I'll take some time to read this and discuss each point. In the interim I'd just say, I'm glad that you are in another country on another continent. We have Enough RWNJs and SELs here, but none as extreme as you seem to be from this list. I had forgotten that you have previously defended drug companies charging 1000% profits on life saving drugs, so it does fit.
1000% profit is a bit excessive, not sure where you're getting that particular number. In general the problem with the drug companies is that R&D is currently running 2-3 billion per new drug. Someone has to pay for that. Bill Gates and fellow travelers are doing a great job of paying for research in tuberculosis etc but even they don't have big enough pockets to support the entire industry. Governments are funding the basic R&D that drug research depends on but the ones funding most of the applied R&D is the stockholders in the pharmaceutical companies, most of which are run by sociopaths. These guys won't research drugs unless it makes them an enormous amount of money. The risk/reward ratio simply isn't there. They'll just fund the latest software startup instead. I'd love a better system but right now there isn't one if you want to keep getting new drugs.
The only 1000% profit I know of was Martin Shkreli. That was a regulatory problem not a R&D problem. The way the regulations are set up, he knew his competitors couldn't get regulatory approval fast enough to keep him from making huge $$$ on an ancient generic! Fortunately the compounding industry was able to make an end run around him. Now the Epipen folks are doing something similar. Again the problem is the excessive regulations keeping competitors of a generic off the market. Unfortunately since it is a medical device, the compounders haven't been able to help this time. It's an area ripe for regulatory reform.
Clear cut the national and stare forests
That wasn't on the list either. Dialing back the dramatic overreach, something in the area of increased forest products should have been on the list. The timber towns in the west look like the rust belt. They are in bad bad shape. The mills have closed and the towns are slowly dying. Sure there was way to much timber production in the post WWII era but now there is very little. Most of the extreme clear cutting that the environmentalists like to point at is off of private lands not public. Little is being cut on public lands anymore. There can be a balance.
Incidentally, when cutting lodgepole pine you want to clear cut it due to the nature of the root system of that particular tree. The trick is to get the size of the clearing correct. Forrest regeneration in clearings that are too large is sub-optimal.
Reduce non-management pay to federal minimum wage.
The minimum wage is a complex subject and there is no point trying to raise it until exporting of jobs is fixed otherwise you'll just increase unemployment. So it's not a year 1 thing and given how long it will take to fix the economy and renegotiate treaties, it's probably not a year 4 thing either.
pack the courts with the most rectionary judges educated at Liberty U. who use the bible to interpret law.
Actually I'm aiming for the closest 110 clones of Antonin Scalia that I can find.
Pollute the water and the air to increase cancer, COPD and other respiratory problems.
Actually preventing that sort of thing sounds like a good new direction for the EPA. They've forgotten places like Flint and spend their time torturing landowners over puddles and inventing new carbon rules for which they don't even have a legal right to do.
ELIMINATE the US department of education. In 40 years it has spent almost 1.5 trillion dollars and accomplished.......absolutely nothing, besides putting up a hideously expensive building that those of us who paid for it are not even allowed to see inside. Government education is not one bit better today than it was back in the 60's and 70's; if anything, it's worse.
It's worse.
You're understating the problem. Sometimes up to 120% of the donations go to for-profit 'fundraising' companies. That's right. The 'charity' hires a 'fundraising' company and loses money.
Who runs those 'fundraising' companies? Where does the money go? Nobody knows. They're not subject to the disclosure rules for non-profits.
Yep.
