April 01, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:"Mindles H. Dreck"
Your author goes by the pseudonym "Mindles H. Dreck". The name was given by an angry commenter on my blog (prior to the move here). The "H" stands for "Hedonist", the "S" to bring it all together went missing. You can find the origins in the comments on this post, and my reaction here.
I don't actually want to go by a pseudonym. I feel internet discourse is more civilized when we don't. Unfortunately, I have found it necessary to employ one in order to keep clear separation between my work life and my commentary here. Many bloggers know who I am, but I request that they observe the pseudonym (or at least call me 'Megan's co-blogger'). I toyed with ANOTHER Pseudonym before my detractor came along and dropped a better Nom de Plume.
I'm in the money management business. I have a Degrees in International Relations and Finance. I lived in Japan and Switzerland in "cultural/language immersion" programs when I was in high school and college. I also went to music school for two trimesters in between semesters in college. I'm interested in organizational behavior and technology as well as finance. I run, I play golf, and I wield a mean shoe.
I grew up in a family of new deal liberals. My first political statement was a McGovern tee-shirt. I was preconditioned to detest Reagan when he came to office. His success, my time in Switzerland, my job waiting tables in college and my foreign policy studies in graduate school all conspired to create a sea-change in my political views, at least on the economy and foreign policy. This much is probably obvious in these pages.
Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at April 1, 2002 10:01 PM | Technorati inbound linksI cruised into your spot, going from here and there. I have discovered I no longer need bother to read posts by a specfic blogger but to save time I merely see what blogs he lists as links--his favorites. Instantly I can tell what he will say, view, remark upon for any given situation. Takes but noting 3 blogs I recognize and voila, a Right of center blogger; ah, a left of center blogger. Yep: libertarian (whatever the hell that truly is).... having lived in Jersey my best advice: get out. Fast. It is later than you think.
Posted by: fred lapides on April 23, 2002 08:01 PMI've heard this theory before. You would not have predicted the following posts:
http://www.morethanzerosum.com/archives/000987.html#000987
http://www.morethanzerosum.com/archives/000488.html
http://www.morethanzerosum.com/archives/000802.html#000802
http://www.morethanzerosum.com/archives/000650.html
I have been hoping to see you comment on drug reimportation because I've been confused by some of the recent coverage. The Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-18-02d.html, Andrew Sullivan and the Wall Street Journal -- normally strong advocates for free markets have been arguing against allowing drug reimportation saying that it is a back door way to implement price controls.
Governments should not be allowed to dictate the price drug companies can charge. Price controls drive supply out of the market and ultimately worsen the problem they are trying to fix. But this seems less about price controls and more about negotiating bad prices with foreign buyers--prices that make reimportation economical. When there are two (or more) prices for any product, assuming no difference in service level, buyers will opt for the lower price. So, when transaction/logistics costs are low enough, price differences like these will be exploited. Doesn't the free market system depend, in part, on people behaving this way? Forbidding reimportation seems to run counter to the free market solutions Cato and the others usually support. Isn't this a kind of goods market abitrage or the "Law of One Price" in action?.
No one forced the drug companies to sell to Canada and others at low prices. They can walk away from any deal they don’t think compensates them fairly. If they want to eliminate reimportation, shouldn't they simply stop selling at prices that make it economic to do so. The drug companies want to have it both ways – free markets when it means they can charge high prices domestically, but government protectionism (in this case from themeselves) when free markets threaten those prices.
Am I missing something on this?
Posted by: Paul Jeanne on July 22, 2002 08:02 PMComments are Closed.