Pathway also sells testing kits for allergies to common pharmaceutical drugs, pregnancy planning, and miscellaneous other health conditions, but those tests will not be available at Walgreens and cost upwards of $79 (to as much as $249). In a statement from Pathway Genomics, Jim Plante, the company’s CEO said, “We’re revolutionizing the way people access information about their genetics,” said Plante. “The value of knowing how genes play a role in our personal lives, and potentially the lives of our children, is critical for making well-informed health and wellness decisions.”

While there are health benefits to early detection of life threatening illnesses, such as breast cancer, or finding out about a potentially deadly drug reaction before its administration, not every genetic test is as valuable as Plante indicates. I understand that there is health value to availing people to the ability to learn of impending genetic disorders, but that does not mean that people should test for everything. I personally do not want to live in fear of developing symptoms of a disease that I have a genetic proclivity to developing in the future. More time, money, and effort should be placed into researching cures for diseases to help the future generations, not more ways to detect potential for growing into a disease. If there are no (or very limited) benefits to treating diseases early, then the money could be better appropriated elsewhere.

Science technology is increasing, which is a good thing, but not every technology should be economically exploited.

With the recent rise of the “Tea Parties,” I sometimes question whether of not their founders truly understand the mantra, “no taxation without representation” in which they so fervently refer. I clearly remember learning about this historic event in American history – the point was that the British government was heavily taxing “Americans,” yet only appointed British officials “represented” the “American” people. Just to clear things up – the American people DID collectively elect the current president, senators, and representatives, regardless if each individual actual cast their vote for that particular person.

Though Adam Smith lived during the time of the Boston Tea Party, as a Brit, it was not a primary concern for him. As the preeminent economist in history, his views are often intertwined with this past event as well as referenced by current members of the political Tea Party.

To quote from The Wealth of Nations, Smith writes:

1. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible … in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

2. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gatherer, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself.

3. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.

4. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.

The main takeaway from this book is a belief in separation, exchange, and division of labor (as exemplified by his famous pin factory example). Smith also advocates the pursuit of self-interest and believes that free market society will produce the most efficient outcome. To cite Adam Smith’s views on individual freedom and self-interest, as the source of discontent to lambaste the stimulus plan, pundits are quoting Smith out of context.

The 1759 book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, though not as famous as The Wealth of Nations, is Smith’s first work and what he believes to be his best work. Early scholars found the two works to be contradictory, but upon close examination, Smith’s true economic sentiment is clear. The Theory of Moral Sentiments first introduces the “invisible hand,” which guides humans as they act in their own self-interest. Though hard work and selfish behavior is ultimately necessary in an efficient society to create competition, morals concurrently arise through social relationships.

Human beings constantly seek the approval of others, and it is that same desire to impress that fosters the drive toward self-interest. Though people do focus on their own needs, they are not completely immune to others and sympathize with their peers. By realizing their morality, people are willing to share and help out others when they are in need despite the internal desire to help only themselves.

Demonstrating artistic ability from a young age, Pablo Picasso studied at premier art schools in Spain until he quit school at age 16 due to his disinterest in organized schooling. After studying in Madrid, Picasso moved to Paris and befriended poet Max Jacob. The two shared and an apartment and were so poor that Picasso would burn paintings to heat his room in the winter.

Pablo Picasso soon came out of his financial hardships and by 1905, at age 24, he was a favorite among American patrons and was commissioned for many portraits. During his lifetime, he painted 1,885 paintings, created 1,228 sculptures, and produced thousands of prints and drawings.

According to the 2008 Art Market Trends Report, Picasso is the top artist (based on auction sales), amassing $262,366,349 from the 1,764 lots sold. Though Picasso was able to make a living as an artist during his lifetime, as well as leave a lasting impression on the art world, many artists do not receive acclaim for their works until after their death.

Vincent van Gogh devoted his life to his artwork and produced over 800 paintings and many more drawings. However, van Gogh lived in poverty and suffered from malnourishment, unable to support himself as his painter. In fact, he only sold one painting during his lifetime – Red Vineyard at Arles. It was only after his death that he was recognized for his impact on the art world.

Thomas Eakins is another artist that died before his true artistic abilities were fully appreciated. His realistic work was rejected by the public who preferred more a favorable representation in their portraits. Unwilling to conform, he only sold thirty paintings during his lifetime, but he is now recognized as one of America’s greatest painters of all time.

Artists of all types: painters, poets, musicians, and filmmakers experience recognition only posthumously. It is astounding how artists nearly starve during their lifetime only to be extolled years after their death. Perhaps, art appreciation is more of an observed trait than a learned one – accolades of certain pieces occur only with group approval. If esteem for a work of art comes only after comparing it to others, and evaluating an artist is based on their impact on future artists, then what does that say about the public’s ability to really understand art?

This morning, I received an update from The Economist Debate series, which posed the question: “What’s the best way to measure living standards?” With Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick on the pro side, asserting that “GDP growth is a poor measure of improving living standards,” and Steve Landefeld, Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, defending the metric, this has been a thought-provoking debate. Though the voting on the proposal is still open to the public, 72% of respondents currently agree with the house, and I concur.

For years, GDP has been the main indicator of economic health, but is it really sufficient to encapsulate the overall well-being of a nation? In order to answer this question, a more fundamental issue needs to be addressed. Does the wealth of a country have a direct correlation to its well-being? The Easterlin Paradox contends that the answer is no since it alleges that the happiness of a country does not improve as its wealth increases.

I believe that measures of wealth, happiness, and well-being are all relative from an economic standpoint. After all, humans determine their own happiness based on their perception of others.

For example, a country could experience triple-digit growth in GDP, but still be considered an impoverished nation in comparison to the rest of the world. Conversely, highly developed countries, like the United States, can experience negative GDP growth, but still be tremendously “better off” than most other countries.

Latin American countries are notorious for their huge wealth disparities. In many instances, a country experiences GDP growth, but only a handful of wealthy people are benefiting, and the rest of the country is impoverished. Though based on GDP growth, the country is economically strong, the overall well-being of the masses is low.

In a sense, “ignorance is bliss.” When we are aware of what other people have, we become more aware of what we don’t have and take many things for granted. Most people in the U.S. don’t think of something like clean water as being a luxury, but it is. Millions of people are living without access to potable water. For a poor villager living in a developing nation, gaining access to a new water source could be life-changing and infinitely increase that person’s happiness, but if their country’s GDP growth remains low, that level of economic “well-being” would not be reflected by the GDP.

Adages say that money does not buy happiness, and that is true to an extent. Money does make someone’s life more comfortable, but comfort does not guarantee well-being.  Drive for materialism promotes a need for more materialism, and some people are never satisfied with what they have, even if they are much better off than many other people.

From the onset of the 1930s, Goldman Sachs has been synonymous with investment banking. Through shrewd business deals and savvy management, they vaulted themselves into the limelight, and now they are paying the price.

The Security and Exchange Commission’s civil suit against Goldman Sachs’ trader, Fabrice Tourre, voiced a concern that has haunted the American public since the crushing decline of the subprime mortgage market; were the CDO offerings just an elaborate money-making scheme?

The e-mails uncovered through the SEC investigation painted a monstrous portrait of Goldman with the 28-year-old Tourre likening the mortgaged-backed to securities to the work of Frankenstein, unloading the toxic assets to unsuspecting victims with the sole purpose of fattening the wallets of Goldman Sachs executives.

The real question now is whether or not Tourre and his fellow subprime architects are to blame for the demise of the American economy. Is Goldman Sachs really the culprit in the financial disaster?

There is no doubt in my mind that the Goldman executives were aware that there would be an impending mortgage crash. Whether they had knowledge of the consequences of selling the subprime assets before peddling them to investors may never be fully revealed. What I do know is that they were definitely not alone in their actions.

Countless other firms are responsible for unloading risky investments to the American public. Even if doubts over the stability of the mortgages existed, there could have been no way to predict the scope of the outcome. So why is one sole trader in one company singled out as the malefactor?

I believe that the impetus behind the SEC lawsuit was prompted by the debate over regulation and a need to make a statement by placing blame on Goldman.

The groundbreaking Glass-Steagall Act (1933) set an early standard for banking regulation in response to the catastrophic effects of the Great Depression on the American economy. Though not perfect, the legislation did stave off large-scale financial woes for over sixty years until it’s repeal in 1999, which also marked the onset of Citibank’s underwriting of mortgage-backed securities.

Proposed regulation from Paul Volker, dubbed the Volker Rule, ignited the question of whether the Glass-Steagall Act should have been repealed, and today, the Senate is set to vote on a new overhaul bill aimed to set self-regulatory standards for the banking industry and prevent the evil interworkings of Goldman Sachs from creating further chaos.

The targeted attack on Goldman Sachs is the SEC’s attempt to set a precedent and craft their rationale behind writing new regulatory legislation for the banking industry. Though Sachs is far from the only instigator, they are the chosen scapegoat for the woes of Main Street.  By creating a media storm around the detailed actions of the Goldman Sachs execs from their six-figure bonuses to their hamburger eating contests, a mockery is being made of the once-revered investment institution instead of delving into the real financial issues.

The bottom line is that everyone wants to attack Goliath. It is easy to jump on the bandwagon and decry every action of the big bad Wall Streeters, blaming them for the housing crisis and unemployment and inflation. After all, they still have jobs and are getting bonuses, so they must be doing something unscrupulous, but what about the American public? Are they the unsuspecting victims that are bearing the consequences of Wall Street scheming?

Banks are responsible for selling large mortgages with adjustable interest rates, but no one was forced to take out a loan. Hyper-consumerism may have fueled growth of America’s capitalist society, but it can also be attributed to the current slump. With virtually no savings, mounting credit card debts, and overly ambitious mortgages, it should have been no surprise that we were heading for disaster. Chasing after the “American dream” landed many Americans in financial trouble, but yet, Americans continued to spend and buy bigger houses, and banks fueled the fire by lumping together the risky subprime mortgages and selling them off to ambitious investors.

As easy as it would be for me to just point a finger at Goldman Sachs and blame them for all the country’s problems, I cannot bring myself to do it. They are certainly not innocent and they need to answer for their sins, but the SEC is doing a disservice by only publicly attacking Goldman Sachs as justification for finance reform. Instead of starting at the top, the SEC should focus more on the mortgage lenders and their misaligned incentives to hand out loans to every customer. The interim after Glass-Steagall proved financial institutions’ inability to self regulate, so reform is needed, but instead of hasty accusations, the government needs to take a step back and look at the big picture.

iTunes is synonymous with digital music downloads. The success of Apple iPods has propelled the iTunes brand, and they currently hold at least 25% of the music market (digital as well as CD versions) as of a 2009 NPD Group report. Digital music downloads currently account for 35% of the market, and that number has only been climbing. If this trend of mp3s over CDs (or other physical devices) continues to decline, it begs the question: what will happen to the art of the CD?

CDs are not just haphazardly thrown together with tracks being slotted according to when their recording is completed. Tremendous care is put into determining the perfect flow of a CD with the most aesthetically pleasing arrangement. Transitions all one song to flow seamlessly into the next so that there is that the listener’s attention is held until the final chord is struck.

And what will become of concept albums? Musical opuses such as Pink Floyd’s The Wall and The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band are more than just a collection of the band’s newest songs, but weave in a musical story, each song adding another layer of depth and building upon the previous track’s installment.

If listeners pick and choose the “best,” poppiest, most attention-grabbing songs and give little stock to the other tracks in an album, more emphasis will be placed on the hits than producing a well-rounded album. There will be no need for a cohesive account of emotion or a music story – the only objective will be to produce marketable stand-alone hits. An artist would be not even have to waste time crafted a masterpiece, but devote all attention to churning out hits.

One of my favorite bands, Cursive, known for their artful concept albums, begins their CD, The Ugly Organ, with the song, “Art is Hard,” which epitomizes the threat of an impending artistic demise with the belted words, “Keep churning out those hits/’til it’s all the same old shit.”

What I value most in music is the ability of musicians to convey a story – a vignette in their life – that expresses a mood, whether blissful or angry or completely melancholy. Context can be everything, and it is the overall feeling of an album that really stays with me, long after the lyrics of simply one hit song fades into silence.

When one party knows something that the other party does not, asymmetry results. Regardless of how well-thought out a decision, there is always at least a shred of ambiguity within the negotiation process. While some transactions are relatively minor, there are major life-altering matches that occur, resulting in potentially disastrous repercussions. For example, a consumer will be annoyed if the $2 loaf of bread that they purchase is slightly stale (despite a future expiration date), but in the grand scheme, it is meaningless and would unlikely sway the customer to make a special trip to purchase bread elsewhere. Monetary transactions are the most clear cut types of contracts. One party places a value on a good or service and receives that good or service in exchange for that specific amount as long as the seller values their product to be equal to or less than the amount being offered.

The main issue with transactions arises in the form of intangible trades. In forming a contract, it becomes very difficult to reach an agreement if something cannot be assigned a price tag. Matching medical students to residency programs is one such example. The National Resident Match Program (NRMP), established in 1952, attempts to remedy any preferential treatment and nepotism by utilizing a computer to match students with programs based on their preferences. The resulting salaries and work periods are virtually identical across the board. Of course, no system is perfect, and each hospital’s ranking of a particular candidate is highly subjective, but the biggest problem with the NRMP is not the rankings, but the actual mechanism.

Residency salaries are capped at around $46,000, regardless of the area’s cost of living and the quality of the program, and doctors all work approximately 80 hours per week. Considering the sizeable debt that virtually all students carry when entering a program, there is no monetary advantage of one program over the other, aside from opting for a non-urban, low cost location. While this may appear to be a democratizing result, the residents suffer the most from the arrangement. If medical schools were allowed to set their own hours and salaries, they would have better bargaining tools to attract students. Instead of relying on the name of a hospital to garner future high incomes, a doc could start paying back their loans immediately by earning a higher salary at a better-ranked school. Schools outside the top tier hospitals could also benefit by competition. Since students aspire to enter the best hospital possible, the best students end up at the best hospitals. However, if the less prestigious hospitals could offer enticing benefits, i.e. more vacation, fewer work hours, or higher salaries, they could siphon away some of the top students and enhance their programs in the process.

Over-reliance of one system is never beneficial from an economic standpoint, which is why competition is encouraged in virtually every other sector. It hardly seems fair that students are forced to compete against their peers for coveted placement, while hospitals just sit back and reap the benefits of their name.

Like Valentine’s Day (as well as Mother’s Day and Father’s Day), I think of St. Patrick’s Day as a “Hallmark holiday;” though more likely created by the beer distributors than the card industry. Both St. Patrick’s Day and Valentine’s Day originated as religious holidays. The later, Valentine’s Day, is named after St. Valentine. The origin of February 14 is the date in which St. Valentine (of Rome) was martyred and buried on the Via Flaminia, but there is no other documented information regarding his life. The only connection that he has to the tradition of exchanging love letters is an story of his time in jail when he sent the note, “From your Valentine,” to a young girl, on the eve of his execution, before healing her. Of course, American Greetings, Inc graciously provided that story. The 1969 revision of the calendar of saints eliminated the celebration, but it remains on secular calendars worldwide.

St. Patrick is the patron saint of Ireland, and March 17 is his feast day as well as the day of his death. The holiday as been celebrated in Ireland for over one thousand years and since the day falls during Lent, the church reprieved families from fasting and abstaining from meat (hence corned beef and cabbage). After attending morning services, there was dancing and celebration in the evenings. However, that tradition was short-lived and up until the 1970s, the Irish government mandated that all public houses be closed on March 17^th in recognition of St. Patrick’s feast day. It was not until 1995 that the Irish government began to support the celebration of St. Patrick in Dublin, and the reason? To boost tourism, of course.

So then how did the religious tradition migrate to the United States and become what it is today – a drinking “holiday”? Irish soldiers serving in the English military held a parade (the first civilian parade in the U.S.) in 1762 to celebrate their roots and patron; today the parade is the largest in the United States, with countless people claiming Irish ancestry, although St. Patrick was actually English. Urban legends originating in Ireland tell a tale of St. Patrick entering a pub only to find the proprietor serving partially full glasses of whiskey. After scolding the man, Patrick told him that there was a demon lurking in his cellar, and the only way to expel him was through generosity. When St. Patrick returned to check on the man, he was passing out glasses overflowing with whisky, so St. Patrick removed the demon. While this may stem from some truth, it is more likely concocted by Jameson who, along with Guinness, thrives from the Irish imbibing.