I’ve seen the extremes of kids labeled with psychiatric disorders so they could be warehoused in mental facilities by government family services departments, and seen blatantly dangerous psychotic patients.Īs to whether this is science or not: Medicine is not science, it’s the art of applying science judiciously, research guided therapy, and as the test results change the therapies change, just as in Economics, data can be interpreted by economists more conservatively or liberally, with application and results providing justification for future research and judicious policy. The specific therapy can be a process of trial and error with individual patients, and drugs can have harmful or beneficial interactions with each other, and with the body’s native chemical processes. What’s not fully understood is WHY a specific chemical mechanism seems to work well for some. Their mechanisms of action are well known most are designer drugs. Similarly, shock therapy (ECT Electro Convulsive Therapy) shouldn’t be tried at home because of the dangerous side-effects. I’m not a psychiatrist, but it’s worth noting that these drugs can have very dangerous side-effect profiles (especially the older ones), and are thus best handled by people who know how to dose them appropriately, and that can be all that’s necessary for the distribution to be regulated. those which should be categorically reviled? If so, I’d be grateful if someone could provide a pointer… can distinguish those dubious, potentially harmful entrepreneurially manufactured needs which are inherently praiseworthy vs. Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, is there some consistent benchmark against which Greenberg et al. So it becomes virtually impossible to distinguish in practice between selling activity designed to persuade consumers to buy something which they would not wish to buy and ‘selling activity’13 designed to make consumers fully aware of the qualities of the product which satisfies a demand of which they were previously unaware. It is part of the producer’s function to acquaint consumers with what has been made available to them. The idea of ‘manipulation of consumer demand by producers’ then becomes unclear. The notion of ‘serving the consumer’ must be broadened to mean fulfilling consumer preferences, not as they were before the entrepreneur began his activities, but as they will be once the entrepreneur has made consumers aware of his product. To quote Kirzner, “How Markets Work” (1997): This seems like a curious subject of interest for anyone who’s broadly sympathetic with the Austrian Economic worldview, and in particular for those who embrace the signature AE interpretation of entrepreneurial activity as the facilitated discovery/creation of previous unknown desires and preferences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |