Thursday, June 13, 2013

Must-Have High-Resolution Charts: ‘Carbon Pollution Set To End Era Of Stable Climate’

Many folks asked for high-resolution and Celsius versions of the chart I posted 10 days ago:

Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming this century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature).

The high-resolution F version is here and the high-resolution C version is here.

As an aside, readers know I have scaled back my coverage of the denier blogs for two reasons. First, their traffic has flat-lined or declined since Climategate, and despite their best efforts, they can’t get any real traction on social media. Second, and no doubt related to the first, they are so darn monotonous. Pretty much every story is, “The latest piece of peer-reviewed science about climate science and/or the danger of unrestricted carbon pollution is false because….”

Science put 12 men on the moon and got them back, science eliminated smallpox, science put massive computing power in the palm of your hand, and science saved the ozone layer with its just-in-time warnings of the dangers of CFCs (that people heeded). Science builds a beautiful edifice on a solid foundation.

Anti-science delayed action on smoking regulations, delayed or rolled back environmental standards, and, now, is working over-time to stop or slow action on carbon reductions needed to prevent needless suffering for billions of people and countless future generations. Anti-science destroys life, by suffocating it in a “foundation” of quick-sand.

For those who read the deniers blogs, you probably know that they have come up with a truly inane way to try to undermine the 2013 Science paper, “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years” by Shaun Marcott et al that is the source of most of the data for the chart above.

They are arguing that the warming of the past century the authors found in their proxy records is in error. What makes this so head-exploding is that the uptick just happens to match the uptick in the heavily documented and independently verified instrumental record. So the disinformers are spending most of their time attacking the one part of the paper we know is unequivocally is true. That is the quintessence of anti-science.

The fact is Marcott et al doesn’t have findings that are a big surprise to anyone who follows temperature reconstructions. Indeed, as the NY Times pointed out in its post on the paper, “a graph produced by Robert Rohde for his Global Warming Art Web site years ago nicely captures the general picture.” Here it is:

Look familiar? What Marcott et al added to the already imposing edifice of climate science was the most comprehensive reconstruction to date.

And, yes, that chart is by the same Robert Rohde who led the statistical analysis of the Koch-funded BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study that confirmed for the umpteenth time the accuracy of the instrumental record — indeed confirmed that “Global Warming Is Real” and “On The High End” and “Essentially All” Due To Carbon Pollution.

You might recall the disinformers said they would abide by whatever that skeptic-led study found. Until it confirmed climate science. Then they would have none of it. Such is the monotonous, flat-lining nature of anti-science.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

User:Ryancsh

(Difference between revisions)

Just a thatcherite Atheist who believes in truth and capitalism.

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

For farmers and ranchers, everyday is 'Ag. Day'

For farmers and ranchers, everyday is 'Ag. Day' - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('Download TheHill.com iPhone App Free!');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('Download TheHill.com iPad App Free!');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('The Hill Android App Now Available');} The Hill Newspaper !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Google+Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions THE HILL  commentE-mailPrintshare For farmers and ranchers, everyday is 'Ag. Day'By Bob Stallman, president, American Farm Bureau Federation-03/19/13 10:30 AM ET !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

For the past 40 years, America’s farming and ranching heritage has been officially recognized on National Agriculture Day, which this year falls on Tuesday, March 19. Across the country, farmers, ranchers and agriculture groups use this moment-in-time to bring others – many of whom may have never stepped one foot on a farm or ranch – closer to the work they do to produce food for our nation. Here in Washington, D.C., the Ag Day experience has been a long-standing tradition of farmers and ranchers meeting with their representatives in Congress to share information about the vital role of American agriculture.

While the events and meetings taking place on National Ag Day are important, the nation’s interest and focus on agriculture should not be limited to one day a year. The stories that farmers and ranchers share on Ag Day should reverberate throughout the year – as farmers and ranchers continue to share their experiences in their own local communities, with online audiences and with the media.
 
The good news is that popular culture has fully embraced capturing stories about food.  In fact, at the South by Southwest Film Festival this past week, acclaimed filmmaker James Moll announced the production of a feature-length documentary he’s working on about the next generation of American farmers and ranchers.
 
The fact remains that too many consumers still have questions about how our food is grown and raised. A recent survey by the USFRA, a group of farmer- and rancher-led organizations and agricultural partners, found that one-in-four Americans have questions about the food they are purchasing.
 
So, why does this disconnect exist in a day and age when entire television networks, websites and news outlets are exclusively dedicated to sharing stories about food? Why are farmers and ranchers often missing from the conversation that is happening in popular culture?
 
The answer is not simple. As an industry, farmers and ranchers must do more to share their stories and dispel common myths about the work we do on our farms and ranches. But, it is also up to all consumers, media and even our elected officials to continue to ask questions and even demand that farmers and ranchers be called upon when questions about food production arise.
 
For farmers and ranchers, every day is Ag Day. This is a moment that should be recognized not simply as an opportunity to celebrate who we are as an industry or the generations that farmed before us. It’s also about making sure people have access to information about the food they purchase, eat and serve their families every day.
 
As a farmer, and leader of two major agriculture organizations, I believe it’s the responsibility of farmers and ranchers to answer questions about how food is grown and raised. The stories we can share and answers we can give about food production range from the state-of-the-art science and technology we’re applying to minimize environmental impact to the high demand for agriculture school graduates needed to lead the next generation of farming and ranching. Whatever the question, we want to talk.
 
So the next time you have a question about a particular practice on a farm or ranch, whether it’s how animals are treated or why a certain technology is being used, ask a farmer or rancher. We may not always agree on the answer or our practices, but we will achieve the goal of starting a conversation that involves the people who actually grow and raise your food.
 
Stallman is a rice and cattle producer in Texas, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation and chairman of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance.

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/288813-for-farmers-and-ranchers-everyday-is-ag-dayThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog Twitter - Click to followCongress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaProtect rights of artists in new copyright lawObama in Israel: Tourism or opportunityCesarean rates on rise even in low-risk pregnanciesWe must get out of 'govern-by-crisis' modeEmailedNuclear non-proliferation obligations must be honoredObama in Israel: Tourism or opportunityTen years on I want answers for my daughter Rachel CorrieFurloughing federal workers is bad idea; Reform pensions insteadBiofuels cuts harmful to energy securityDiscussedTen years on I want answers for my daughter Rachel CorrieTWA flight attendants deserve earned seniority restored before merger is approvedFamily reunification must be part of immigration reformFurloughing federal workers is bad idea; Reform pensions insteadSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More Economy & Budget HeadlinesUnintended consequences of raising minimum wageSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaWe must get out of 'govern-by-crisis' modeMore Economy & Budget Headlines » Economy & Budget News RSS feed »  Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »bloglogoBriefing RoomRep. Blumenauer 'not interested' in being Transportation SecretaryPoll: On 10th anniversary, Americans oppose and have few connections to Iraq warGOP Rep. Broun: Paul Ryan budget ‘fails to seriously’ cut spending
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogTurkey's strategic pivotLawmakers must reevaluate immigration detention systemFor farmers and ranchers, everyday is 'Ag. Day'
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogRove, RNC and GOP bigwigs rig the rules against the rightJuan Williams is wrong, thrice Ridiculous government waste
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomIssa jokes Obama, Bo taking advantage of empty White HouseFormer Sanford aide cracks Argentina joke after papal electionSen. Paul suggests filibuster 'round 2' coming
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyFormer Rep. Bono Mack heads to K StreetNews bites: Electronic Arts CEO resignsGrassley introduces H-1B visa reform bill amid immigration reform discussions
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Kerry: Policymakers 'toy' with oceans by not addressing climateBillionaire targets Dem on Keystone XL in Mass. Senate raceSenate committee schedules Thursday vote for Interior nominee
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxNRCC launches 'Liberal Madness' bracket targeting DemsPaul: CPAC win, response 'invigorating'Conservative poll shows Pryor in trouble in Arkansas
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyReid says senators won't leave town before finishing budgetSenate Banking panel approves financial regulatory nomineesNews bites: All eyes on Nicosia
More On The Money »HealthwatchGOP senators introduce bill to repeal Obama health law's insurance taxBill would raise feds' contribution to DC Medicaid Business groups ask IRS to delay health law's employer mandate
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionSessions says GOP won't yield budget debate time, suggests taking it up after recessReid wants to start the 50-hour clock on budget while still considering CRHouse bill would prohibit drone killings of Americans on US soil
More Floor Action »TransportationNews bites: Cruise control?Sen. Schumer wants bill of rights for cruise ship passengersThis week in transportation: Safety focus turns back to the FAA
More Transportation »DEFCON HillSeven Marines killed in Nevada training incidentWhite House warns of 'consequences' if Syria has used chemical weaponA decade later, Iraq war continues to cast long shadow over US role in Syria, Iran
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsSens. Rubio, Casey step into Syria fray with bipartisan sanctions billTuesday's global agenda: Ireland Day on the HillWorld Vision US President Richard Stearns: A moral view of trimming the budget
More Global Affairs »In The KnowDay in the Life: Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.)Harrison Ford to talk aviation on Capitol HillRep. Gabbard appears, hosts screening of political web series
More In The Know »RegWatchUS Chamber wants flexibility on Obama health law's employer mandateNews bites: New regs require timely health coverageCoal state Dems press Obama to scale back EPA emissions rules
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSJohn FeeheryPopulism run amokJudd GreggDebt deal in reachMore Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.


View the original article here

BRIEF-FDA staff does not recommend approval of Abbott's MitraClip

March 18 (Reuters) - Abbott Laboratories :

* FDA staff says approval of Abbott's MitraClip not appropriate at the

time as major questions of safety, efficacy & risks remain unanswered

* FDA staff recommends Abbott's MitraClip to remain available for high risk

patients so Abbott can conduct its trials in an optimal manner

* FDA staff says the analyses included in Abbott's MitraClip marketing

application do not have valid scientific evidence of safety & efficacy

* Source text * Further company coverage ((Bangalore Newsroom; +1 646 223 8780))


View the original article here

Economics Lecture Thirteen

(Difference between revisions)This lecture is review of the course, in preparation of the final exam.  A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:This lecture is the final review for this course, in preparation for the final exam.  A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:{{cquote|My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly ....  Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics"Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard.  Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem. which are taught [in college].}}{{cquote|My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly ....  Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics"Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard.  Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem. which are taught [in college].}}Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), and comments:Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), plus tips about each concept:|cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) || 10% || FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output and remember that ATC=AFC+AVC; know when a firm should shut down|cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) || 10% || FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output.  Remember that ATC=AFC+AVC, and know when a firm should shut down.|Government policy || 10% || ''unbiased'': price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss;
''biased'': several pollution questions and the Lorenz curve (see discussion below)|Government policy || 10% || price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss; but beware of CLEP questions designed to make government regulation appear beneficial, as in reducing pollution|Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) || 10% || key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital|Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) || 10% || key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital|Perfect Competition || 6% || costs and profits and price are lowest for this market: P=MC=ATC and "economic profits" are squeezed to zero. If price falls, shut down in short run when PMC. P>ATC.  |Monopoly || 4% || the firm sets its price above marginal cost, but not higher than where MR=MC; economic profits are greater than zero; economic rent exists. P>MC. P>ATC.  |Demand Curve || 4% || what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand|Demand Curve || 4% || what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand|MC || 4% || marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition.  For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC|MC || 4% || marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition.  For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC|Public Goods || 3% || know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good|Public Goods || 3% || know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good without paying for it.|Returns to Scale || 2% || think Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think a restaurant for decreasing returns to scale|Returns to Scale || 2% || think of Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think of a kitchen for decreasing returns to scale ("too many cooks spoil the broth")|Consumer Surplus || 2% || what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost|Consumer Surplus || 2% || what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost|Imperfect Competition || 2% || P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively '''in'''efficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC|Imperfect Competition || 2% || P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively '''in'''efficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC|Utility || 2% || Overall satisfaction.  Recall our problem about hiking and reading? Marginal utility is your next bit of utility.  Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility.|Utility || 2% || overall satisfaction; recall our problem about hiking and reading. Marginal utility is your next bit of utility.  Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility.|Cross-Price Elasticity || 2% || Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a ''different'' good|Cross-Price Elasticity || 2% || Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a ''different'' good|Cartel || 1% || an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does|Cartel || 1% || an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does|Price discrimination || 1% || charging different prices for the good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own price|Price discrimination || 1% || charging different prices for the exact same good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own priceSome important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law.  The reason is bias.  For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much!  Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.Some important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law.  The reason is exam bias.  For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much!  Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers.  The rare exceptions are a few questions about government regulation.  For these few questions, the CLEP exam pretends that government regulation can make a market ''more'' efficient.  This is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers.  The rare exceptions are one or two questions about government regulation.  For these few questions, the CLEP exam may pretend that government regulation can make a market ''more'' efficient.  That is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.=== Exam Bias Concerning Regulation and Efficiency====== Exam Bias Concerning Regulation and Efficiency===

Economics Lectures - [1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14]

This lecture is the final review for this course, in preparation for the final exam. A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:

My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly .... Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics[1] which are taught [in college].

Let's begin this lecture by summarizing the percentages the CLEP exam devoted to particular topics. This will help organize the material we have covered in this course. Our online final exam next week will use a similar distribution in topics as the CLEP exam, but without over-emphasizing government policy as the CLEP exam does.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), plus tips about each concept:

cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output. Remember that ATC=AFC+AVC, and know when a firm should shut down. price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss; but beware of CLEP questions designed to make government regulation appear beneficial, as in reducing pollution Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital costs and profits and price are lowest for this type of market. P=MC=ATC and "economic profits" are squeezed to zero. If price falls, shut down in short run when PMC. P>ATC. what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand marginal revenue is the increase in total revenue due to selling one more unit; profit maximized where MR=MC marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition. For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good without paying for it. think of Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think of a kitchen for decreasing returns to scale ("too many cooks spoil the broth") what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost nation with lower production costs should do what it does best only a few firms, like two gas stations at an intersection far away from any others; usually one Nash Equilibrium-type exam question P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively inefficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC overall satisfaction; recall our problem about hiking and reading. Marginal utility is your next bit of utility. Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility. Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a different good keep in mind that "economic costs" include opportunity costs in addition to actual out-of-pocket (accounting) costs think ketchup with french fries in the long run all costs are variable and can be minimized; short and long run mentioned in 20% of questions, to distinguish between quick changes and permanent ones two types: positive (music in an open-air park) and negative (pollution) when income goes up, demand for an inferior good or service goes down (e.g., demand for bankruptcy services) substitution and income effects increase in price means less demand because public uses substitutes (substitution effect of price increase) and becomes poorer (income effect of price increase) an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does charging different prices for the exact same good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own price

Some important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law. The reason is exam bias. For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much! Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.

But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers. The rare exceptions are one or two questions about government regulation. For these few questions, the CLEP exam may pretend that government regulation can make a market more efficient. That is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.

There are only two or three questions (out of nearly 100) on the CLEP exam that have biased answers. They concern regulation and efficiency. You can expect to see one or two CLEP questions where the correct answer is to support government regulation against pollution. The best way to think about pollution is in terms of its "negative externality," but the CLEP exam writers cast the issue in terms of an efficient use of resources. Under this view, pollution is inefficient because it results in inefficient harm to the environment. Laws against pollution supposedly increase efficiency by preventing harm to the "resource" of the environment. These regulations that prohibit pollution cause less output but supposedly ensure a more efficient use of environmental resources.

While most of us support a cleaner environment, efficiency is usually associated with greater output, not less output. Government regulations almost never improve efficiency; the free market does that best without government interference. That said, you can pick up one or two easy points on the CLEP exam by assuming that environmental regulation increases efficiency by protecting the "resource" of the environment for its better uses.

When companies are allowed to pollute without paying for it, their marginal cost (MC) is artificially lower than it should be. These companies are avoiding the cost of their own pollution. A lower MC means they will produce more goods than if their MC were higher. The term “marginal social cost” is used by economists to represent the true cost of their activities, including the cost of their pollution. Because companies produce more than they would if they had to pay for the cost of their pollution, some consider this to be inefficient. On the CLEP exam, it takes regulation to make it efficient by preventing the companies from putting out the pollution.

Outside the topic of government regulation, there are no biased answers. Do not choose one answer instead of another for reasons of bias except in one or two rare cases.

In areas unrelated to pollution, government establishes price floors, supports and ceilings. Do we all recall the differences? Price “ceilings” (or controls) are the easiest: the government says that the good cannot be sold for a higher price. Just as you cannot reach above your ceiling, the price is prohibited from rising above the ceiling that the government sets for it. It would be requiring gas to be sold for no more than $1.50, for example. The quantity supplied will decrease (move down the supply curve), while the quantity demanded will increase (move up the demand curve). Shortages result.

What is a price floor? Just the opposite of a ceiling. We cannot reach below the floor, and a price floor prevents the price from falling below a certain level. It would be a government law that prohibited milk from selling for less than $2 a gallon, for example. It would be intended to help the suppliers, such as dairy farmers. What happens when government imposes a price floor? There is a surplus of the good, as supply exceeds demand.

Now, how about a price support? That occurs when the government buys large quantities of good, such food, at prices higher than the competitive equilibrium. The government does this to “support” a higher price, instead of passing a law to require a higher price. A price support is designed to help the firms producing the goods, such as farmers. The rationale is that farmers are politically important and that pure competition is too brutal on their business and their lives, and also that foreign countries engage in the same practices. The effect of a “price support” is similar to a price floor: it creates a surplus of the good when the support is above the equilibrium price

When government regulates labor, the analysis is similar to its regulation of price. A “price floor” is created by the minimum wage: the buyer (an employer) must pay at least a certain amount for a service (labor). The minimum wage creates an oversupply of the service: too many workers. Not all of them will be able to obtain jobs at a wage higher than equilibrium. Unemployment results from a minimum wage that is higher than the equilibrium wage.

As always, be sure you fully understand the question before you answer it, and use common sense and logic. In fact, many of the questions can be answered correctly with basic reasoning skills.

Let's put our knowledge from this course to good use in studying for our final exam, and preparing for the CLEP exam. We maximize our utility by scoring as high as possible on these exams. To do so, we need to maximize our marginal utility in allocating our time towards the exam topics listed above. If we spend all our studying time on "price discrimination," which is only 1% of the exam, then we are not maximizing our marginal utility and will not reach our full potential.

This is similar to our homework problem earlier in the course about maximizing our marginal utility with respect to hiking and reading. This time, however, the decision each student must make is which topic to focus on first in the above list, and how much time to spend on it before moving on to another topic in the list. The answer may be different for each student.

This same challenge in optimizing strategy could be expressed as a problem of "allocative efficency": allocating resources (time and information) in the most efficient way. Just as efficiency is essential to successful businesses, efficiency is also important to becoming a successful student. Spending your time efficiently in preparing for the final exam, and preparing for the CLEP, is crucial to your ability to do well on them. Look at the above list of topics and how often they appear, and ask yourself: where should you focus first in order to pick up the most points in the shortest amount of time?

Should you simply start reviewing at the top of the list and work your way down to the bottom? That strategy has the advantage of focusing on the most important topics first. If you run out of time in reviewing, then you will miss only the less important topics. But you might improve further on that strategy by moving more quickly through topics that you already understand well. Alternative, there may be topics that you find too difficult to understand, and you might give up some points there in order to focus better on topics where you can pick up more points.

For the rest of this class this lecture will focus on topics which might provide the greatest marginal increase in your exam scores. This takes into consideration the topics we have already reviewed (you have the materials for those), and avoids duplication of that review. You, however, may decide for yourself that you can benefit most from reviewing those prior topics.

Your instructor emphasizes studying strategy for a reason. The biggest reason why some students do not succeed is a lack of effort. But the second biggest reason is poor studying and test-taking strategies, like a football team that runs ill-advised plays. Education, like business and perhaps even life itself, rewards good strategies and punishes misguided ones.

For many students, the most additional points can be obtained by reviewing the "Inputs to a Firm" category. It will be on 10% of the questions on the final exam and the CLEP exam. That's a significant chunk of these exams. Without review, these questions look hard and are easy to miss. But with some extra preparation, you should be able to answer nearly all of them correctly. In maximizing your score and making the best use of your time, this category may result in the biggest increase in correct answers with the least amount of effort. That's what maximizing marginal utility is all about.

Accordingly, in economic terms, the greatest marginal utility from studying for the exam is probably obtaining by focusing on this topic first. We've already covered the other two topics comprising 10% apiece of the exam (cost measures and government regulation), so there may not be many more points to pick up there. Realize that you will probably get some exam questions right without additional studying, and other questions you may get wrong no matter how much you study. But in this category of "inputs to a firm," you can pick up some points that you would otherwise miss. Let's review it now.

Questions about inputs to a firm focus on what a firm will do with its inputs (usually labor, but sometimes capital) in order to maximize its profits. The questions usually concern the following:

impact of improvement in technology on the production by a firm adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output the effect of minimum wage on the competition for labor comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand" what causes an increase in demand for labor the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages

Review the above list now. How many of the above 8 topics do you know well enough to answer a question about them correctly? Let's briefly review each of these concepts so you can maximize your score on this big part of the exam.

1. "the impact of an improvement in technology on the production by a firm"

If technology improves, as in helpful new inventions or advances in communication (like the internet), then this helps shift the Production Possibilities Frontier (Curve) outward. A firm can produce more output now. So an improvement in technology enables a firm to increase its output or its supply to the market.

2. "adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output"

How does a firm adjust its inputs (e.g., workers or equipment) so that it has reached the lowest possible overall cost? By making sure that he is getting the most "bang for his buck" for each input. In other words, the firm makes sure that each input is producing the most marginal product per dollar spent on that input. If one worker is producing more than another worker, and both are being paid the same, then the owner has not lowered his costs to a minimum. He could fire the lazy worker and hire a part-time worker like his good one, and then produce the same output at less cost. Summarizing the above, the firm minimizes its overall costs by making sure the marginal product per cost for each input is equal. If one input (e.g., one worker) is producing more marginal product per cost than another, then the overall costs are not minimized. The unproductive worker is wasting the firm's money.

3. "the effect of the minimum wage on the competition for labor"

Increasing the minimum wage has the effect of increasing unemployment. Workers who have jobs make more money when the minimum wage is increased, but firms can afford to hire fewer people. The number of the unemployed (the people who cannot get jobs) increases when the minimum wage is increased. Also, although this will never be asked on a CLEP exam, raising the minimum wage causes more high school students to drop out and pursue jobs rather than stay in school, which would enable them to obtain higher-paying jobs in the future. Sometimes the CLEP exam will twist the question about minimum wage to obscure its harmful effect, by asking what happens when the labor supply increases when there already is a minimum wage. This makes it look like the fault is an increase in the labor supply rather than the minimum wage law. The correct answer is the same in both cases: unemployment increases.

4. "comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results"

This type of question probes how a firm increases its inputs in relation to the additional revenue that results from such an increase. The key here is to be very careful and very logical. A firm will increase an input (such as labor) until the value of the marginal product of that input equals the marginal cost of that input. Read that sentence over and over until you understand it. It simply means that the firm will equate the marginal cost of the additional input (such as an additional worker) to the marginal revenue that the additional input produces. Often students miss this type of question because they are not careful to compare dollars to dollars. If you have the marginal cost in terms of dollars (such as a wage rage for the additional worker), then you need to equate it to the marginal value of the marginal product of the labor (value is in dollar units), not the marginal product itself (which is a unit quantity).

5. "why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand"

This is an easy point to pick up on an exam. A firm's demand for an input (such as labor) is called a "derived demand" because it depends on the demand for the goods produced by that input. For example, a restaurant's demand for waitresses is entirely dependent on the public's demand to be served at the restaurant. If there is no public demand to be waited on at the restaurant, then the restaurant (the firm) has no demand for waitresses!

6. "what causes an increase in demand for labor"

This is another easy issue, similar to the prior one above. If the public demand for the product of the labor increases, then there is an increase in demand for the labor itself. If more people want to eat McDonald's hamburgers, then there is more demand for workers to make McDonald's hamburgers. How do we know when the demand by the public for the product of certain labor increases? When the price of the good or service produced by the labor increases. When that price goes up, then there is an increase in demand for the workers who make that good or service.

7. "the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost"

This is a more challenging issue that requires two steps rather than one in order to answer correctly. Marginal cost is additional cost to a firm for making one more unit. It is measured in dollars, not in units. Making sure you have the right measure (dollars or units) for your answer will help you reduce mistakes. The answer for any question about marginal cost must be in dollars (or cents) per unit. Accordingly, if you are told how many additional units are produced by each additional worker, then calculating the marginal cost requires dividing the cost of the additional worker by the additional number of units he produces. The more units an additional worker produces, the lower the marginal cost that results from adding that worker. Example: suppose a firm hires Tom and sees the output increase by 20 units, and then hires Mary at the same wage and sees the output increase by 15 units. When is the marginal cost of the firm the lowest? After it hires Tom, but before it hires Mary. That's because the marginal cost of hiring Tom is his wages divided by 20, while the marginal cost of hiring Mary is the same wage divided by 15. A wage divided by 20 is less than the same wage divided by 15, so the marginal cost to the firm after hiring Tom is less than after hiring Mary.

8. "calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages"

The key here is simply to be careful in doing the calculations, and then double-check your answer. You need to be sure you are using the correct level of output before you calculate the total cost (TC) and average variable cost (AVC) at that level of output. To find the total cost, add the fixed cost (FC) to the labor cost (total wages times the number of workers), for a given level of output. Then, to find the average variable cost, find the total variable cost (TVC=TC-FC) and divide by that level of output. Example: a firm can produce 100 units with 5 workers and 200 units with 10 workers. Its fixed cost is $50 and its wage rate is $20 per worker. What is its total cost and average variable cost to produce 100 units? Answer: note first that the question asks about the costs at 100 units in output, not 200 units. Total cost at 100 units is the fixed cost ($50) plus the labor cost ($20 times 5 workers, or $100), for a total of $150. The average variable cost is the total cost ($150) minus the fixed cost ($50), divided by the output (100), for a total of $1 per unit.

Master the above eight issues, and you'll convert 10% of the exam from wrong answers to correct ones. That could enable you to earn college credit.

You instructor wonders what topic will maximize our marginal utility next. About 20% of the exam is devoted to questions about different types of markets, ranging from the most advantageous for the public (perfect competition) to the least advantageous (monopoly). That's a large chunk of questions, and with some extra review here we can probably convert wrong answers to right ones.

The key to answering these questions correctly is to realize that the more competition there is, the lower the price of the goods and services and the lower the profits for the firms. Some of these questions are special cases and should simply be memorized: a cartel is an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) its prices, and an oligopoly is an industry where just a few firms dominate the market. When given a grid about where an oligopoly ends up selling its goods (its Nash Equilibrium), the answer is always symmetric (all firms sell at the same price) and usually not the highest price that a monopoly could sell at.

The monopoly questions look harder than they really are. The monopolist sets his price higher than marginal cost, which would be the optimal price from the standpoint of the public (or government). Instead, the monopolist price sets his price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost (MR=MC). If shown a graph, you may have to find the quantity where MR=MC, and then find the corresponding price on the demand curve. Note that a monopolist has no supply curve, because a supply curve represents many firms in an industry and a monopolist is the only firm in the industry.

There can be general questions about these markets. A perfectly competitive market uses resources in a perfectly efficient way. At the other end of the spectrum, a monopoly uses resources the least efficiently of all. Its high pricing causes a huge social loss ("deadweight loss") by eliminating consumer surplus. The monopoly reduces output in order to cause a scarcity that increases the price to an artificially high level. This is bad for everyone, except the owner of the monopoly, who enriches himself. This is how Bill Gates became the wealthiest person in the world.

Here is a puzzle to leave you with. What is the impact on quantity of a price ceiling in a competitive industry compared to a price ceiling in a monopoly? In which one (competitive v. monopoly) might a clever price ceiling actually increase quantity? Think about it, and learn to ask yourself questions like this in order to master economics. The answer is in this footnote.[2]

Be sure to spend time on the review sections in the prior lectures for more information about this and other topics on the exams.

A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and nondepletable. The first condition means that it is impossible to exclude consumers from partaking in the good, and the second condition means that one consumer's consumption of the good does not prevent others from consuming it.

Explained another way, a public good is available to all such that consumption by one person does not reduce its availability to others. An example of a public good is national defense, as it protects everyone and its benefits to one person does not diminish its benefits to others.

Other examples of public goods are law enforcement (protection by the police), public fireworks, clear air, street lights, radio and television transmissions, lighthouses, and some inventions. Some of these examples, such as lighthouses, are contested as to whether they must be a public good, as it is possible to charge ships port fees to pay for them. Also, while radio and television transmissions are available to all to receive them, it does cost money to buy radios and television sets, so these are not truly public goods either.

Liberals like to emphasize the concept of public goods on exams in order to support the argument for more government. Under this view public goods represent market failure and the need for government services supported by taxes.

Good test-taking techniques are particularly important to doing well on an economics exam. Simple questions are often intentionally disguised as something more complicated. It is easy to become confused and misguided in analyzing economic issues. 99% of the public would say that we would be better off if Congress put a price ceiling or cap on gasoline at $1 a gallon. It takes a bit more thought to realize that massive shortages would result, and we would all have to waste hours each week waiting in line for gasoline. Some who really need gas in hurry, such as people trying to take someone to a hospital, may not be able to obtain gas in time.

The ability to eliminate wrong answers can help. Let’s try the elimination technique on these questions:

Question: Consider the poverty-level of income for a family of four in America. Which of the following can be said about how the government defines this specific income level?

(A) It helps determine who is eligible for Social Security benefits. (B) It decreases when there is an increase in welfare benefits. (C) It proves that 50% of Americans live in poverty. (D) It is determined by tripling the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet by three. (E) Government does not adjust this number due to changes in the cost of living (inflation).

Virtually none of you would know the answer to this question at first glance. The question is not really appropriate for a microeconomics exam, but CLEP asks it anyway. Questions about poverty, gaps between the rich and poor, and government programs are always favorites among liberal educators. You will see many more questions about these issues than about the invisible hand or the creation of wealth.

So what do we do when faced with this question? Simply give up? Move to the next question and hope it is easier? Blindly guess at an answer? None of the above.

We can narrow the choices, and thereby reduce our risk of error, by eliminating wrong answers. Basic economic principles (or common sense) serve as our guide.

Let’s start with choice (C). Think about it: is half of our nation living in poverty? What would that mean for elections? Who would pay to run government? If we called half of us "poor", then what word would be use for the really poor? Choice (C) can't be true. Using common sense, we can eliminate this answer.

Let’s turn to choice (E). Why wouldn’t it be adjusted? Poverty must be relative to the cost of living. If the cost of living doubled, then the numbers in poverty would increase greatly. But failure to adjust for the cost of living would miss that effect. Again, common sense leads us to eliminate this answer.

Next we can turn to choice (A). That doesn't work either, because everyone who pays into Social Security has a right to receive benefits when they grow old, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. “Social security” is not “security only if you’re poor.” We can eliminate this choice.

We’re left with only two possibilities: (B) and (D). Realize that has increased our odds of choosing the right answer to 50% now. If you took the CLEP and at least narrowed every difficult question down to two choices, then you would likely pass the test. How do we next make our best choice among these final two options?

Option (D) seems to have the right amount of detail, and fits the question well grammatically. In contrast, Option (B) does not fit the question as well or make as much sense (definition of what the poverty level is should not change based on distributing some benefits). Even if you had no idea between (B) and (D), (D) is a better fit. It’s our best guess. (D), indeed, is correct.

It helps to choose an answer that gives the most meaning to the purpose of the question. The purpose of this question is to ask about how poverty-level income is calculated. Answer (D) most directly furthers that goal. It makes for a good guess if you did not otherwise know. You won’t always be able to guess the right answers, but by increasing your chances you can significantly increase your overall score.

Let’s try one more CLEP-inspired question, this time relating to labor:

Question: Assume a perfectly competitive market for both inputs and output. If capital is fixed and the price for the output increases, then a firm in the short run will increase its production by which of the following ways:

(A) increase capital until P=MR (B) increase labor until the value of the marginal product for workers equals the wage rate (C) increase capital until its average product equals the price of the additional capital (D) increase labor until its marginal product equals the wage rate (E) increase labor until the ratio of the price of the output to labor's marginal product equals the wage rate

This type of question benefits from being reread. “Capital is fixed,” according to the question. So capital cannot be increased. Answers (A) and (C) can be eliminated that easily. Sounds too obvious, but many students miss this. They fail to read and understand the question.

Only labor can be increased, which is possible under answers (B), (D) and (E). We've improved our odds of success to a 33% chance. Those are good odds on a difficult question like this. But we can improve our chances even more.

(B) and (D) look similar so let’s turn to (E) first. The “marginal product of labor” is the additional units (“product”) produced due to an additional unit of labor. Remember “MP”? The term does not include “revenue” or “price”, so it only gives you the quantity. We need to multiply that quantity by product price to obtain revenue, what the firm owner cares the most about. Choice (E) makes no sense by dividing terms that should be multiplied together. We can eliminate it.

Back to (B) and (D). The only difference between the two is the term “value of” in (B). Think about what “marginal product” is. It is a quantity, not a dollar amount. Yet we are comparing it to “wage rate,” which would be in dollars. We need to insert “value of” to convert a quantity into equivalent dollars. (B) is must be the correct choice because it compares dollars to dollars, while choice (D) does not.

The key to good test-taking, particularly on economics exams, is to make sure you fully understand each question before trying to answer it.

You have all learned a great deal of material in this course, information that will help you the rest of your lives. The insights and powerful concepts covered by this course can yield greater and greater benefits the more you think about them. Every week I see still something new and helpful in concepts taught in this course. Many students say that this is the best course they took from me, among other helpful courses. Use this course for your benefit.

If there is one unifying theme to this course, then I suggest it is summarized in Jesus's Parable of the Talents. Be productive, and God can multiply the benefits of your work. If you reach out, if you do more, if you make good use of your time, if you maximize your efficiency, if you consider the opportunity costs, and if you increase your output, then you give God more to work with. But if you bury your talents in the ground or if you are like the tree that does not bear fruit, then you give God less for His purpose.

Carpe diem. And be the good that drives out the bad as we discussed in connection with Gresham's Law.

Read this lecture and study for the final exam, which will be the first week in June. It will be 30 multiple-choice questions, similar in format to the quizzes.

? "Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard. Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem.? A price ceiling is a maximum price limitation, just as a real ceiling limits the height. A perfectly competitive industry is already selling at its maximum output, so a price ceiling can't help there. But a monopoly increases its price by reducing its output. If a price ceiling is imposed against a monopoly, then it must reduce its price and increase its output, for the benefit of the public.

View the original article here

NPS regains rights to bowel drug from Takeda

NEW YORK -- NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc. said Tuesday it is regaining the overseas marketing rights to its bowel drug Gattex and another product from Japanese drugmaker Takeda, and NPS shares surged in morning trading.

NPS is regaining rights to develop and sell the short bowel syndrome drug Gattex, which is also called Revestive, as well as a hormone drug called Preotact, in all countries. Preotact is approved in Europe as a treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis, and NPS is trying to get it approved in the U.S. as a treatment for hypoparathyroidism under the name Natpara. NPS said it will also get assets related to the two products.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. had the right to develop and market the drug in most countries other than the U.S. Takeda will get $50 million in NPS stock, and it can get a milestone payment of $30 million the first year that combined sales of the drugs exceed $750 million. NPS can choose to make that payment in cash or stock.

Shares of NPS Pharmaceuticals rose $1.54, or 17 percent, to $10.58 in morning trading.

The generic name of Gattex and Revestive is teduglutide. The drug is designed to treat short bowel syndrome, a potentially life-threatening chronic condition that prevents patients from absorbing nutrients from food. People with short bowel syndrome are prone to malnutrition, diarrhea and dehydration. Teduglutide is a pill taken once a day and it is intended to reduce the need for intravenous nutrition in adult patients.

Hypoparathyroidism is a deficiency of parathyroid hormone.

NPS is based in Bedminster, N.J. It licensed Preotact to Swiss drugmaker Nycomed in 2004, and Nycomed licensed Revestive in 2007. Takeda bought Nycomed in 2011.


View the original article here

UPDATE 2-BDR Pharma seeks India licence for Bristol-Myers drug

* BDR Pharma seeks compulsory licence on cancer drug dasatinib

* Company offers to sell drug at 8,100 rupees/month

(Recasts, adds Bristol comment)

By Kaustubh Kulkarni

MUMBAI, March 18 (Reuters) - BDR Pharmaceuticals said on Monday it has applied to India's patent office for a compulsory licence to sell a generic version of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's

cancer drug dasatinib, after unsuccessfully seeking a voluntary licence from Bristol-Myers.

Under a global Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement, countries can issue compulsory licences for certain drugs that are deemed unaffordable to a large section of their populations.

If approved, a compulsory licence for dasatinib, a blood cancer drug, would be another setback for global drugmakers in India. German company Bayer AG lost an appeal earlier this month challenging the first such Indian license, which was granted to Natco Pharma for cancer drug Nexavar.

Dasatinib is sold as Sprycel by U.S.-based Bristol-Myers Squibb and costs about 165,000 rupees ($3,050) for a month's treatment in India.

BDR Pharma filed its application seeking a compulsory licence on March 4 and has offered to sell the drug at 8,100 rupees for a month's dose, Aravind Badiger, technical director at BDR, an Indian pharmaceuticals company, said.

"We expect the patent office to respond at the earliest," he said in an email response to a Reuters query.

BDR had unsuccessfully sought a voluntary licence from Bristol-Myers to sell a copycat version of the drug, Badiger said.

Bristol-Myers Squibb said in a statement that it does not comment on ongoing proceedings. The company said it "has and will continue to pursue all appropriate avenues to protect its intellectual property rights in India."

It said Sprycel is protected by a composition of matter patent from the Indian Patent Office.

Natco Pharma already sells a generic version of dasatinib in India, which is the subject of a legal battle with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Generic drugs account for about 90 percent of India's $13 billion drug market. While India holds promise for global drugmakers facing slower growth in developed markets, big pharmaceutical companies have lost several rulings on intellectual property rights in recent years.

Among those setbacks, India revoked patents granted to Pfizer Inc's cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG's

hepatitis C drug Pegasys, and Merck & Co's asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation. ($1 = 54.17 Indian rupees)

(Additional reporting by Caroline Humer in New York; Editing by Tony Munroe, Charlotte Cooper and Leslie Adler)

((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: INDIA BDRPHARMA/DRUG


View the original article here

User:YMCA


View the original article here

UPDATE 1-FDA reviewers say Titan drug dose may be insufficient

(Updates with additional FDA review comment, background)

March 19 (Reuters) - Titan Pharmaceuticals Inc's experimental drug to treat opioid addiction was shown to be more effective than placebo in a clinical trial, but patients' response suggested that the proposed dosage might be too low, reviewers for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in documents published on Tuesday.

The commentary was published on the FDA's website ahead of an advisory panel meeting to be held on Thursday and sent the company's stock down 42 percent to $1.19 in over-the counter trading.

The reviewers said they would ask the advisory panel whether Titan should explore dosing further before the product is approved.

The drug, Probuphine, is a long-acting version of buprenorphine, a drug sold by Britain's Reckitt-Benckiser Group Plc under the brand names Subutex and Suboxone.

Unlike Subutex and Suboxone, which are dissolved daily under the tongue, Titan's drug is implanted under the skin of the upper arm during a 10-15 minute office procedure and delivers a continuous supply of buprenorphine for six months.

"Overall, the response was not what one might hope for, given that the product ensures compliance with the medication for six months," the reviewers said. "It prompts speculation that the dose is simply not high enough."

While the safety of Probuphine appears largely in keeping that of other buprenorphine products it presents an additional safety concern, reviewers said. It must be implanted, potentially leading to surgery-related complications. The reviewers said the product is in some ways similar to Norplant, an implantable, progestin-releasing contraceptive which is no longer marketed in the United States.

Even though insertion and removal of Norplant was performed by trained health-care providers, there were cases of implantation and removal-related of complications, some with disabling consequences, the reviewers said. They will ask the advisory committee whether it believes the company has adequately addressed these concerns under its proposed risk mitigation plan and whether the drug's benefit is enough to outweigh the potential risks.

In December, Titan licensed the U.S. and Canadian rights to Probuphine to Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by the venture capital firm Apple Tree Partners. Titan received an up-front payment of $15.75 million and will receive up to $50 million if Probuphine is approved.

(Reporting by Toni Clarke in Washington; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Alden Bentley)

((toni.clarke@thomsonreuters.com)(617-856-4340)(Reuters

Messaging: toni.clarke.reuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: FDA TITAN/


View the original article here

Template:Mainpageleft


Conservapedia: Over 450 million Views & 1,000,000+ Edits. Free courses are here. Or join our discussion of the Origination Clause.

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

101 evidences for a young earth

Comprehensive resource to refute the claims of evolutionists

Question evolution! campaign - worldwide anti-evolution campaign featuring 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]

The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[1] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE.

10 reasons why 2013 will be a BAD year for Darwinism

January-blue-calendar.jpg

5 strategies to collapse Darwinism

Five.pngChina location.png

Can social unrest in Europe lead to a change of their religious landscape? Are creationists poised and in a position to take advantage of this unrest to further grow biblical creation belief in Europe? [2][3]

Europe map.png

Essays on atheism and evolution

Good person test

"I do not seek. I find."

Pablo Picasso

If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past.

Baruch Spinoza

Kind words do not cost much. Yet they accomplish much.

Blaise Pascal

Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through logical arguments. The term comes from the Greek word apologia, which means "defense".

"To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven." - Ecclesiastes 3:1 (NKJ)

“when the wicked perish, there is song,’’ but later warns, “If your enemy falls, do not rejoice.” - The Book of Proverbs.

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, But the righteous are bold as a lion." - Proverbs 28:1 (NASB)

Though translation of the New Testament is complete, improvements and ideas are always welcome, and much work remains in the Old Testament.

Find your favorite verses and join the Best of the Public in translating a few!


View the original article here

Lawmakers must reevaluate immigration detention system

Lawmakers must reevaluate immigration detention system - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('Download TheHill.com iPhone App Free!');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('Download TheHill.com iPad App Free!');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('The Hill Android App Now Available');} The Hill Newspaper !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Google+Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions THE HILL  commentE-mailPrintshare Lawmakers must reevaluate immigration detention systemBy Antonio M. Ginatta, Human Rights Watch-03/19/13 11:00 AM ET !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

Never mind that, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement Secretary John Morton testified on Thursday, 70 percent of those released had no criminal record, and the rest had been convicted of misdemeanors or minor charges. Or that current law, though it mandates detention for immigrants convicted of certain serious crimes, explicitly gives the federal government leeway to let others go free on bail or parole while they await deportation hearings.
 
Today, [3/19] the House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the releases, and we can only hope that the discussion will be more constructive -- and indeed, more reality-based -- than the initial back-and-forth. Lawmakers should use the opportunity to examine some basic questions about U.S. immigration policy, two in particular: First, what is the purpose of immigration detention? And, second, if the recently released detainees were not flight or safety risks, why was the U.S. detaining them in the first place?
 
The point of immigration detention is to ensure that immigrants show up for their hearings, and, in certain cases, to protect public safety. The discretion Congress built into the system is a good thing, as it allows the executive branch to distinguish between a violent criminal and, say, someone convicted of a traffic violation, or between an immigrant who poses a flight risk and one who has strong family ties in the United States, when evaluating whom to detain.
 
Unfortunately, in recent years, the federal government has used this discretionary power too little, not too much. The result: too many immigrants have been detained unnecessarily, at significant cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
 
This brings us to the question of why the noncitizens recently released were detained in the first place. And there, the answer is less than clear. For several years, Human Rights Watch has documented numerous cases in which people were detained unnecessarily -- including under mandatory detention provisions.
 
For example, Oscar W. spent nine months in immigration detention even though he had a strong claim to remain in the United States. Oscar (a pseudonym) had been adopted by U.S. citizen parents when he was a child, but they never filed the paperwork for his lawful permanent resident status. As an adult, Oscar married a U.S. citizen, and had three U.S. citizen children. A fraud conviction for writing bad checks triggered Oscar’s detention. He was detained even though he was eligible for lawful permanent resident status based on his marriage. Oscar was ultimately granted lawful permanent resident status and permitted to remain in the United States.
 
Had the immigration judge been able to grant Oscar bond while the court addressed his case, Oscar’s U.S. citizen family would not have suffered the painful and difficult separation caused by his detention, and the government could have saved the thousands of dollars spent on his detention.    

The overuse of immigration detention is also questionable in light of other, less costly, forms of supervision that can help to ensure that a person will appear at a  deportation hearing, including GPS monitors and periodic reporting to immigration officials.
 
The United States should be spending its resources on detaining only immigrants who are dangerous or unlikely to appear for hearings. Instead, the United States is detaining people like Oscar W. The news is not that these detainees were released. The news is that they were detained in the first place.
 
Ginatta is the U.S. advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.
 

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/288817-lamakers-must-reevaluate-immigration-detention-systemThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog Twitter - Click to followCongress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaProtect rights of artists in new copyright lawObama in Israel: Tourism or opportunityCesarean rates on rise even in low-risk pregnanciesWe must get out of 'govern-by-crisis' modeEmailedNuclear non-proliferation obligations must be honoredObama in Israel: Tourism or opportunityTen years on I want answers for my daughter Rachel CorrieFurloughing federal workers is bad idea; Reform pensions insteadBiofuels cuts harmful to energy securityDiscussedTen years on I want answers for my daughter Rachel CorrieTWA flight attendants deserve earned seniority restored before merger is approvedFamily reunification must be part of immigration reformFurloughing federal workers is bad idea; Reform pensions insteadSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More Homeland Security HeadlinesPath to citizenship for all immigrants is paramountFamily reunification must be part of immigration reformUS warns of rising threat of cyber attacks to national and economic securityMore Homeland Security Headlines » Homeland Security News RSS feed »  Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »bloglogoBriefing RoomRep. Blumenauer 'not interested' in being Transportation SecretaryPoll: On 10th anniversary, Americans oppose and have few connections to Iraq warGOP Rep. Broun: Paul Ryan budget ‘fails to seriously’ cut spending
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogTurkey's strategic pivotLawmakers must reevaluate immigration detention systemFor farmers and ranchers, everyday is 'Ag. Day'
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogRove, RNC and GOP bigwigs rig the rules against the rightJuan Williams is wrong, thrice Ridiculous government waste
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomIssa jokes Obama, Bo taking advantage of empty White HouseFormer Sanford aide cracks Argentina joke after papal electionSen. Paul suggests filibuster 'round 2' coming
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyFormer Rep. Bono Mack heads to K StreetNews bites: Electronic Arts CEO resignsGrassley introduces H-1B visa reform bill amid immigration reform discussions
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Kerry: Policymakers 'toy' with oceans by not addressing climateBillionaire targets Dem on Keystone XL in Mass. Senate raceSenate committee schedules Thursday vote for Interior nominee
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxNRCC launches 'Liberal Madness' bracket targeting DemsPaul: CPAC win, response 'invigorating'Conservative poll shows Pryor in trouble in Arkansas
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyReid says senators won't leave town before finishing budgetSenate Banking panel approves financial regulatory nomineesNews bites: All eyes on Nicosia
More On The Money »HealthwatchGOP senators introduce bill to repeal Obama health law's insurance taxBill would raise feds' contribution to DC Medicaid Business groups ask IRS to delay health law's employer mandate
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionSessions says GOP won't yield budget debate time, suggests taking it up after recessReid wants to start the 50-hour clock on budget while still considering CRHouse bill would prohibit drone killings of Americans on US soil
More Floor Action »TransportationNews bites: Cruise control?Sen. Schumer wants bill of rights for cruise ship passengersThis week in transportation: Safety focus turns back to the FAA
More Transportation »DEFCON HillSeven Marines killed in Nevada training incidentWhite House warns of 'consequences' if Syria has used chemical weaponA decade later, Iraq war continues to cast long shadow over US role in Syria, Iran
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsSens. Rubio, Casey step into Syria fray with bipartisan sanctions billTuesday's global agenda: Ireland Day on the HillWorld Vision US President Richard Stearns: A moral view of trimming the budget
More Global Affairs »In The KnowDay in the Life: Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.)Harrison Ford to talk aviation on Capitol HillRep. Gabbard appears, hosts screening of political web series
More In The Know »RegWatchUS Chamber wants flexibility on Obama health law's employer mandateNews bites: New regs require timely health coverageCoal state Dems press Obama to scale back EPA emissions rules
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSJohn FeeheryPopulism run amokJudd GreggDebt deal in reachMore Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.


View the original article here