Stop reviewing cancer research results right now https://www.science.org/content/art...zes-meetings-travel-communications-and-hiring Other than authoritarianism - who does this order purport to serve? What public benefit? Why be ****ing evil clowns? Grow up
I was supposed to find out more today, but everything got canceled. I don't think the people inside the administration know what will happen to them or the programs they are running. But that's fair enough, even if it isn't positive for me. The dust will settle, eventually. As a minarchist, I am in favour of cutting government programs where appropriate.
When people say, trump will be good because he`s a successful businessman I cringe because you can't run a country like a company and trump sucks at both. There are real people with real issues who will be affected by these ridiculous XO`s....I am really afraid that they will cancel agencies like OSHA who are there to protect WORKERS, take the regulations away and it's great for the business bottom line but not so great for the $18.00 an hour forklift driver. Do some agencies need to look at how they function, 100% agreed but it needs to be through bipartisan legislation, Billionaires dont give AF about the middle class, there looking at their bottom line and as a Democracy you cant think like that. I am sure the mom and dad on Maple Lane in any town USA who voted for trump for change, are going to get change, the rich will get richer and the poor will stay poor and the middle-class won't be taking that summer vacation to Disney because there paying 5 bucks a piece for Avocado's and 10 for a head of lettuce.
he's running the country like a company alright. making himself and his billionaire friends richer. while he gives two shiet about the lower class.
Every single person of his first cabinet said he was unfit for the job. In the business world no board of any fortune 500 company would hire a CEO who every past employer trashed. The people closest to Trump said he was an awful leader
Ah, while you are here - are you still claiming that the birthright EO is retroactive? I saw you ran away like a little girl from the bet I offered you.
Someone with intellectual curiosity who knows their limits and have basic empathy skills. None of these traits are traits associated with being good at business. Obviously in our brain broken society someone who is tall, angular jawline etc has to possess these traits because we as humans have monkey brains and associate "good ideas" and a commanding presence with people who look a certain way.
More like running businesses to the ground. He would have been better off having bought some index funds and done nothing.
Someone with a history of public service, leading large organizations, a history and knowledge of civics, a person who understands the constitution, and has shown a talent for diplomacy. Military leadership would definitely be a plus as well. Being a businessman is absolutely valuable experience. But I don't think that alone is the best possible experience.
I would agree that a mix of experience would be best. But if someone never worked in private industry in their life, with P&L responsibility, ideally as a founder or entrepreneur, they would have never had to feel the pressure of delivering results or facing the consequences for themselves and their team. If someone only ever worked in government and administration jobs, they may be a great person, but they would lack that experience. Government and huge corporates are similar insofar as they both tend to become more bureaucratic and inefficient the more bloated they get, and it is possible to move up the ranks without really being creative or productive. But when you are running a whole country, you cannot hide. So I would argue that running a business is more similar to running a country than being a small cog in a huge machine for many years.
I think this is a ego thing for you. Maybe you don't understand the technical side of what makes the actual profit in a business that involves skilled labor to make the product like an engineering company headed by MBAs. For example in Boeing, the MBA executives aren't the ones feeling the pressure to produce. Producing for them is just showing the number going up to shareholders and you can do that easily with things like layoffs. Any trained monkey can do that. The pressure lies with the actual engineers that have deadlines to meet from MBAs that don't know basic engineering constraints. Because they actually have to do the actual brain work to complete the task while the MBA executives use their frat bro charisma to convince the shareholders everything is fine and if it isn't, we can just lay everyone off and you get your return on investment you desired anyways.
ok the title is misleading, he didn't cancel the NIH Regardless, even cutting funding like this is one of the stupides things trump has ever done. The NIH isn't like other gov programs, its a gold standard...
Agree on title being misleading. I think/hope this is only temporary - I hope they freeze it, go through all the various initiatives, and revive the ones that make sense.
Where do you think the researchers in the private sector came from? Nearly all of them have worked on research earlier in their career funded by NIH. basically this will relegate the creation of new drugs to other countries. It's just America is cutting off it's own nose. Pure idiocy.
Funding should come from investors. The United States has the most robust, active, and liquid financial markets (private and public) in the world. Funding should come from that -- not the government. It's crazy to me how people think the government is the answer to every problem. The government makes things worse and the people working for the government are usually lousy employees.
Are you telling me that if another pandemic level disease strikes the world again, you are going to rely on the private sector to see us through?
It isn't possible for it to be privately funded anywhere on earth. No company will take that kind of R&D research around things that are many times speculative at best. The NIH gives out 60,000 grants. Most of that doesn't result in anything close to being a successful drug and it's nearly impossible to predict. Companies don't fund basic research - it's just not wise. Science won't progress the way you think it will. You don't understand how innovation is developed and what it takes to make it happen. It's not linear. Not only that, companies don't make scientists. They hire them. What happens when the work that makes scientists who they are - is taken away. Every single scientist depended on the NIH in some way shape or form. The private sector will not replace that. You have no idea of the scale that will be lost.
