Originally posted by der schwarze RitterCritics such as Ralph Nader have suggested that because of the private nature of the funding of think tanks their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results that ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors. This risk of distortion similarly threatens the reputation and integrity of organizations such as universities, once considered to stand wholly within the public sector.
The Government is spending more on welfare than on education or law and order, but the vast sums are doing little to relieve poverty, according to the think-tank Reform:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2473368,00.html
Some critics go further to assert think tanks are little more than propaganda tools for promoting the ideological arguments of whatever group established them. They charge that most think tanks, which are usually headquartered in state or national seats of government, exist merely for large-scale lobbying to form opinion in favor of special private interests. They give examples such as organizations calling themselves think tanks having hosted lunches for politicians to present research that critics claim is merely in the political interest of major global interests such as Microsoft, but that the connections to these interests are never disclosed. They charge, as another example, that the RAND Corporation issues research reports on national missile defense that accelerate investment into the very military products being produced by the military manufacturers who control RAND. Critics assert that the status of most think-tanks as non-profit and tax exempt makes them an even more efficient tool to put special interest money to work.
In recent years, many think tanks have begun to promote causes which are contrary to established scientific opinion. For example, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was formed in the mid 1990s as part of the tobacco industry's attempt to cast doubt on EPA studies showing that secondhand smoke could cause cancer.[2] According to an internal memo from Philip Morris, "the credibility of the EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) alone. It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all the EPA's enemies against it at one time." [3]
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has also worked to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming, as have a number of conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute--all of whom receive large contributions from petroleum industry companies like ExxonMobil and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Finally, the influential Discovery Institute has been instrumental in putting the idea of Intelligent design into public debate, even though most biologists do not accept the theory as scientific.
1 edit
Originally posted by JeeThis post is plagiarised. If you're going to copy and paste, please cite the source or else you might damage your own reputation and integrity - just like those crooked think-tanks.
Critics such as Ralph Nader have suggested that because of the private nature of the funding of think tanks their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results that ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors. This risk of distortion similarly threatens the reputation and integrity sign into public debate, even though most biologists do not accept the theory as scientific.
All right, I will get the ball rolling: How does it benefit the government to dissuade people from bettering themselves by looking for work? It seems to me that it would be far better for citizens, as well as the purse of the exchequer, if they were self-supporting and in the job market rather receiving “benefits.”
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBut all those receiving 'benefits' (some 5 million) are in effect clients of the Labour government and help to keep it in power.
All right, I will get the ball rolling: How does it benefit the government to dissuade people from bettering themselves by looking for work? It seems to me that it would be far better for citizens, as well as the purse of the exchequer, if they were self-supporting and in the job market rather receiving “benefits.”
Originally posted by scipio2What happens when all the productive people flee to the United States, South Africa or the Caribbean? Will they raid the Royal Treasury or will Sir Elton John host a benefit to pay for the benefits?
But all those receiving 'benefits' (some 5 million) are in effect clients of the Labour government and help to keep it in power.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat about getting your own house in order first ?
What happens when all the productive people flee to the United States, South Africa or the Caribbean? Will they raid the Royal Treasury or will Sir Elton John host a benefit to pay for the benefits?
just a thought.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHighly unlikely.
What happens when all the productive people flee to the United States, South Africa or the Caribbean? Will they raid the Royal Treasury or will Sir Elton John host a benefit to pay for the benefits?
Possibly for a short-term but not for a long, especially South Africa or the Caribbean, because it's too HOT!!!!😛
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterRegarding unemployment benefits:
All right, I will get the ball rolling: How does it benefit the government to dissuade people from bettering themselves by looking for work? It seems to me that it would be far better for citizens, as well as the purse of the exchequer, if they were self-supporting and in the job market rather receiving “benefits.”
The very nature of the job-market and the need to pair employers with job-seekers not only creates unemployment but also needs unemployment to function correctly.
It makes no sense that those employed capture the benefit of the existence of unemployment and that those unemployed carry the burden it in its entirety. A partial contribution from those reaping the benefits to those who pay the cost is only sensible.
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayNot the first time jees integrity has been challenged.
This post is plagiarised. If you're going to copy and paste, please cite the source or else you might damage your own reputation and integrity - just like those crooked think-tanks.
In reply to jees post (or whoever the work is attributable to) about bias. You're correct, there is bias and this is exactly as it should be, some are biased towards freedom, others are biased towards control freakism. Think tanks are biased, the press is biased, I am biased you are biased.....soooooo what?
Originally posted by PalynkaIn my profession there is a shortage in labour supply therefore, by your reasoning I should be exempt from this contribution.
Regarding unemployment benefits:
The very nature of the job-market and the need to pair employers with job-seekers not only creates unemployment but also needs unemployment to function correctly.
It makes no sense that those employed capture the benefit of the existence of unemployment and that those unemployed carry the burden it in its entirety. A partial contribution from those reaping the benefits to those who pay the cost is only sensible.
hoorah
Originally posted by WajomaNope. You might have a case for a reduction of contributions, but since that would only have burocratic and administrative costs (to determine which sectors pay what), I guess you'd be out of luck and pay as much as the rest.
In my profession there is a shortage in labour supply therefore, by your reasoning I should be exempt from this contribution.
hoorah