That's true, but I have a thesis for why this might be good for the biotech ecosystem.
A lot of people will dismiss phage therapy on economic grounds, suggesting that you'd need to essentially design a new phage therapy for each individual infection you wanted to treat. But, with the advances we're seeing in microfluidics, diagnostics, gene sequencing, computational biology, laboratory automation, and the theory of precision medicine, that host specificity can turn from a disadvantage to an advantage. We know there are a lot of human-dwelling bacteria we wouldn't want to knock but can't save from a broad-spectrum treatment. With a personalized phage therapy, this isn't as much of a concern, and with the above advances, custom therapeutic design can scale economically.
But here's the most important implication of phage-host specificity for biotech business models. When a biotech company gets approved to roll out custom therapies for each individual patient, that opens the door to solving two important roadblocks to biotech innovation. First, firms could get around the problem where they're subject to regulatory scrutiny based on a naive interpretation of the difference between their manufacturing costs and their sale prices. Second, such a paradigm of treatment could permit biotechs to offer gradations of service and charge based on how finely-tuned your therapy is. This would enable them to much more closely fit the demand curve of patients. They could bring the latest technology to the masses cheaply and relatively quickly, while charging a premium for the cutting edge.
This site is actually doing something interesting through its curation, and I would be pretty impressed if that was how it was pitched to me.
But I have to agree, expecting a bookstore and then getting something totally other is too much of a clash. If you want a bookstore, nothing's going to beat a bookstore. If this site offers something different, it should be sold on its merits.
I remember exactly where I was, about a year ago today, when I realized Deep Thought was an existentialist. B2 Data Structures lab in a building called Fitz. I knew I couldn’t have been the first to realize this, but I couldn’t bear to look it up and see whether or not I’d been preempted.
And it was totally what he meant. The ASCII wildcard-existentialism theory is too consistent with the themes Adams explores through the series to have been an accident.
I fully agree with Musk when he said he regards the Hitchhiker’s Guide as a great work of philosophy, whether or not he was joking. It totally worked for me as I was trying to progress beyond nihilism.
Here’s how this gets broken: The more countries faithfully adhere to the global corporate minimum, the stronger the incentive becomes for a “cheating” country to lower its rate.
The tax haven could even get around an “enforcer” or governing board. For instance, such a country might change what it considers to be “profit” so that you’re paying $2 on $100 of revenue, whereas in the neighboring country you’d be paying $6. Same nominal tax rate, different effective tax rates.
There are even more ways to play this: “Sure, we tax you at the required 20%, but you can then direct how those funds are used to reduce costs you’d otherwise have to pay directly.”
And this happens a ton— see the WTO and “effective” but not nominal tariffs.
Whether or not we see such a harmonized tax rate emerge and even if we could find a way to have some governing body try to “enforce” it, you’ll still see countries lowering their effective tax rates to lure firms or bolster growth. I bet there’s a maximum sustainable effective corporate tax rate, but I have no idea what it is (and for all I know it could be zero or negative).
Whether or not we see such a harmonized tax rate emerge and even if we could find a way to have some governing body “enforce” it, you’d still see countries lowering their effective tax rates to lure firms or bolster growth. I bet there’s a maximum sustainable effective corporate tax rate, but I have no idea what it is (and for all I know it could be zero or negative).
Can these small countries who offer the low rates stand up the US sanctions and tarrifs apparatus. The US has alot of strings to pull to make these tax havens cooperate. Thats a nice export industry you have there, would be a shame if something were to happen to it wink nudge.
The point is that effective tax rates can be really subtle.
For instance, you could have a country change what it considers to be “profit” so that you’re paying $2 on $100 of revenue, whereas in the neighboring country you’d be paying $6. Same nominal tax rate, different effective tax rates.
There are even more ways to play this: “Sure, we tax you at the required 20%, but you can then direct how those funds are used to reduce costs you’d otherwise have to pay directly.”
And this happens a ton— see the WTO and “effective” but not nominal tariffs.
Thanks for the insight, what would be the danger of the happy path solution where these effective vs nominal rates arent factored in. Some countries have a huge advantage in certain industries?
Happy you found it helpful! The final section (imposters) of this [1] simplified exploration of “green beard altruism” might be of interest to you if you want to explore this further. If you’re interested in thinking about things like this generally, these are Nash equilibrium problems and the field is called game theory.
In answer: if we do discard the assumptions of game theory and we imagine nobody would ever think to “cheat,” it could work. But in reality it wouldn’t be just that some countries have huge advantages in some industries— they would have huge advantages in every industry. People and companies looking to maximize their opportunities would flee to the country with the lowest effective (nominal doesn’t matter) tax rate which could also guarantee their safety.
This is actually part of how the US ended up burying the Soviet Union/eastern Bloc with economic productivity— we kept poaching all their best engineers, scientists, mathematicians, and entrepreneurs.
Careful, there are a lot of people who wish IQ tests didn’t have anything useful to say about intelligence. Implying that IQ tests can be useful tools and that their results might bear some relation to intelligence usually brings them out of the woodwork.
