CharonY

I have thought about that for a while and discussed it with colleagues but essentially it is unlikely to work out with current models. There are issues on every level. For example, in typical research deliverable are often "just" scientific output. Thus, it is unlikely that sufficient people would buy into a pitch that they cannot assess scientifically. In cases where a scientist is sufficiently famous, just using ones name as brand might work. However, many scientists known to the public are actually science communicators rather than active researchers. As such, crowdfunding an outreach/engagement project might work, but it is likely to fail for basic research. Another area could be in applied sciences where the output is potentially much more tangible. But then the question would be why they were unsuccessful via traditional funding sources. Also it would be limited to relatively cheap projects, which is another limitation.

Uh, you are aware that automobile worker unions exist in all three countries? How would you assess the productivity in these countries?

Unions can reduce profits. However, that was not was MigL mentioned, though: The assumption here is that the work quality will be reduced to the lowest level, resulting in massive loss of productivity. I assume that this meant as a hyperbole, but what does research say?. In a paper by Metcalf comparing a number of industrialized countries indicate that in the US, Germany and Japan productivity is positively correlated with unionization, whereas in the UK there used to be a negative correlation. In the latter case the effect is diminishing, though. While unions can reduce productivity, depending on numerous factors, it is clear that a) this is not a uniform effect, and b) in many cases it can even lead to productivity increase. They often do cut into profits and the productivity increase does not always compensate for that (depending on industry and market situation).

I did not find the details either. But especially the first question, I have no idea why that would create an outrage. Seems like a trivial question to me.

To a certain degree, it might. The original fear was that people would move out completely from the workforce, meaning that a smaller workforce would have to bear a larger tax load. But at least that seems certainly not to be the case as the decrease was relatively small. However, if you assume that the overall workforce will shrink due to lack of jobs, the whole market will change due to loss of consumers, at least in certain areas.

Actually, I think it is quite complicated to accurately assess impact due to lack of data, mostly derived from series of studies (including negative income tax) dating back to the 70s and 80s. For example, it was found to be a mild work disincentive, which, depending on political affiliation, was seen either as a huge, or a minor issue. Proponents argued that at least some were actually using the additional time to pursue education and estimated at best minor impact, whereas opponents stressed potential wide market responses. The studies themselves were limited in a number of ways. But maybe it is worthwhile to create a thread specifically to continue this part of the discussion?

With regard to changes there are at least two developments. One, the apparent standard of living is improving due to affordability of many previously considered luxury items (e.g. electronics). This hides, to some degree, the increasing disparity between rich and poor. Effectively, the economic situation has also changed for the middle class. While a worker was able to raise a family on single income and own a house, it is almost impossible nowadays. This is why trying to bring or maintain manufacturing jobs in the USA is somewhat of a red herring. There are different metrics to consider, of course, such as wealth availability of assistance and so on. E.g. in Sweden there is also a significant inequality when it comes to personal wealth, but the actual effect is cushioned by benefits that are used to redistribute wealth (although that has changed in the recent years to some degree).

I am actually curious how the basic income experiment in Ontaria is going to work out. There have been earlier attempts but the outcome were ambivalent and the experiments were often terminated prematurely, from what I understand.

The way I see it your example does not illustrate a flat tax very well. Since at each step the buyer pays progressively more until the consumer who pays for the whole cost plus overhead. I.e. the total cost is distributed according to the respective contribution (material plus work time). And if one digs deeper there are also various degrees of margin and leverage.

That or maybe introduce some guaranteed basic income. However, it would still result in the middle class having a proportionate higher burden. Edit: VAT is actually also tricky. Looking at the 90s luxury taxes, the extracted revenue was far below expectation and since people just bought less of them (yacht sales went down ~70%, for example), it also threatened the livelihood of manufacturers and sellers. An overall VAT increase would again harm lower income brackets as they have to invest a large proportion of their income into necessities. So if VAT is supposed to fill the gap left by income taxes, I do not see a good model that would actually work, that does not cripple the working poor. Also note that the low taxes for food are are typically due to exemptions (or lower tax rates) for necessities. But if those remain low and we increase it for everything else ("tangible personal property"), it would again limit access of poor people to items that could increase their standard of living and/or ability to improve their financial situation.

Well, deductions are in my mind a different beast from that type of tax and actually complicate matters significantly. It should be noted that progressive tax to address inequality in theory is sound in , but due to deductions there is technically only a relatively moderate in crease in tax burden for the rich. A flat tax generally benefits the rich, however. According to the CB the top 1% pay roughly 29% of their income as tax, the 81st to 99th percentiles 21%, the 21st to 80th percentile 12% and finally the lowest quintile 2% (2011) data. Obviously a 10% tax rate will not work but increasing it to, say 15% clearly results in higher burden for almost everyone until you reach ~ the top 20%. Those will get a tax relief. So lower income brackets are taxed higher, while the overall tax revenue will be reduced. In short, depending on the income distribution, a flat tax typically leads to a upward distribution. If mitigated by high flat deductions the distribution can be mitigated for the low-income brackets but at cost of the middle class. That is not to say that the current implementation is really progressive, considering that capital gains are taxed differently and the access to certain deductions make the progressive tax less progressive than they may appear. Yet a flat rate clearly disadvantages lower income brackets. An interesting calculation would be a comparison using a no-deduction model.

Ah, but while the conservatives pound on this platform there is also a curious lack of initiative from the left to rectify matter. Fiscal inequality seems to be more a matter of well-off/influential people vs poor rather than left vs. right. The way the rhetoric is spun to make this happens differs, but often not that much the outcome (if painting the picture in broad strokes). As a number of social critics have argued that the apparent conflict by the two parties results in a type of ideological control where the average voter has the apparent ability to align him/herself with a party representing their respective ideology. In the end, however, the system takes over resulting in an upward distribution of resources to a governing elite. While I am nowhere near knowledgeable enough to assess the arguments in depth, people like Chomsky write compelling assays on this topic.

Oh, I have those, but you will note that despite the much larger size, the possible lumen output is generally quite a bit lower. I.e. halogen bulbs can have up to ~1900 lumens whereas the initial lumens for most LEDS are <300. Some of them have massive heat sinks, but I doubt that a fan would fit in there.

I guess a G9 would also be quite a challenge, as I would assume that it could only be passively cooled.

I remember an experiment by de Waal on capuchin monkeys using cucumbers and grapes.

I think for some of the more unusual (usually halogen) bulbs it may be harder to find LEDs with very high lumen. I guess it may because of the difficulty to design an efficient heat sink around some small form factors.

Why would you need blood? For energy purposes it is just there to transport nutrients and oxygen, it does not generate energy that happens essentially within mitochondria in target tissues. If you want to use the same chemical reaction, you are pretty much looking at a hydrogen motor.

I like this part: Appealing to envy is a powerful tool to oppose otherwise fiscally sensible social programs.

The cell barrier is generally the largest inhibitor of movement of compounds into blood. Proteins are very large, membrane impermeable entities and generally require active transport to reach the blood stream, which is generally rather unlikely. However, things are different if the barrier is breached.

Protein crystallization has always been part alchemy. Finding the right condition is always a bit hit and miss. With an unlimited budget automated platforms are ideal as they can run through a lot of conditions. There are also dozens of techniques that let you move through conditions rapidly. Hanging drops are probably the fastest screening method if done by hand and also is amenable for automated observation.

You will note that no one here is claiming that based on personal personal knowledge (expert or not), but based on openly available advice from health providers. Should it turn out to be harmful at some point, however, I am pretty sure that the many olive oil ear drop manufacturer are likely to be on the line than someone providing a link to a hospital website... Note that I get your point, though. If medical doctors told you that, it makes sense to accept the advice. However, in this case it has to be noted that research, other medical practitioners and to some degree FDA comments (not listed here) contradict it.

All genes are present in (almost) all cells. Many genes are required for basic cellular processes and are expressed in varying degrees in all tissues. An usually somewhat limited set of genes are expressed exclusively or mostly in certain tissues. Monitoring of genes is obviously not useful, but standard mRNA analysis (q-PCR, microarrays, RNA-Seq etc.) are used to monitor transcription, while protein (e.g. Western, ElLISA) or proteome analyses are used to monitor translation.

I assume that this discussion is centered around the NC bill, which is clearly not designed to actually address an issue, but instead just seems to be discriminatory against a specific group of people, ( it somewhat reminds me of the rather ridiculous anti-minaret laws in Switzerland). Considering how rare these events are, laws are likely to complicate matters unnecessarily. There are ways to deal with everyday issues without the need to create strict rules that are likely not enforceable, anyway. For example, in cases of gyms a transgender person may decide to discuss with the gym what options there are. After all, considering how few people are actual transgender they may accommodate the single person who is actually affected. Public bathrooms are very unlikely to be an issue as others already have noted.

Olive oil is commonly sold as ear drops, it is often recommended by a number of health providers in several countries. The only warning that you will find is if the tympanic membrane is perforated, as there are no conclusive risk assessments available. There are currently no studies that have shown that the use of olive oil are actually harmful in any form (or more harmful than water, see e.g. Clegg et al. Health Technol Assess 2010 for a meta-analysis). I am wondering whether doctors actually said that olive oil is bad, or self-application. The latter is sometimes an issue if one does not use proper applicator by jury rigs something to stuff in the ear canal. It should also be noted that some phenolic components in olive oil are suspected to have antibacterial functions. However, in cases of otitis externa it has not been shown to be more effective in clearing infections than water.

That is what you would say. But I tell you, it is a conspiracy and big sneeze is keeping it all under wraps.