So two corporations, Pfizer and Ranbaxy, have agreed delay the marketing of a generic version of Lipitor. The upshot of this agreement is apparently that Pfizer will preserve about $13 billion per year of revenue for a couple of years. Do you think that Ranbaxy will somehow, some way, see some of this money?
More importantly, what is the ethical and moral calculus behind two private enterprises (albeit publicly held) deciding to limit the availability of a drug which all medical experts agree is a life extender and saver? Pfizer will no doubt argue that the massive profits it pulls in from Lipitor are helping to fund the research and development of other future "Lipitors."
But I submit that this is exactly the kind of issue where the feds should step in and make a decision. Who, besides the federal government, has the clout to wrestle with these two corporate giants and the lack of a vested financial interest?
As I sit in my office filling out forms to comply with ridiculously trivial regulations promulgated by countless and nameless bureaucrats, it strikes me how seriously off course government has gotten. There are certainly Big Issues that government can and should deal with. Let's hope in the early years of Obamaland the idealists will tackle some of these areas before the system inevitably turns them all into short-sighted and self-absorbed parasites.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Thirty Five: Newspapers
Is it finally happening? Are newspapers gasping their last breaths? It sure looks that way. The New York Times has been running the same television ads for the past three years, trying to convince young, hip people that in order to be really cool you have to subscribe to the weekend Times editions, and then you will be popular, good-looking, and successful. McClatchie is hemoraging. Thomson has been shedding local newspapers for years.
And it doesn't end with newspapers. Publishers of trade magazines are following the newspapers into the swamp. The problem is that they are all chasing a smaller and smaller amount of dollars being spent on traditional print media, while the larger chunk of the ad budget goes into electronic media, most notably the web.
Advertising dollars have always been, and probably always will be, fickle. Who really knows how effective advertising is? Since the answer to this question is "no one," it is really easy to cut back on advertising budgets when time are tough.
One thing is certain: people don't read as much as they used to. Information dissemination is more and more accomplished via viusal and audio methods.
And it doesn't end with newspapers. Publishers of trade magazines are following the newspapers into the swamp. The problem is that they are all chasing a smaller and smaller amount of dollars being spent on traditional print media, while the larger chunk of the ad budget goes into electronic media, most notably the web.
Advertising dollars have always been, and probably always will be, fickle. Who really knows how effective advertising is? Since the answer to this question is "no one," it is really easy to cut back on advertising budgets when time are tough.
One thing is certain: people don't read as much as they used to. Information dissemination is more and more accomplished via viusal and audio methods.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Thirty Three: Looking Ahead to Obama
At this juncture, a little less than 5 months before the general election, the odds seem to favor Obama. So let's take a minute and speculate on what an Obama presidency will mean for the middle class.
Will Obama raise taxes? The answer is a solid "yes" at least indirectly, and more probably, both directly and in the form of fees, excise taxes, regulatory fees, etc. Obama will lead a surge in growth of government at all levels. All of the interest he has generated in his change movement, although genuinely idealistic, will nonetheless swell the ranks of government bureaucracies. Any government is a drag on private enterprise, so increased government intrusion in commerce will be bad for productivity. The business resources devoted to compliance with government regulation will be less time and assets available for producing goods or services. So, overall economic growth will slow as government intrusion into private enterprise increases.
Think about the countless college kids who have drunk the Obama coolaid. A certain percentage of them will wind up in Washington, D.C., or state capitals. Most of them will eventually get married and have families. Once this happens, their priorities will change from the idealistic to the practical. At that point these one time government reformers become lifelong government parasites, interested only in increasing their salaries and benefits and seeking guaranties of jobs. And how does government find the revenue to pay these parasites? Taxes.
Will Obama raise taxes? The answer is a solid "yes" at least indirectly, and more probably, both directly and in the form of fees, excise taxes, regulatory fees, etc. Obama will lead a surge in growth of government at all levels. All of the interest he has generated in his change movement, although genuinely idealistic, will nonetheless swell the ranks of government bureaucracies. Any government is a drag on private enterprise, so increased government intrusion in commerce will be bad for productivity. The business resources devoted to compliance with government regulation will be less time and assets available for producing goods or services. So, overall economic growth will slow as government intrusion into private enterprise increases.
Think about the countless college kids who have drunk the Obama coolaid. A certain percentage of them will wind up in Washington, D.C., or state capitals. Most of them will eventually get married and have families. Once this happens, their priorities will change from the idealistic to the practical. At that point these one time government reformers become lifelong government parasites, interested only in increasing their salaries and benefits and seeking guaranties of jobs. And how does government find the revenue to pay these parasites? Taxes.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Thity Two: The Clinton Mystery
Why do Democrats (and some Republicans) fear the Clintons? As Hillary continues to execute her twin strategies at the end of the primary race to a) inflict the most damage to Obama, and b) position herself for maximum personal political and financial gain, many Democrats are bending over backwards to be respectful of Hillary's feelings, lest she should embarrassed by her failure to get the prize she not only coveted, but thought she was owed.
Fear of the Clintons is the only way to explain why Democrats have not long ago abandoned these characters who have done so much damage to the Democratic party and its traditional principles. But for the Clintons, Al Gore would have president for the past eight years. But for the Clintons, national health care would have been a reality.
Since most people, and almost all politicians, always do what was is in their own immediate and personal best interest, it must be assumed that Democrats believe the Clintons can either help those Democrats achieve their interests, or that the Clintons can prevent those same Democrats from getting what they want. This misguided belief can only be explained by ignorance.
When Bill Clinton first came on the national scene in 1992, intelligent people saw him for what he was (and is) - an educated used car salesman (apologies to all of you used car salesmen out there). When the Clintons arrived in DC with their entourage of slime balls and low-lifes, it quickly became apparent that national service to the Clintons meant "personal enrichment." Patriotism, tradition, family, and personal integrity had no place in the Clinton repertoire. The Democrats, and most of the country followed this example right through the dot-com boom and the Greenspan cheap-money-fueled housing fiasco.
In the waning days now of Clinton II, perhaps Hillary is unintentionally doing what ironically is best for the country - paving the way for a leader who understands and practices what is so utterly foreign to the Clintons - patriotism, service, sacrifice, and honesty.
Fear of the Clintons is the only way to explain why Democrats have not long ago abandoned these characters who have done so much damage to the Democratic party and its traditional principles. But for the Clintons, Al Gore would have president for the past eight years. But for the Clintons, national health care would have been a reality.
Since most people, and almost all politicians, always do what was is in their own immediate and personal best interest, it must be assumed that Democrats believe the Clintons can either help those Democrats achieve their interests, or that the Clintons can prevent those same Democrats from getting what they want. This misguided belief can only be explained by ignorance.
When Bill Clinton first came on the national scene in 1992, intelligent people saw him for what he was (and is) - an educated used car salesman (apologies to all of you used car salesmen out there). When the Clintons arrived in DC with their entourage of slime balls and low-lifes, it quickly became apparent that national service to the Clintons meant "personal enrichment." Patriotism, tradition, family, and personal integrity had no place in the Clinton repertoire. The Democrats, and most of the country followed this example right through the dot-com boom and the Greenspan cheap-money-fueled housing fiasco.
In the waning days now of Clinton II, perhaps Hillary is unintentionally doing what ironically is best for the country - paving the way for a leader who understands and practices what is so utterly foreign to the Clintons - patriotism, service, sacrifice, and honesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)