Got into argument with Communist BIL.
 

So last night, my girlfriend's brother (Communist) and his wife came over for dinner.

He knows I'm a big investor in healthcare sciences (pharma and biotech). I mentioned that my biotechs have been DESTROYED over the past 3 months due to chatter of higher corporate taxes (higher taxes equals less cash equals less M&A equals lower share prices) and talk from Ds of potentially getting rid of IP rights.

Her brother was like "I'm sorry you lost...but getting rid of IP rights of biotechs and pharma is good for society".

I said "How?! How is that 'good' for society?"

He said:
"If the government eliminates the IP rights, prices come down. Because generic companies can make expensive drugs for pennies. That's good for society, because everybody can get the meds they need".

My response:
"That is a ONE time fix that is great in the short run and catastrophic in the long run. Why? First the companies can't make money if their IP is stolen by government. If they can't make money, investors pull their money. Them the company can't pay scientists and they are laid off and/or quit. Then there is no new drug development. They all just fold up and whatever we have now is what we're stuck with. No new cures or discoveries going forward".

He said:
"That's not true. Government will develop the medications".

Me:
"Government. Government?! They can't deliver a Hallmark card on time or to the right address with alarming frequency, and you are going to count on them to cure cancer, Alzheimer's, and other tricky ailments? Are you joking or what?"

Communist:
"Government has the resources"

Me:
"A 'government car' is a Yugo and the free markets created Lambo, Ferrari, and Bugatti. Which is better?"

Communist:
"It's still wrong to withhold cures from sick people"

Me:
"How is stealing their IP any different from me walking in your home and stealing your possessions and then your car?"

Communist:
"This is a company. It's different".

There you have it, folks. Stealing from a company is a-okay.

I swear...95% of Millennials are freakin dumb. :omg::rant:

Go get em... and **** em till their dead

Sounds like my sister and her husband. Both PHDs at an eastern university. Neither have ever held a full time job outside of academia

aspirin and penicillin for him. that's it.

you want Fauci creating new drugs?

yup, he's an idiot.

That's when you have to find out their professions and dive deep on why they shouldn't get paid because it's for the good of society. Any objection is over-ruled by repeating it's good for society.:dance:

Remember when Fauci presided over a Operation Warp Speed to create the AIDS vaccine in less than a year? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

He does sales in the corporate world. He makes very good money.

Typical. He's a sleazeball for a living and demands companies I own shares of just give up their hard work. :spdchk::spdchk::spdchk:

just curious, have you paid for every digital copy of every song you have?

I don't have digital copies of music. I just listen to it by playing YouTube videos. Seriously.

I get your point. But comparing companies with public equity owned by retirement plans and individual investors is different than whiney Hollywood pricks who already have $100+ million.

They might be the *only* exception that I say "who cares if their 'IP'" (where they rap about shooting people and assaulting others). That is maybe the only example I could say "I see why the IP is stupid".

Wait..... You did just type this didn't you?

"How is stealing their IP any different from me walking in your home and stealing your possessions and then your car?"

:leaving:

Correct.

And like I said, I am saying that might be the *only* exception to this rule I see as being "ok".

A bunch of prick Hollywood aholes with $100+ million who are pissed about missing out on a small portion of royalties.

Id say missing out on 10% or 15% of profits is different than 100% of profits being stolen via government confiscation.

Since when has any Hollywood ahole lost 100% of profits?

Having a biotech develop a cure for cancer and it stolen means they lose 100% of profits. There's no middle ground. It's not like if their IP is stolen, they lose 10-15% like those Hollywood aholes.

They lose 100%.

Do you not see a difference?

you make a lot of assumptions

1) not ever music group originates in hollywood.
2) not every music company is based in hollywood
3) you don't get to pick/choose which laws you abide by or don't, just as you chastised the commie that he can't
4) just as there are thousands of people who bring a drug to market, there are thousands who are involved in publishing music, books, artwork, photographs, etc, etc. Not every penny of the price of a song/book/picture/etc goes to the artist.
5) see #3
6) YES, if a song/book/pic/artwork is digitally copied and distributed, aka stolen, the artist and thousands of people do lose 100% of the revenue.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? :)

How can a biotech that develops a cure for cancer retain ANY profit if the IP is stolen by government?

Will a rapper retain *some/most* profit even if there are unpaid downloads?

You're comparing one scenario that is a complete zero sum with another that is not.

It's like comparing a stolen car with a stolen apple from a bag of apples.

That's why the law recognizes one as "grand theft auto" (a serious felony) and the other is "petty larceny".

Or will you make the argument that petty larceny is on par with felony theft? :rofl:

But nice try.

Are you assuming he hasn't? That would beg the question, have you?

FWIW: I have.

My life and health are not impacted by pirated music or stolen art. There is a risk assessment for everything in life and art is low on the list.

I use Spotify for music, you either listen to commercials or pay for the service, no pirating involved.

Piracy IS a victimless crime!

Tell that to Capt. Phillips. :leaving: