Monthly Archives: October 2013

A Market for Low Testosterone

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/a-push-to-sell-testosterone-gels-troubles-doctors.html?ref=business

The article above discusses how drug manufacturers are pushing products aimed at men with “low testosterone”, despite the questionable claim that this is actually a problem among middle-aged men.

The companies that manufacture this product have two possible strategies. Manufacture this product for a short period, until consumers catch on and stop buying, or keep selling this product like it has a viable market so people begin believing it. Either way,” Low-T gel” is ethically questionable as a product.

The medical professionals quoted in the article are in agreement that there is no psychological or biological norm among middle age men for testosterone levels. They also agree that the mentioned health problems are not a result of low testosterone. So the drug companies who manufacture t-gel are not curing symptoms with their product, which in my opinion is the same as lying.

I feel that the gels are unethical products to sell, and I hope consumers realize this. The companies have already made a profit on selling this, so if I were them I would take the money and run. Stop producing the product before you get a misinformation lawsuit on your hands. But fortunately I’m not a scumbag, so I don’t have to make that decision.

Cambodia’s Sugar Industry

Posted on by
Reply

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/business/international/in-cambodias-cane-fields.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=business

This article reminds me of a class I took last year in high school, “International Studies”, where we covered a variety of international topics. One of the first topics was Globalization, and the NY Times article reminded me a lot of the positives and negatives of globalization. Most of the buyers of Cambodian sugar look to be 1st world countries.

A business like sugar production, which benefits immensely from modern machinery and factory line techniques, can provide economic benefits to the country as a whole. Some of those benefits are outlined in the article, such as increasing the minimum wage, and adding roads and schools. Most economists, I feel, would argue that the net good for the country is worth whatever small misdeeds occur. And for me, its hard to argue with the “greater good” ideology.

But its a slippery slope. If you allow one misdeed to happen, how many do you ignore before it becomes a legitimate problem? It would have been better if those farmers were never displaced, but then there’s allegations that locals are denied things that these migrants have access to, like clean water.

A business needs to make sure that anyone negatively affected by its practices is re-compensated as much as possible. Otherwise, the business will be put in a dangerous spot when buyers from 1st world countries decide to go with another sugar, because its perceived to be a more ethical company.