An experimental setup using lab animals is much, much easier. Studies involving humans are so much more complicated due to ethical concerns and regulations, control and experimental groups, and the fact that (at least to me) humans themselves are just difficult creatures.
As long as the system being worked on (muscles in this case) is analogous to humans then the research is valuable to human cases. Any positive results could then be used to help bolster the case to actually use human test subjects because getting permission to test on people can be difficult from what I understand.
News From The War On The Poor
News from the war on the poor
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
And now I want to become a rabbit massage therapist THANKS
there is a multiplying like rabbits/happy ending joke in there somewhere...
can we please get back to the war on the poor?...
they have so much more that we can take from them!
/steals candy from a baby
[+]
The current winners in the war on the poor: rabbits
[+]
Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%"
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.
OWS chants of "we are the 99%" is a lie. they should really be chanting "we are the 0.01%".
Your house maids are probably in that 1% as well.
6 / 7,500,000,000
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.
OWS chants of "we are the 99%" is a lie. they should really be chanting "we are the 0.01%".
Your house maids are probably in that 1% as well.
6 / 7,500,000,000
this one is better... /declares war on the rabbits!
Blazed1979 said: »
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.
how are they devils again?
[+]
Quote:
Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%"
I'm am the the 1%!!!
Asura.Failaras said: »
Quote:
Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%"
Which makes us the devils according to certain people. Because, you know, justification for those people's actions.
I mean, when to be considered to be part of the 1% of the world's population in terms of wealth equals about $32,400, which is easy to do in the US as long as you have a brain in your head and the will to do something more than minimum wage-type work.
Flipping burgers for a living does not qualify.
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: »
A LOT of stuff including quotes from Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher.
So much of that is WRONG.
You are so freaking close yet so far away.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Probably based on the articles out recently siting the findings of the Tax Policy Center
trump tax plan
trump tax plan
He also stated a strong reduction of spending, which also affects the deficit.
To contribute one factor in the deficit as the sole instigator is dishonest at best. So, like I said, uneducated opinion.
Reducing tax rates and cutting spending has, in practice, been shown time and again to be a less effective way to balance a budget than stimulus to increase GDP and then just taking the government's cut.
But maybe you want to live in David Cameron's shithole UK?
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Probably based on the articles out recently siting the findings of the Tax Policy Center
trump tax plan
trump tax plan
He also stated a strong reduction of spending, which also affects the deficit.
To contribute one factor in the deficit as the sole instigator is dishonest at best. So, like I said, uneducated opinion.
Reducing tax rates and cutting spending has, in practice, been shown time and again to be a less effective way to balance a budget than stimulus to increase GDP and then just taking the government's cut.
But maybe you want to live in David Cameron's shithole UK?
Stimulus only works when it's applied to the entire nation, not specific industries (like, say, the auto industry). Works better if it's applied towards individuals and not businesses (say, GWB's "Making Work Pay Refundable Tax Credit").
[+]
Working people stimulate the economy?
Who knew!
Who knew!
Quote:
Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.
Examples?
Quote:
Stimulus only works when it's applied to the entire nation, not specific industries (like, say, the auto industry).
Why? The auto bailout saved a ton of jobs (within GM and Chrysler themselves, dealerships, parts manufacturers/suppliers, etc.) at a final cost of like $9 billion, which is peanuts. Nothing wrong with a loan, especially when it's in the iddle of a complete economic meltdown you're trying to stop from getting worse.
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Quote:
Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.
Examples?
I can't give you actual examples because not one thing the government does directly effects the economy, it's a bunch of things that the government does that effects the economy as a whole. Both domestic and, in the case of the US, internationally.
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees. Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Why? The auto bailout saved a ton of jobs (within GM and Chrysler themselves, dealerships, parts manufacturers/suppliers, etc.) at a final cost of like $9 billion, which is peanuts. Nothing wrong with a loan, especially when it's in the iddle of a complete economic meltdown you're trying to stop from getting worse.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
\
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.
This is exactly what Sam Brownback has been doing in Kansas, and it's been a disaster, because it turns out most business owners don't actually want to expand if their current operation is profitable and they'll just pocket the money instead.
Expanding your business involves a lot of additional work and risk beyond the simple additional capital, and if you DID want to expand getting the money to do so was always the easy part anyway.
Quote:
Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.
High spending/revenue accomplishes the same thing and does it without turning the country into, well, the UK.
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.
Not to sidetrack, but I've long been wondering about this obsession with Solyndra. It was one bust out of how many...?
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
\
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.
This is exactly what Sam Brownback has been doing in Kansas, and it's been a disaster, because it turns out most business owners don't actually want to expand if their current operation is profitable and they'll just pocket the money instead.
Expanding your business involves a lot of additional work and risk beyond the simple additional capital, and if you DID want to expand getting the money to do so was always the easy part anyway.
Again, you cannot attribute just one action towards the economy as a whole. What happened in Kansas was not an "All things being equal" scenario.
Quote:
Quote:
Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.
High spending/revenue accomplishes the same thing and does it without turning the country into, well, the UK.
Do you really, honestly believe in that fluff? I mean, seriously! Should I point at historical numbers and current numbers and show that not only is that completely wrong, but even any skewed numbers you may consider would still make that statement completely wrong. Even if you pretend that Obama's "deficit" started on January 1st, 2016, Obama's statement and your analysis is still completely wrong. Not a day has gone by when Obama stepped foot on the White House has the deficit has gone down. Ever. And the high spending hasn't helped with the stagnate growth, has it? It also hasn't helped with consumer confidence either. Both are strong indicators of the health of the economy.
Protip: GDP growth was averaging ~2.5% per year up until Obama went into office.
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.
Not to sidetrack, but I've long been wondering about this obsession with Solyndra. It was one bust out of how many...?[/quote]
The problem with Solyndra is, Obama personally approved of this, where presidents usually don't even bother with little things like loan approval or such.
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.