I'm working on a couple of other posts that I should hopefully have ready for tomorrow (another flurry of posts to send you into the weekend, one of which concerns the shocking and tragic news about Junior Seau from yesterday), but until then, it's Clip of the Week time.
The NBA Playoffs are underway, which... yeah, I'm really having a hard time caring about, especially since Derrick Rose got hurt. Stuff like this from LeBron James makes me care even less, although I do get a kick out of Rajon Rondo (at least when he's not trying to fight refs).
Luckily, basketball isn't the only sport in town... we've got soccer, which produced yet another ridiculous goal, and also an awesome tennis/soccer hybrid that unfortunately only exists in the imaginary world of Nike advertising. We've also got baseball... which... well... sometimes umpires get things wrong.
This polar bear is happy to provide your weekly animal-related clip, and Barry Ritholtz shares yet another brilliant Jon Stewart takedown of political hypocrisy. You'll find this video entertaining if you're into economics or you're otherwise a nerd (which you're probably not, so I don't know why I'm posting it), and this time-lapse of a young girl growing up from newborn to 12 years old is mesmerizing, especially for the father of a newborn (and rapidly growing) daughter. Which I am, and you're probably not.
Alright, whatever. Those last two videos may not have been relevant to all of you, but this week's Clip of the Week certainly will be. It will also make you never want to step onto an airplane again. You're welcome.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Catching up on old drafts (a link dump)
I recently promised you all that I had a huge backlog of post-worthy material that I hadn't yet gotten around to writing about. Well today, I took a look at my unfinished draft posts... and it turns out I've got 17 of them, just from the last six weeks. Yeah, I may have the best of intentions, but there's no way I'm going to make it through a 17-post backlog without doing a link dump. So... here goes nothing.
Why Don't Women Patent?
Alex Tabarrok; Marginal Revolution
In this blog post, Tabarrok passes along a recent NBER paper that argued that if women studied science and engineering at the same rate as men, our total number of patents would increase by 24% and GDP would increase by 2.7%. Tabarrok points out that this argument is incredibly specious on multiple levels, and he mocks the finding by suggesting that if we churned out more female construction workers, the construction industry would boom and we would be building tons more houses.
While gender inequality is a serious issue that requires deeper discussion, doe-eyed (and naive) estimates like these only cheapen the argument. I'm reminded of Rob Reid's brilliant TED talk on the "$8 billion iPod", which points out the absurdity of "Copyright Math". This NBER study seemingly suffers from many of the same statistical shortcomings, and Tabarrok and I think it's another clear example of bad math.
Yelp, You Cost Me $2000 by Suppressing Genuine Reviews, Here’s How You Fix It
Justin Vincent; justinvincent.com
Justin Vincent passes along his personal story about how Yelp's user reviews caused him to make a terrible decision when choosing a moving company, largely because the site's algorithms had blocked a number of negative user reviews that were, in fact, genuine.
I think this is an interesting follow-up to my previous post about "astroturfing" and the difficulties of determining which web product reviews are legitimate, and which aren't. I think we're all still figuring this puzzle out (both as companies and as consumers), and until we do figure it out, our best bet is simply to rely on good old word-of-mouth marketing. Yes, I mean word-of-mouth from real actual people that we know and talk to, not faceless "people" on the internet...
For Regulars and Restaurants, Many Happy Returns
Richard Morgan; Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal's Richard Morgan shares a feel-good story about a loyal New York City man (Bruce Davis) who sits down at the same bar stool at the same Greenwich Village restaurant every night of his life, racking up an average of... wait a minute, $4,000 a MONTH in charges? Are you serious?
If ever there was an article that displayed the obvious gap in our country between the haves and have-nots, this article was it. Recall that median HOUSEHOLD income in the United States is just a hair over $30,000 (in pre-tax dollars, of course), while Mr. Davis spends nearly $50,000 in after-tax money at one restaurant alone. Yes, Mr. Davis' America is not most people's America, but then again, the Wall Street Journal is not most people's newspaper. It's been making that fact abundantly clear in recent months...
Joey Votto's New Contract Is Like a Mortgage-Backed Security
Jack Dickey; Deadspin
This post from Deadspin almost certainly deserves better than to be buried here at the bottom of a link dump, but so be it. In discussing Joey Votto's monster contract extension from the Cincinnati Reds in early April, Dickey made the comparison to a mortgage-backed security. I didn't see the parallels at first, but he did a terrific job of laying them out, and I think that the whole piece is worth a read, especially if you're a cable TV subscriber (yes, this impacts you whether or not you're a sports fan).
This just may be the best piece of sports-related journalism I've read so far this year--it in fact crosses over into financial territory, and it makes a whole lot of sense (it's also sort of terrifying). Given that the recent eye-popping $2 billion purchase of the Los Angeles Dodgers by a Magic Johnson-led group used similar modeling assumptions (and we know those are never wrong, right?), it's clear that the math around cable rights fees is a very pertinent topic. Read this piece and you'll understand how you're footing the bill for Joey Votto's contract, even if you don't know who Joey Votto is.
Why Don't Women Patent?
Alex Tabarrok; Marginal Revolution
In this blog post, Tabarrok passes along a recent NBER paper that argued that if women studied science and engineering at the same rate as men, our total number of patents would increase by 24% and GDP would increase by 2.7%. Tabarrok points out that this argument is incredibly specious on multiple levels, and he mocks the finding by suggesting that if we churned out more female construction workers, the construction industry would boom and we would be building tons more houses.
While gender inequality is a serious issue that requires deeper discussion, doe-eyed (and naive) estimates like these only cheapen the argument. I'm reminded of Rob Reid's brilliant TED talk on the "$8 billion iPod", which points out the absurdity of "Copyright Math". This NBER study seemingly suffers from many of the same statistical shortcomings, and Tabarrok and I think it's another clear example of bad math.
Yelp, You Cost Me $2000 by Suppressing Genuine Reviews, Here’s How You Fix It
Justin Vincent; justinvincent.com
Justin Vincent passes along his personal story about how Yelp's user reviews caused him to make a terrible decision when choosing a moving company, largely because the site's algorithms had blocked a number of negative user reviews that were, in fact, genuine.
I think this is an interesting follow-up to my previous post about "astroturfing" and the difficulties of determining which web product reviews are legitimate, and which aren't. I think we're all still figuring this puzzle out (both as companies and as consumers), and until we do figure it out, our best bet is simply to rely on good old word-of-mouth marketing. Yes, I mean word-of-mouth from real actual people that we know and talk to, not faceless "people" on the internet...
For Regulars and Restaurants, Many Happy Returns
Richard Morgan; Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal's Richard Morgan shares a feel-good story about a loyal New York City man (Bruce Davis) who sits down at the same bar stool at the same Greenwich Village restaurant every night of his life, racking up an average of... wait a minute, $4,000 a MONTH in charges? Are you serious?
If ever there was an article that displayed the obvious gap in our country between the haves and have-nots, this article was it. Recall that median HOUSEHOLD income in the United States is just a hair over $30,000 (in pre-tax dollars, of course), while Mr. Davis spends nearly $50,000 in after-tax money at one restaurant alone. Yes, Mr. Davis' America is not most people's America, but then again, the Wall Street Journal is not most people's newspaper. It's been making that fact abundantly clear in recent months...
Joey Votto's New Contract Is Like a Mortgage-Backed Security
Jack Dickey; Deadspin
This post from Deadspin almost certainly deserves better than to be buried here at the bottom of a link dump, but so be it. In discussing Joey Votto's monster contract extension from the Cincinnati Reds in early April, Dickey made the comparison to a mortgage-backed security. I didn't see the parallels at first, but he did a terrific job of laying them out, and I think that the whole piece is worth a read, especially if you're a cable TV subscriber (yes, this impacts you whether or not you're a sports fan).
This just may be the best piece of sports-related journalism I've read so far this year--it in fact crosses over into financial territory, and it makes a whole lot of sense (it's also sort of terrifying). Given that the recent eye-popping $2 billion purchase of the Los Angeles Dodgers by a Magic Johnson-led group used similar modeling assumptions (and we know those are never wrong, right?), it's clear that the math around cable rights fees is a very pertinent topic. Read this piece and you'll understand how you're footing the bill for Joey Votto's contract, even if you don't know who Joey Votto is.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Quote of the Week
For this week's Quote of the Week, my initial instinct was to go the light-hearted route and pull something humorous from Jimmy Kimmel's address at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. He did a solid job on the whole, including a crack about Obama's ears that takes some serious guts to make.
But yesterday, after hitting "Publish" on my rant-y little diatribe about how borrowers need to take responsibility for their own poor financial decisions, I came across a couple of other items that convinced me that I had to add a little more to this topic. The first of those items will be the source of this week's Quote of the Week, while the second will (hopefully) serve to illuminate on it a bit. Let's get to it...
This week's QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"It has been argued that one formula known as Black-Scholes, along with its descendants, helped to blow up the financial world."
- Tim Harford, BBC Radio
First of all, before I launch in, I have a journalistic bone to pick with Mr. Harford, a pet peeve that's been bugging me lately as it's begun to spread. Tim, just who exactly has been making this argument to which you so casually refer? Do you have a specific name, or an example? If you don't, then YOU'RE THE ONE making the argument. Enough with the passive-aggressive bullshit. If you want to make an argument, just make it and defend it--don't try to shift that responsibility elsewhere. Thank you.
Now, that peeve aside, whoever made the argument (whether it was Tim or the Unknown Soldier) happens to have made a brutally flimsy and careless argument, among the worst I've ever heard. To try to deflect responsibility for an economic crisis onto a model (or that model's creators) is fraudulent on many levels, and doing so rivals the behavior that I mentioned yesterday in the annals of denial of personal responsibility.
It's often been said that guns don't kill people, people kill people (hey, look at that, I found a source, unlike Tim Harford). Generally speaking, I agree. Similarly, models don't blow up economies--people blow up economies.
We all use models in our daily lives, because they help us to make sense of what are often very complex problems. Models simplify, organize, and categorize the variables in an uncertain world so that we can better understand the impacts of our decisions. But they DO NOT, ever, have the power to tell us what to do. You don't even need to know a thing about Black-Scholes (and trust me, a lot of people who should know a lot about it... don't) in order to accept that assertion as fact.
The intelligent person knows to use a model only as a guide to confirm (or refute) what our intuition tells us. Very often, our painfully simple heuristic models (which you can learn or hear more about from Gerd Gigerenzer's speech, if you're a nerd like me) actually outperform very elegant statistical models. How can this be? The answer lies in this brilliant polemic from economist Robert Wenzel (which is almost as great as a similar recent rant from Jim Grant).
When an individual buys a house with a mortgage or takes out a student loan, it's that individual's responsibility to know the risks associated with that loan. Similarly, it is the bank's (or hedge fund's, or mutual fund's, or pension fund's) responsibility to know the risk profile of the trades it is putting on. They can't blame a model or a formula for "understating" the risk--they're the ones who used the model, so the responsibility is theirs.
Black-Scholes is a great formula, an elegant formula, and one that enabled us to easily price contracts that we couldn't price without it. The fact that some people traded those contracts in a manner that was inconsistent with rational risk management standards has nothing to do with Black-Scholes--the formula was at best an accessory to the crime.
Why is it that we have seemingly lost our ability to claim responsibility for our own actions? Will our federal government blame John Maynard Keynes if and when our debt ceiling hijinks finally blow up in our faces? Will people try to blame the food manufacturer when it turns out that chocolate frosting isn't, as it turns out, a nutritious snack? Oh crap... you're right. They already have.
[BBC News]
[Economic Policy Journal]
But yesterday, after hitting "Publish" on my rant-y little diatribe about how borrowers need to take responsibility for their own poor financial decisions, I came across a couple of other items that convinced me that I had to add a little more to this topic. The first of those items will be the source of this week's Quote of the Week, while the second will (hopefully) serve to illuminate on it a bit. Let's get to it...
This week's QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"It has been argued that one formula known as Black-Scholes, along with its descendants, helped to blow up the financial world."
- Tim Harford, BBC Radio
First of all, before I launch in, I have a journalistic bone to pick with Mr. Harford, a pet peeve that's been bugging me lately as it's begun to spread. Tim, just who exactly has been making this argument to which you so casually refer? Do you have a specific name, or an example? If you don't, then YOU'RE THE ONE making the argument. Enough with the passive-aggressive bullshit. If you want to make an argument, just make it and defend it--don't try to shift that responsibility elsewhere. Thank you.
Now, that peeve aside, whoever made the argument (whether it was Tim or the Unknown Soldier) happens to have made a brutally flimsy and careless argument, among the worst I've ever heard. To try to deflect responsibility for an economic crisis onto a model (or that model's creators) is fraudulent on many levels, and doing so rivals the behavior that I mentioned yesterday in the annals of denial of personal responsibility.
It's often been said that guns don't kill people, people kill people (hey, look at that, I found a source, unlike Tim Harford). Generally speaking, I agree. Similarly, models don't blow up economies--people blow up economies.
We all use models in our daily lives, because they help us to make sense of what are often very complex problems. Models simplify, organize, and categorize the variables in an uncertain world so that we can better understand the impacts of our decisions. But they DO NOT, ever, have the power to tell us what to do. You don't even need to know a thing about Black-Scholes (and trust me, a lot of people who should know a lot about it... don't) in order to accept that assertion as fact.
The intelligent person knows to use a model only as a guide to confirm (or refute) what our intuition tells us. Very often, our painfully simple heuristic models (which you can learn or hear more about from Gerd Gigerenzer's speech, if you're a nerd like me) actually outperform very elegant statistical models. How can this be? The answer lies in this brilliant polemic from economist Robert Wenzel (which is almost as great as a similar recent rant from Jim Grant).
In the science of physics, we know that water freezes at 32 degrees. We can predict with immense accuracy exactly how far a rocket ship will travel filled with 500 gallons of fuel. There is preciseness because there are constants, which do not change and upon which equations can be constructed.
There are no such constants in the field of economics since the science of economics deals with human action, which can change at any time. If potato prices remain the same for 10 weeks, it does not mean they will be the same the following day. I defy anyone in this room to provide me with a constant in the field of economics that has the same unchanging constancy that exists in the fields of physics or chemistry.
And yet, in paper after paper here at the Federal Reserve, I see equations built as though constants do exist.Wenzel is dead on. We all know that models are useful, but they do not remove responsibility for rational risk management--only people have the power to do that. When callous risk managers at huge investment banks take another man's model on faith, and make huge bets with billions of dollars on the line without sanity-checking the model, that's nobody's fault but theirs. They can't come around and say "but... the model said...", any more than our old friends at Long-Term Capital Management did back in the 1990s.
When an individual buys a house with a mortgage or takes out a student loan, it's that individual's responsibility to know the risks associated with that loan. Similarly, it is the bank's (or hedge fund's, or mutual fund's, or pension fund's) responsibility to know the risk profile of the trades it is putting on. They can't blame a model or a formula for "understating" the risk--they're the ones who used the model, so the responsibility is theirs.
Black-Scholes is a great formula, an elegant formula, and one that enabled us to easily price contracts that we couldn't price without it. The fact that some people traded those contracts in a manner that was inconsistent with rational risk management standards has nothing to do with Black-Scholes--the formula was at best an accessory to the crime.
Why is it that we have seemingly lost our ability to claim responsibility for our own actions? Will our federal government blame John Maynard Keynes if and when our debt ceiling hijinks finally blow up in our faces? Will people try to blame the food manufacturer when it turns out that chocolate frosting isn't, as it turns out, a nutritious snack? Oh crap... you're right. They already have.
[BBC News]
[Economic Policy Journal]
Monday, April 30, 2012
Old-time NYC in photos
I'm always a sucker for old-time photography (and videography), so this gallery of early-20th century photos from New York City (courtesy of the NYC Municipal Archives) was right up my alley. Enjoy.
"Predatory lending" in a target-rich environment
This Bloomberg article has been making the rounds lately, and given my history of writing about student loans, I feel as though I have to weigh in.
At the peak of the housing bubble, all sorts of banks and other mortgage underwriters engaged in similar behavior in an attempt to generate more business. They didn't particularly care whether or not the borrowers could afford the house over the long run, the goal was to generate as much business in the near-term as possible. When the whole thing blew sky-high, none of the now-underwater borrowers wanted to take any personal blame for the mess they found themselves in. People simply wanted to cast blame toward the "predatory lenders" for the fraud--but as we all know, there are (at least) two parties to any contract.
Now, with student lending creating our economy's newest bubble (and if you think it's not a bubble--and one that's about ready to pop--please read here, here, here, here, and here), I'm already seeing the blame game developing in advance of the inevitable crash. It's not the students who are to blame for taking on debt that they "didn't realize" was debt, or that they didn't realize was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. No, it has to be those evil schools who tricked them into doing it... right?
I'm honestly tired of this line of reasoning coming from duped borrowers. If you don't fully know what's in the contract you're signing, DON'T SIGN IT. If you're buying a house with an FHA loan that's only requiring a 3.5% down payment, it's your responsibility to understand what that means (hint: it means that if your home value decreases by just 3.5%, your entire equity stake is wiped out and your mortgage goes upside-down). If you didn't realize that, then it's nobody's problem but yours when you find out that you can't ever move because you have no money left to cover your losses.
For generations in this country now, it has been taken on faith that a college degree is "always a good investment", and that we should all pursue a college education no matter what we have to do to finance it. People therefore rarely blink when asked to sign up for student loans, just like they rarely blinked when signing on the dotted line for a mortgage--remember, buying a house was "always a good investment", too, right up until the time that it wasn't.
More of us need to do what Susan Romano did here--she stepped up and realized that something wasn't quite right, and she took personal responsibility for the contract she signed (or didn't sign). The simple fact is, predatory lenders can't exist in a world in which there's no viable prey--but if we allow ourselves to become vulnerable, then we're just about guaranteed to find ourselves hunted down by some very capable predators.
It's as true in college as it is in the animal kingdom--predators thrive where prey is most abundant. We need to stop letting ourselves become prey, not blaming the predators for being what they are. Period.
[Bloomberg]
Susan Romano read her son Zach’s financial-aid letter from Drexel University, and her eyes jumped to the line highlighted in yellow: “$13,442 expected payment” for the first year at the $63,000-a-year school (my note: what in the hell? How does Drexel cost that much?? I digress...).
“At first, I thought it was great,” said Romano, 48, an insurance claims representative from Huntington, Pennsylvania. “The more I read it over and over, the worse it got.”
It turned out the college’s “offered financial aid” included $42,000 in loans to be taken out by the family, including a “suggested” $36,178 in parental borrowing or private loans.
“A loan to me is not financial aid,” Romano said. “It is money I have to pay.”
As many high school seniors face a May 1 deadline to decide where to go to college, families are struggling to understand financial-aid letters, which can be murky and confusing. While the federal government requires banks and mortgage companies to disclose interest rates and total payments on loans, financial- aid letters for college -- which can cost as much as $240,000 for four years -- are unclear about how much families will have to pay.
“You have to be savvy enough to know the fine print exists, and then you have to be eagled-eye enough to find it hidden in the letters and on websites,” said Debbie Greenberg, a counselor with College Bound St. Louis, which coaches low- income students about admissions and financial aid. “You also have to have access to a computer.”Sigh... I can already see where this is headed.
At the peak of the housing bubble, all sorts of banks and other mortgage underwriters engaged in similar behavior in an attempt to generate more business. They didn't particularly care whether or not the borrowers could afford the house over the long run, the goal was to generate as much business in the near-term as possible. When the whole thing blew sky-high, none of the now-underwater borrowers wanted to take any personal blame for the mess they found themselves in. People simply wanted to cast blame toward the "predatory lenders" for the fraud--but as we all know, there are (at least) two parties to any contract.
Now, with student lending creating our economy's newest bubble (and if you think it's not a bubble--and one that's about ready to pop--please read here, here, here, here, and here), I'm already seeing the blame game developing in advance of the inevitable crash. It's not the students who are to blame for taking on debt that they "didn't realize" was debt, or that they didn't realize was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. No, it has to be those evil schools who tricked them into doing it... right?
I'm honestly tired of this line of reasoning coming from duped borrowers. If you don't fully know what's in the contract you're signing, DON'T SIGN IT. If you're buying a house with an FHA loan that's only requiring a 3.5% down payment, it's your responsibility to understand what that means (hint: it means that if your home value decreases by just 3.5%, your entire equity stake is wiped out and your mortgage goes upside-down). If you didn't realize that, then it's nobody's problem but yours when you find out that you can't ever move because you have no money left to cover your losses.
For generations in this country now, it has been taken on faith that a college degree is "always a good investment", and that we should all pursue a college education no matter what we have to do to finance it. People therefore rarely blink when asked to sign up for student loans, just like they rarely blinked when signing on the dotted line for a mortgage--remember, buying a house was "always a good investment", too, right up until the time that it wasn't.
More of us need to do what Susan Romano did here--she stepped up and realized that something wasn't quite right, and she took personal responsibility for the contract she signed (or didn't sign). The simple fact is, predatory lenders can't exist in a world in which there's no viable prey--but if we allow ourselves to become vulnerable, then we're just about guaranteed to find ourselves hunted down by some very capable predators.
It's as true in college as it is in the animal kingdom--predators thrive where prey is most abundant. We need to stop letting ourselves become prey, not blaming the predators for being what they are. Period.
[Bloomberg]
Friday, April 27, 2012
Song of the Week(end)
When I turned on my TV this morning, it was tuned to a re-run of an old Entourage episode, which I decided to stick around and watch. I don't watch the show any more (I got tired of paying HBO's fees a couple years back and cancelled it), but one of the things I always loved about it was its soundtrack. In fact, I'm pretty sure that 80% of songs I downloaded for a year or two (say, 2005-2006) were songs that I'd first heard on the show.
The song that ran over closing credits on today's episode happened to be a personal favorite--Nina Simone's "Sinnerman". It's an oldie but goodie, and it always makes me think of the climactic scene from The Thomas Crown Affair (the Pierce Brosnan version, a great flick). So that's your Song of the Week(end) for this last week in April. I'll present to you not just the song, but the scene from Thomas Crown, because it's awesome. Have a good weekend, people.
The song that ran over closing credits on today's episode happened to be a personal favorite--Nina Simone's "Sinnerman". It's an oldie but goodie, and it always makes me think of the climactic scene from The Thomas Crown Affair (the Pierce Brosnan version, a great flick). So that's your Song of the Week(end) for this last week in April. I'll present to you not just the song, but the scene from Thomas Crown, because it's awesome. Have a good weekend, people.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
An update on prescription drugs
I think it's funny how I sometimes cover certain topics on the blogs in bunches, then ignore them for a while, before coming back to them again (think: China and currency manipulation). I can't fully explain why that's the case, though I'd love to spend some more time thinking about it.
At any rate, the reason I'm thinking about that dynamic today is that I recently came across this article (shared by Tim Iacono) regarding the explosion in painkiller prescriptions--specifically hydrocodone (Vicodin) and oxycodone (OxyContin/Percocet)--over the last decade. I was pretty sure that I'd covered this topic before, and indeed I had--three separate times. A sample take-away from what I wrote is this:
[Yahoo! Finance]
At any rate, the reason I'm thinking about that dynamic today is that I recently came across this article (shared by Tim Iacono) regarding the explosion in painkiller prescriptions--specifically hydrocodone (Vicodin) and oxycodone (OxyContin/Percocet)--over the last decade. I was pretty sure that I'd covered this topic before, and indeed I had--three separate times. A sample take-away from what I wrote is this:
In general, I believe that we have become a nation that is incredibly good at treating symptoms, but woefully inadequate at solving underlying problems. Not feeling too happy today? Don't bother asking why, just pop some prozac. Short attention span? Here's some ritalin. Cholesterol hitting the roof? Don't pass on the steak and eggs just yet, just take some lipitor and don't look back. (Yes, I'm getting a little rant-y here, but I think it's justified).
I've long complained that the problem with most government policy is that it is too reactionary, rather than pro-active. Affirmative action and the Patriot Act are frequent targets of my ire, for exactly that reason. We declared war on drugs without bothering to ask what made drug use so prevalent (could it be that recreational drugs and prescription drugs go hand-in-hand?). We fought a war on terror--and sacrificed personal freedoms--without wondering why we were the target of a terrorist act in the first place (it's best that I not go down that road).To be clear, this kind of thinking isn't at all unique to government policy--the government (any government) simply reflects what the citizenry demands, and lately the citizenry has demanded that we treat symptoms, not causes. That's why I'm completely unsurprised by these graphics, although the growth rates were staggering even for me. (Side note: given the brand names in question, I'm not totally shocked that oxycodone sales increases have significantly outstripped hydrocodone sales increases over this time period--either way, both have skyrocketed).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)