, maybe even decades, for the elderly which would be much better economically than fighting a disease that destroys productivity.
At 7/2/11 01:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If that is your argument, NOTHING is good for the economy. The money used to pay people has to come from somewhere. In your logic here, because factory A gets money from consumers, even though it provides jobs and incomes for hundred in the community, it sucks money from others to create money, and therefore is a wash...
Are you seriously contending that if the government took, $X million in taxes from New York and then spent this on paying X number of workers in Pennsylvania, that this isn't merely Pennsylvania's economy benefitting at the expense of New York?
Obviously these resources going into Penn. will be good for its economy, but it means that you're taking resources that would have been employed in New York and employing them elsewhere.
Can you not see that this merely means that any gains in production in Penn correspond to a decrease in production in New York?
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
it creates high end jobs, but costs a fortune from all the people who need treatment and sometimes all those people who become disabled from the disease and live off of social insurance.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
No, and the reason is simple: people create wealth (goods and services). Cancer destroys wealth by lowering or eliminating the productivity of one person (the cancer patient) and focusing the productive efforts of another (the doctor) on a problem that consumes resources (the doctor's time, etc.) that could be put to other productive uses.
At 7/2/11 10:59 PM, MattZone wrote: that could be put to other productive uses.
What's a productive use?
Curing another disease? Staving off aging? Clean energy?
At the end of the day, all our resources are used up in solving problems. That's all an economy does: it solves problems. Life is a cascade of endless problems and situations that people want to get out of.
Is cancer good for the economy?
Well WHAT ISN'T? If there's no problems, there's no economy.
If there was no hunger, disease, boredom or death, we'd still have problems and our money would be spent there.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
