Mike Murray said:
"gwhite" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Mike Murray said:
Quoted message said:Although both drugs have some anorectic effect, neither drug will
produce a
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:sustained weight loss.
Never mind that. Provide some citations that show ephedrine has no
"legitimate use" in treating
Quoted message said:asthma.
"Neither it or ephedrine have any legitimate use in asthma." -- Mike
Murray
Perhaps my statement was a bit over stringent. Ephedrine was used
historically for treatment of asthma but it has been superceded by less
toxic and more effective drugs.
Thank you for responding. As I have stated, I have no argument with the technical superiority of
modern asthma medicines over drugs like ephedrine -- in point of fact, I agree. As a youngster, I
had asthma attacks that nearly killed me. Therefore I have personal experience with both new and
old medicines. Despite its admitted shortcomings, ephedrine can be of use in treating the symptoms
of asthma. As a technical issue, I do not believe this is arguable.
Quoted message said:Maybe I should of said "Neither it
(psuedoephedrine) or ephedrine have any CURRENT legitimate use in asthma."
Safer and more effective drugs are available.
Again, this is a technical statement of efficacy that is completely blind to economic
considerations. I assert then, that it is incorrect or at the very least unproven and in serious
doubt. "Availability" sounds nice. Rolls Royces and $10k racing bikes are "available."
Perhaps an "example" best describes the idea:
If I want to get some albuterol, to treat occasional symptoms of asthma, I need to go to a doctor to
get a prescription. Currently in the US, a visit with doctor is extraordinarily expensive -- $80 is
perhaps a typical figure. Moreover, the albuterol itself isn't that cheap. I also need to spend
the opportunity cost (forgone opportunity to do something else with my time) of traveling to the
doctor, plus waiting and visiting with the MD, and even more waiting to get the prescription
filled. Therefore, the "good" medications have an associated cost, and one I contend is high. How
do we frame the cost?
Now today, due to government interference, pure ephedrine is not really available (except on the
black market). But it was available about 10 years ago, or so. For this example let's ignore the
fact of government interference and assume it were still freely available in pure 25 mg capsules.
The cost of these was very low -- I recall obtaining a bottle of 100 doses for under $5. Thus the
cost of ephedrine is comparitively low in material and opportunity costs.
There is little more basic that the fact that people will tend to buy more of something if the cost
goes down. The converse is also true. The patients who go to the MD's and acquire prescription
medicines will report high rates of efficacy. If efficacy is strictly a rating of those who
actually *get* the care, then there is little doubt of the conclusion. However, if a large group of
folks are locked out of that care (they don't buy due to the cost), and simply wheeze through their
days and nights, then we see that the *average* efficacy of these expensive medicines -- across the
entire population that *could* use them -- probably does not look so good. For all it's side
effect's, maybe low cost ephedrine looks good when the totality of considerations are made.
Low cost substitutes, whatever their imperfections, help *drive down* the cost of the competing
goods, like in any marketplace. The banning of ephedrine appears to be a cold attempt at turning
profits at the expense of poor people, or just people who want to choose how to spend their own
money. Even if it isn't the actual intent, that is its effect, as the Law of Unintended
Consequences (*bad* consequences here) rears its ugly head once again.
Who protects the consumer? The regulations do not acheive this (although they are certain to claim
so), instead they protect the profits of the medical industry (regardless of intent), which already
consumes 14% of the US GDP. This a trend which deserves serious questioning and an understanding of
the basics of the dismal science would help. We need competing goods (meaning substitutes for this
discussion) to drive down the cost of medical care -- it costs too much. Perhaps ephedrine is not
the "right drug," but I suspect if things continue as they are we'll never really know. The fact
that ephedrine has been pushed to black market status has it's own negative consequences. Perhaps
more police and prisons are the answer. Perhaps taxes on evil rich people (doctors with incomes
over $200k according to John Kerry) can solve all our health needs. The capital takes flight.
"[I]t is advisable to understand the role of prices in a market economy..." -- Sowell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sowell, Basic Economics
PREFACE
This is an introduction to economics for the general public. The
growing sophistication of professional economists has not been ac-
companied by any greater spread of knowledge about basic eco-
nomic principles among the population at large. There are, in fact,
very few incentives for economists to spend their time explaining
the basics of economics to the public. Indeed, even the economic
education of college students is not likely to get much attention
from economists, if those students are not majoring in economics.
The net result is that complex and high-powered economic
analysis within the profession co-exists with utter ignorance and
gross fallacies dominating the public, the media and various
branches of government. Even scholars with Ph.D.s in other
fields are often ill-informed or misinformed about economics,
though that seldom deters them from having and voicing opin-
ions on economic issues.
Most of us are necessarily ignorant of many complex fields,
from botany to brain surgery. As a result, we simply do not at-
tempt to operate in those fields. However, every voter and every
politician that they vote for has something to say about econom-
ics. In that case, we need to know the basics. Explaining these ba-
sics is the purpose of this book.
It so happens that the first book of mine that was published,
back in 1971, was an introductory economics textbook, full of the
kinds of graphs and equations that such books are supposed to
have. Today, however, Basic Economics does not contain a single
graph or equation to express the kinds of ideas that economists
deal with. Nor does it contain such common jargon among econ-
omists as “oligopoly,” “marginal revenue product” or “Pareto op-
timality.” This book is about economics, not about the vocabulary
or visual aids of economists. Having taught introductory eco-
nomics more times than I can remember, at colleges and universi-
ties across the country, I know how handy those visual aids can
be and how easy it is to lapse into familiar jargon. Avoiding these
things has made it harder for me to write this book, but the whole
point is to make it easier for you to read it.
What I have also learned over the years is that there are many
highly intelligent people who want to understand more about the
way their country’s economy works, but who have no interest in
the paraphernalia of the economics profession. This book is written
for such people—and also for those high school and college stu-
dents who are taking introductory economics as part of their efforts
to become educated women and men, not necessarily candidates to
major in the subject. It is also written with the hope that some econ-
omists might discover how much of what they say in ways that are
incomprehensible to outsiders could also be said in plain English.
In keeping with the nature of this book as an introduction to
economics for the general public, I have left out the usual hun-
dreds of footnotes or end-notes in some of my other books. How-
ever, those who wish to check up on some of the surprising facts
they will learn about can find the sources listed at the end of the
book. This will also be a place for those who simply wish to ex-
plore further in some subject that they find intriguing.
While it is advisable to understand the role of prices in a market
economy before going on to other subjects, each chapter of this
book has been written to stand alone, so that these chapters can be
read in any order that your own interest dictates.
Although many of the examples of basic economic principles in
action are drawn from market economies, such as that in the
United States, many others are not. One of the best ways to under-
stand what a market economy does is by seeing what happens
when the same economic activity takes place in a non-market
economy, such as that of the late Soviet Union. Economic experi-
ences from every inhabited continent appear in the chapters that
follow, for basic economic principles are not limited to any given
society or people.
Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
Hoover institution
Stanford University
