Gil Roth11.06.08
I'm writing this page a week or so before the U.S. general election, which means I can't really get away with an editorial about the new president and Congress and what impact they're going to have on healthcare issues - particularly drug pricing - in America. It's one thing when Lewis Lapham filed his writeup about the 2004 Republican National Convention several weeks before the convention so he could head out on vacation, but I know you guys are a lot more sophisticated than the readers at Harper's.
So let me get my healthcare reform rant out of the way. Whichever candidate wins the presidency, I have a feeling that our trillion-dollar-plus Troubled Asset Recovery Plan is going to leave the feds too shell-shocked to push through another major program.
Maybe they'll even opt to let states develop their own plans and strategies. Of course, the states have budget issues to worry about too, so maybe all parties will conclude that now just isn't the time to pursue a massive overhaul.
The thing is, "now" is a shifting target.
Longtime readers of this page - as well as those of you unlucky enough to get caught in a dinner conversation with me - know that I preach aplenty about keeping things in perspective. It bothers me when people fall prey to the extrapolation bias, believing that the present situation, whatever it is, is how things are going to be forever. (The only thing that irritates me more is confirmation bias, where people ignore data that don't support their theses.)
This decade - some call it "the Bush Era," but I prefer "Act I of the Contract Pharma Millennium" - has seen any number of movements that didn't manage to stretch two years, much less "forever." For example, after the 2000 elections, the U.S. Senate was (just about) evenly split, and the theory of "Fifty-Fifty Forever" started making the rounds. Because of "market share" concerns about policy, every election would be a cliffhanger and both sides would moderate their goals for broad appeal.
Then came the 2002 and 2004 elections, which hearkened the era of the "Permanent Republican Majority." Demographics and a superior grassroots organization meant that the GOP would run Congress forever, and hold the White House more often than not.
Or not. By 2006, the GOP was cratering and the pendulum had swung to the Democrats. By the time you read this, the Dems may have reached a majority that the GOP could only dream of. This will likely be called the Permanent Progressive Era or something equally inane.
I favor balanced and divided government. In theory, it should lead to enough paralysis to keep the feds from doing anything too catastrophic. In practice, of course, it hasn't worked out that way. Back in 2002, I wrote the we've ended up with "a system where the Republican party can support a sort of universal health care and a Democratic president can sign welfare reform into law." Now we have a Republican president nationalizing the banking and finance system, while a GOP presidential candidate proposes using taxpayer funds to artificially pump up home prices. Talk about getting away from your core competencies!
I don't mean to harp on government flipflops. We've seen the same story play out in any number of fields: business, entertainment, sports. After all, home prices will only go up! Oil will reach $200 barrel! (As I asked two issues ago, any guesses as to what Russia's going to do if oil prices stay in their current swoon around $60/barrel?)
A lot of people are down on our dear, departed investment industry. They rightly feel that these firms both ignored risk and counseled the investing public unwisely. But I don't think there are truer words than their standard disclaimer:
So let me get my healthcare reform rant out of the way. Whichever candidate wins the presidency, I have a feeling that our trillion-dollar-plus Troubled Asset Recovery Plan is going to leave the feds too shell-shocked to push through another major program.
Maybe they'll even opt to let states develop their own plans and strategies. Of course, the states have budget issues to worry about too, so maybe all parties will conclude that now just isn't the time to pursue a massive overhaul.
The thing is, "now" is a shifting target.
Longtime readers of this page - as well as those of you unlucky enough to get caught in a dinner conversation with me - know that I preach aplenty about keeping things in perspective. It bothers me when people fall prey to the extrapolation bias, believing that the present situation, whatever it is, is how things are going to be forever. (The only thing that irritates me more is confirmation bias, where people ignore data that don't support their theses.)
This decade - some call it "the Bush Era," but I prefer "Act I of the Contract Pharma Millennium" - has seen any number of movements that didn't manage to stretch two years, much less "forever." For example, after the 2000 elections, the U.S. Senate was (just about) evenly split, and the theory of "Fifty-Fifty Forever" started making the rounds. Because of "market share" concerns about policy, every election would be a cliffhanger and both sides would moderate their goals for broad appeal.
Then came the 2002 and 2004 elections, which hearkened the era of the "Permanent Republican Majority." Demographics and a superior grassroots organization meant that the GOP would run Congress forever, and hold the White House more often than not.
Or not. By 2006, the GOP was cratering and the pendulum had swung to the Democrats. By the time you read this, the Dems may have reached a majority that the GOP could only dream of. This will likely be called the Permanent Progressive Era or something equally inane.
I favor balanced and divided government. In theory, it should lead to enough paralysis to keep the feds from doing anything too catastrophic. In practice, of course, it hasn't worked out that way. Back in 2002, I wrote the we've ended up with "a system where the Republican party can support a sort of universal health care and a Democratic president can sign welfare reform into law." Now we have a Republican president nationalizing the banking and finance system, while a GOP presidential candidate proposes using taxpayer funds to artificially pump up home prices. Talk about getting away from your core competencies!
I don't mean to harp on government flipflops. We've seen the same story play out in any number of fields: business, entertainment, sports. After all, home prices will only go up! Oil will reach $200 barrel! (As I asked two issues ago, any guesses as to what Russia's going to do if oil prices stay in their current swoon around $60/barrel?)
A lot of people are down on our dear, departed investment industry. They rightly feel that these firms both ignored risk and counseled the investing public unwisely. But I don't think there are truer words than their standard disclaimer:
"Past performance is not a true indicator of future results."