Posted: February 12th, 2009 | Author: Joe | Filed under: Tips | Tags: making money | 2 Comments »
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a guest post by Andrew Wang and is meant to promote discussion and thought on a topic that may not be for everyone, and is in no way endorsed by me or this site.]
The year 2008 has been a rough one. Both our finances, and our confidence in the economy and society as a whole have been tested – more often than not to breaking point. Therefore, when it comes to making quick cash, a number of new opportunities have popped up. However, when it comes to making very large amounts of quick cash, one activity stands out from the rest – human medical trials. In this article, we will look at the idea of “human guinea-pigging” closely, weighing up whether or not the money is worth the risk that participating brings about. There are also a few words of advice towards the end for people to consider before jumping in the deep end. We begin with a few definitions.
Firstly, let me make it clear that by using the term “human guinea pig”, I am not referring to dressing up in a furry suit and living in a cage for a week or so. Whilst I’m sure someone would pay you to do that – you may struggle to find them. Instead, the idea comes from the fact that guinea pigs and rats are commonly the creatures of choice used by scientists for medical and pharmaceutical testing. Therefore, the term “human guinea pig” refers to the idea that you yourself will be the one subjected to the medical testing. Of course, in return for your body, the drug companies will pay you a handsome sum of money – compensation for the risks involved in this activity. These risks include organ failure, irreparable damage to cells and vital bodily components, long term complications, and even the possibility of death. But are any of these perceived risks worth worrying about?
The answer is – not really. One only needs to think back to March 2006, when a somewhat standard anti-inflammatory drug was tested on humans in London. Two of the participants came close to death after suffering severely adverse reactions from the drug. This is the type of news headline that is bound to shock and put people off the human guinea pig idea altogether. However, statistics are very much on your side – thousands of trials are conducted each and every year, 99.5 percent of which cause no harm to the participants. If you’re not willing to risk the tiny probability of being in that 0.5 percent, then this type of activity is not for you.
Having concluded here that drug trials are relatively “safe”, perhaps those of us who are able to conquer the fear of illness and reaction should consider participating? This poses the key question of “how do I sign-up?” For those who are interested, here is a quick checklist of things to do before you rush to the local hospital:
- 1. Check with your doctor. There may be issues that would prevent you from participating.
- 3. Detox and build up your immune system before you begin.
- 4. Never EVER take other drugs during the trials! Disclose all medications you are currently on when you apply.
- 5. Wait a while between different drug trials. 2 months is preferable.
Following the above pointers will put you on track for your first medical trial. Assuming that all goes well, you’ll have that extra cash rolling in, in no time. Whatever it is you choose to do – take the proper precautions, and look after yourself! Most of all, remember that this type of activity certainly isn’t for the faint-hearted.
About the Guest.
Andrew Wang lives in Seattle area. He manages the this blog: Travel Reward Credit Card.
Related Posts:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 | Author: Joe | Filed under: Economy | Tags: bailout, politics | No Comments »
From the Wall street Journal online (by way of Yahoo! finance):
“The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices andexecutive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.”
Representative Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts) has apparently been interfering with TARP decisions. According to this article, “Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston” received $12 million in TARP funds due to the actions of Frank.
“Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection”
The sickening part of all this is that Barney Frank is making the rounds on news programs accusing the Bush administration of failing to provide proper oversight of the TARP funds! It’s bad enough that members of congress get a pass on their actions and the ultimate results of those actions, but it’s absolutely disgraceful to point the finger of blame and play politics with something as serious as we’ve been told the TARP bailout is.
Related Posts:
Posted: February 6th, 2009 | Author: Joe | Filed under: Economy | Tags: Depression, Economy | 1 Comment »
“The European Union warned the U.S. yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting a planned “Buy American” policy, intensifying fears of a trade war, the Times of London reported.”
This from a recent article on Fox News.
I’m a little concerned that the Democrat led Congress even considered this, since it’s one of the major causes for the Great Depression of the 1930′s!
Back then, it took the form of The Smoot – Hawley Tariff Act, but the idea is the same: protectionism.
“The plan generally prohibits the purchase of foreign iron and steel for any stimulus-funded infrastructure project with the goal being to boost the U.S. iron and steel industries, which have been pummeled by the current recession.”
Protectionism sounds great. I mean, who doesn’t want to create and protect American jobs by having Americans buy goods and services from other Americans? The problem is that it excludes the rest of the world, and they tend to stop buying American products in return. The result is a net loss of consumers, which translates into a loss of profits and ultimately, a loss of American Jobs.
Protectionism is a lousy idea in the best of times, but in the current recession it would be nightmarish.
I may have to revise my beliefs on the chances of another Great Depression, if our leaders don’t start getting a clue about things…
Related Posts:
Posted: February 4th, 2009 | Author: Joe | Filed under: Economy | Tags: Economy, Obama, Stimulus | 1 Comment »
I found it ironic that the 2008 elections were the longest in history, and gave us a president we know less about than perhaps any other in history. Not surprisingly, we don’t know much about Obama’s economic stimulus plan, or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan as it is named.
I was curious what exactly he has planned for our economy. I know he’s an eloquent speaker, but what will his actions be?
Well, I went digging for the details of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, and found that there are very few. So, I turned to some recent articles and the President’s own weekly radio address. Here’s what I found, and some thoughts along the way…
Environmental Policy.
From a recent Yahoo! finance article:
“What’s more surprising: Even with gas prices dropping, the Obama team will likely get started this year on an extremely aggressive energy agenda. The decision to replace Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat loath to challenge Detroit, with environmentally minded Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, means that body is likely to consider aggressive cap and trade legislation-which tries to lower greenhouse gas emissions by charging companies for the pollution they pump into the air-for the first time ever”
Yikes! Carbon emissions are now a pollutant? Cap and trade legislation and carbon offset scams will not only kill capitalism, they will cripple the already reeling economy. Small town farms that can’t afford the methane tax on cow flatulence (A.K.A. the “fart tax”), to mom and pop bakeries and delis, small businesses will go out of business. Even large corporations will feel the hit, and likely increase layoffs to reduce overhead costs. How is this going to help the economy recover?
Creating or “saving” jobs.
From the Washington post:
“…recovery package aimed at saving or creating as many as 4 million jobs.”
How do we measure how many jobs are saved? How can we know why an employee was not laid off?
“”Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four,” Obama said yesterday. “And we could lose a generation of potential, as more young Americans are forced to forgo college dreams or the chance to train for the jobs of the future.
Can somebody tell me what this means? Does the “..economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity..” mean that the GDP will drop by $1 trillion dollars? Regardless, how does that translate into “..more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four” ? I can see how a family can lose much more, by way of a provider losing his job or asset values in their investments plummeting, but is that part of the economic “capacity”? And why will a generation be forced to forgo college dreams? Recessionary times are tremendously good for college enrollment as laid off workers go back to school to ride out the poor job market.
“In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.” “
This is the sort of thing that bothers me most. It’s more panic and fear to get the public to go along with whatever the government proposes.
Energy Policy
And lastly, from the man himself:
“To accelerate the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and biofuels over the next three years.”
Alternative energy is not scaleable and not profitable at current energy prices. This means one of two things: 1) alternative energy subsidies (i.e. the tax payer is on the hook , yet again to support an unprofitable business model) or 2) Higher energy prices, possibly by way of taxes or further restrictions on oil and gas producers. How is any of this going to help our economy recover?
“We’ll begin to build a new electricity grid that lay down more than 3,000 miles of transmission lines to convey this new energy from coast to coast. We’ll save taxpayers $2 billion a year by making 75% of federal buildings more energy efficient, and save the average working family $350 on their energy bills by weatherizing 2.5 million homes.”
I suspect we could save the tax payers a lot more by reducing needles bureaucrats than just the energy they consume. As for weatherizing 2.5 million homes, haven’t we been getting tax incentives to do this already? I can’t read a personal finance blog these days without tripping over some article about a tax deduction for a programmable thermostat, increased insulation and the like.
Education.
“We’ll invest more in Pell Grants to make college affordable for seven million more students, provide a $2,500 college tax credit to four million students…”
That just increased tuition prices by $2,500. If the government really wanted to lower the cost of tuition, they’d pass legislation to move education towards a free market. The amount of government grants has skyrocketed since the 80′s, and so has the cost of tuition. It’s partially because the grants and low cost loans are baked into the price. Colleges know that the students will get an extra $2k, so they add that to the tuition cost, and nobody gets hurt. It’s like a victimless crime, except the tax payer gets victimized once again.
Infrastructure.
“That means repairing and modernizing thousands of miles of America’s roadways and providing new mass transit options for millions of Americans. It means protecting America by securing 90 major ports and creating a better communications network for local law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of an emergency. And it means expanding broadband access to millions of Americans, so business can compete on a level-playing field, wherever they’re located.”
Again, how is any of this creating private sector jobs? This will be great for out of work construction workers, but I don’t know how many of them are dragging the economy down.
Don’t get me wrong, much of this sounds great, but government spending for the sake of spending is not going to improve the economy. It seems more like a grand pork bill, than economic stimulus. Public sector jobs will only increase state and federal deficits by siphoning more tax payer dollars to pay for them. Growing public sector jobs while private sector jobs decrease will only lead to an unsustainable situation where each private sector worker is taxed to support multiple public sector employees. Come to think of it, it sounds like social security for the job market!
Related Posts:
What others are saying