SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jon Koplik who wrote (68560)3/5/2000 12:32:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik  Respond to of 152472
 
Text of that bull market / Prozac article.

edge.org

Is the Market on Prozac?

Randolph M. Nesse, M.D.

The press has been preoccupied with possible explanations
for the current extraordinary boom. Many articles say, as
they always do while a bubble grows, that this market is
"different." Some attribute the difference to new information
technology. Others credit changes in foreign trade, or the
baby boomer's lack of experience with a real economic
depression. But you never see a serious story about the
possibility that this market is different because investor's
brains are different. There is good reason to suspect that
they are.

Prescriptions for psychoactive drugs have increased from
131 million in 1998 to 233 million in 1998, with nearly 10
million prescriptions filled last year for Prozac alone. The
market for antidepressants in the USA is now $6.3 billion
per year. Additional huge numbers of people use herbs to
influence their moods. I cannot find solid data on how many
people in the USA take antidepressants, but a calculation
based on sales suggests a rough estimate of 20 million.

What percent of brokers, dealers, and investors are taking
antidepressant drugs? Wealthy, stressed urbanites are
especially likely to use them. I would not be surprised to
learn that one in four large investors has used some kind of
mood-altering drug. What effects do these drugs have on
investment behavior? We don't know. A 1998 study by
Brian Knutson and colleagues found that the serotonin
specific antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) did not cause
euphoria in normal people, but did block negative affects like
fear and sadness. From seeing many patients who take such
agents, I know that some experience only improved mood,
often a miraculous and even life-saving change. Others,
however, report that they become far less cautious than
they were before, worrying too little about real dangers.
This is exactly the mind-set of many current investors.

Human nature has always given rise to booms and bubbles,
followed by crashes and depressions. But if investor caution
is being inhibited by psychotropic drugs, bubbles could grow
larger than usual before they pop, with potentially
catastrophic economic and political consequences. If
chemicals are inhibiting normal caution in any substantial
fraction of investors, we need to know about it. A more
positive interpretation is also easy to envision. If 20 million
workers are more engaged and effective, to say nothing of
showing up for work more regularly, that is a dramatic tonic
for the economy. There is every reason to think that many
workers and their employers are gaining such benefits.
Whether the overall mental health of the populace is
improving remains an open question, however. Overall rates
of depression seem stable or increasing in most
technological countries, and the suicide rate is stubbornly
unchanged despite all the new efforts to recognize and treat
depression.

The social effects of psychotropic medications is the
unreported story of our time. These effects may be small,
but they may be large, with the potential for social
catastrophe or positive transformation. I make no claim to
know which position is correct, but I do know that the
question is important, unstudied, and in need of careful
research. What government agency is responsible for
ensuring that such investigations get carried out? The
National Institute of Mental Health? The Securities and
Exchange Commission? Thoughtful investigative reporting
can give us preliminary answers that should help to focus
attention on the social effects of psychotropic medications.

Randoph M. Nesse, M.D., is Professor of Psychiatry,
Director, ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, The
University of Michigan and coauthor (with George C.
Williams) of Why We Get Sick: The New Science of
Darwinian Medicine.



To: Jon Koplik who wrote (68560)3/5/2000 10:27:00 PM
From: Poet  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
That premise is complete bullsh*t. eom