Q: Do you agree or disagree with Stephen King? Should drug companies be allowed to market perscription drugs directly to consumers? Why or why not? Be specific.
I agree with Stephen King that drup companies should not be able to sell their product directlt to the concumer. I believe if they want to sell their prescription drug then your doctor should be the only one authorized to give it to you, after an appointment. Some people may not like this idea because doctor visits can be expensive and time consuming, but if you are willing to spend enough money for the over-priced drugs with hardly any information on them, you will most likely be better off seeing the doctor first. For one, the drug may not be the most affective drug out there for your porblem. There may be a more effective, less expensive, and less risky drug to take. For another, a lot of the prescriptions that are being advertised are new drugs without any guarentees, and a lot of side effects. When the list of side effects is the longest part of the add, it's probably not a very good drug, unless you would like to buy more drugs to take away from the pain of the side effects. Third of all, America is all about being drug free, and if marijuana and alcohol are looked down upon, then why are all the other "prescription drugs" okay and perfectly normal. For all you know, the medicine you're taking has the same effect of a couple of shots of whiskey will have or a couple of hits from a natural herb. Those drugs are probably more safe then half the stuff being advertised on television. Yet all the drugs on tv being advertised are legal...? If you are not willing to see your doctor to get the best prescribed medicine for your particular symptoms then you shouldn't be willing to buy what ever sounds good off the tv or internet, only unless you're willing to pay for all the side effects, including death or embarrassment, depending on what type of drugs you decide to take.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Samuelson/ depression?
The article "Is This A Replay of 1929" by Robert J. Samuelson describes the situation of the current economy compared to the economy during the Great Depression. Samuelson believes that the economy is not nearly as bad as it was in 1929, and it's not possible for economy to be that bad again, so there is no need for panic. The reasons we were in the Great Depression and the reasons our economy is so bad right now are two completely separate situations. Although they do have some similarities, the differences are the things we need to focus on.
There is no need for panic, because the United States has already suffered 10 recessions since the 1940's, and each recession lasts on average 10 months. The two worst recessions lasted for 16 months with an unemployment rate of 9% and 10.8%; right now our unemployment rate is at 6% so we still have a ways to go to even compare to our past recessions, not to mention the tremendous unemployment rate in 1929. This is nothing our economy hasn't seen before and will not be able to control. Another example is the stock market, also having 10 bear markets in the past. The average stock market decline was 31.5% and we are currently 30% below the peak reached in 2007. Which is by no means good, but it is still a drastic difference from when the stock market dropped 90% beginning the Depression.
The debt from the 1920's resulted from war and an excessive amount of borrowing, similar to the problems today. But unlike now, Americans borrowed for cars, radios, and appliances; Today most of the borrowing is for houses or against inflated home values. Yet, the federal government is more in control and more powerful then it was back then. Based on the government's spending, it provides better stabilization for our economy, but because government officials moved to fast and panicked, unlike the officials in the 1920's, our crisis still remains. The national debt is what holds our economy together, it's something that can be controlled, and based on the facts, America will be out of recession within the next year.
There is no need for panic, because the United States has already suffered 10 recessions since the 1940's, and each recession lasts on average 10 months. The two worst recessions lasted for 16 months with an unemployment rate of 9% and 10.8%; right now our unemployment rate is at 6% so we still have a ways to go to even compare to our past recessions, not to mention the tremendous unemployment rate in 1929. This is nothing our economy hasn't seen before and will not be able to control. Another example is the stock market, also having 10 bear markets in the past. The average stock market decline was 31.5% and we are currently 30% below the peak reached in 2007. Which is by no means good, but it is still a drastic difference from when the stock market dropped 90% beginning the Depression.
The debt from the 1920's resulted from war and an excessive amount of borrowing, similar to the problems today. But unlike now, Americans borrowed for cars, radios, and appliances; Today most of the borrowing is for houses or against inflated home values. Yet, the federal government is more in control and more powerful then it was back then. Based on the government's spending, it provides better stabilization for our economy, but because government officials moved to fast and panicked, unlike the officials in the 1920's, our crisis still remains. The national debt is what holds our economy together, it's something that can be controlled, and based on the facts, America will be out of recession within the next year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
