I was mostly using Google Scholar to look for peer reviewed work with the keywords 'corexit toxicity' There are a about a dozen papers on the first page, of the ones I could read without jumping various firewalls the conclusions tended toward 'less toxic' than 'more toxic'. Would love to see a meta analysis too but didn't dig one up.
The USA spends more on health care than socialized healthcare countries do. Therefore, socialized healthcare systems have less money, and money is an important resource.
That money is targetted to older people in the US. Diseases of older people include dementia, cancer, respiratory stuff, orthopedic stuff after falls, etc.
It's unlikely that either system is particularly set up for Ebola style infectious illness.
Really? We're "decelerating our technological progress"? That's a bold enough claim that I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for it beyond, "someone made a dumb iPhone app instead of curing cancer".
Agreed. The best minds in one area (marketing, business, etc) don't apply to other areas (cancer research, physics, rocket science). Put Biz Stone to work at NASA and I'll bet he could make communication at NASA 10x better, but he's not going to be changing the fan belt on an Apollo booster any time soon.
I assume the book goes into more detail about the actual economics behind the ideas. It would be silly to turn discussion about this hype piece into a pseudo-intellectual argument over methodology we haven't read.
It's hard to break this down because there are so many different problems going on here, but let's pretend for a minute that the moral issues related to privacy and dignity are irrelevant, and that the arbitrary credit score threshold of 640 that necessitates this system is reasonable and determined by transparent and fair processes (it's not, but stay with me).
Does this _actually_ solve a problem? Are cars that difficult to repossess? Is it possible this is a marketing gimmick and the securities backed by it are sold to investors who just really like the idea of being able to f*ck over a poor person the second he or she misses a payment? Is this really an economic innovation that lets riskier borrowers have cars, or is it a sales tactic appealing to veiled social darwinist sympathies?
Very interesting, considering the existence of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalimotxo which sounds a little weird but actually tastes pretty good.
