Are you assuming that only the FDA is capable of figuring out that something that is being marketed as an EKG device doesn't work as advertised?
And, no, snake oil should not be regulated either.
FDA bureaucrats care only about not accidentally approving something that might be harmful. That means too many things that are useful don't get approved. The loss from the second category of error is usually not visible. The media don't try to find each and every individual because the FDA did not allow something. Dallas Buyers' Club tells the story of one group who were harmed.
This is simple statistical reasoning.
Consumers who care will be served by people who provide that information. Nothing will result in drugs that never have any adverse effects. But, I put more value on people being able to access potentially life-saving treatments than a bureaucrat does. The potential beneficiaries of something he doesn't approve are not visible to him.
This strikes me as an example of the FDA earnestly doing its job.
And, the FDA earnestly doing its job destroys the wealth of the nation as Peltzman showed and as many AIDS patients painfully discovered during the 80s.
And, the the FDA earnestly doing its job enables big pharma to engage in international price discrimination. They should be free to try, but it is inappropriate, to say the least, that the government lends them a hand.
Again, I am pointing out that licensing, certification etc act as barriers to entry, and therefore reduce competition. Just like I am recommending the removal of the FDA from the medical treatment and diagnosis market.
In any industry dominated by a cartel, quantity supplied is less than the quantity that would be supplied in a competitive market. Professional licenses are a way of enforcing cartel power.
The fact that malpractice lawsuits can be very lucrative indicates that doctors probably do make super-normal profits due to their cartel enforcing entry restrictions effectively. If they made zero economic profit as would be the case in a competitive market, they wouldn't be such a lucrative target for another cartel, the bar association.
This leaves a paradox: The amendments seem to have harmed their intended consumer beneficiaries. Unlike other regulation which restricts output, there is no partly offsetting transfer to producers. If their effect is then essentially a deadweight loss, one is tempted to question the amendments' political viability. However, there appears to be no imminent reduction in the political demand for either the amendments or for similarly structured consumer legislation. Clearly, the sources of this political demand require examination.
10 years after he wrote that understated conclusion, the FDA actively prevented people with a very limited time to live from experimenting with therapies for themselves so that, instead, big pharma could experiment on them (see Dallas Buyers Club).
If you liked that, you'll definitely enjoy Obamacare's regulatory controls ;-)
I started writing and it got too long for just a comment. So, I expanded on it on my blog.
But, basically, it is one thing to talk about the difficulties of reducing the value of all goods and services produced in the economy to a single number. I agree, GDP is an imperfect measure.
It is a whole other thing to convert the individual states of well-being of three hundred million or a billion people to a single number and base decisions on whether that single number goes up or down.
Such a quantification is the ultimate certification of the desire accept the destruction of the individual in service of the state.
Having taught Intro Stats for a good many years, let me assure you that being good at algebra, or being able to solve a line integral are not sufficient to make heads or tails out of statistics. However, not having the capacity for some abstract reasoning required by algebra is an extreme impediment to actually understanding statistics.
Most people do not and cannot understand statistics. That includes almost everyone in academia as well, and I am pretty sure political scientists who can actually understand what a significance test means can be counted on the toes on a cat's paw. They cannot and will not come to grips with Stats because understanding it would lead to an honest evaluation of the importance of their work.
I am sorry, I just don't get the notion that one can somehow understand understand anything that requires quantitative and abstract reasoning without not being intimidated by simple mechanics. That doesn't mean never ever using a calculator. That means being able to do simple things like solving a single equation with a single unknown.
I recently wrote:
A primer on polls for those comfortable with a little algebra
I used to begin my lectures on probability in Intro Stats with the following slide:
Probability is a normalized denumerably additive measure defined over a sigma algebra of subsets of an abstract space.
If I remember correctly, that's a direct quotation from Kolmogorov, but I can't find the chapter and verse right now.
Following it was a flurry of note-taking activity despite the fact that my slides were available on the course web site (and apparently widely disseminated through a bunch of sites in complete violation of my copyrights). Why do people start writing stuff down if they don't understand it? Every time I put that slide up, I hoped someone would yell "Well, what on earth does that mean?" instead of writing it down, but I was regularly disappointed.
The real lesson here is that there's never an incumbent that isn't at risk of being unseated, no matter how widespread the adoption of their product or service
That is essentially true in the marketplace. In fact, the bigger the profits a company is milking by exploiting its size and dominance, the greater the incentive for others to come up with a replacement, or close enough substitute.
The one exception to this are incumbents that are "regulated" by a government. In most cases, this means they have the government given right to be the sole provider of something in return for oversight by politicians or bureaucrats with regard to price and service levels.
In all cases, this leads to inflated prices, and bad service as the "regulated" firm uses the police powers of the state to keep competitors out, and establishes prices by bargaining with said politicians and bureaucrats then in response to competition and consumer choice.
LEGAL NOTICE: This programme is now the subject of legal proceedings for defamation and malicious falsehood brought by Tesla Motors Ltd and Tesla Motors Inc against the BBC.
Jeremy said "we've worked out that on our track it would run out after 55 miles."
It is amazing that withing the span of about 120 years, we've come from being confined to within a few miles of where you were born or completely abandoning your family and friends to people intent on preventing you from staying in close touch with family if you choose to immigrate. Why do these people hate my grandmother?
Those of us old enough to remember the Napster non-sense are still baffled by how many billions of dollars the entertainment industry was willing to give up to be able to stick with their old business models.
When Napster first came on the scene, they could have moved ahead and co-opted it for mere pennies. They could have shut it down later if things did not work out. Of course, now we know things would have worked out and worked out very well indeed, for one simple reason: While the marginal cost of allowing one more person to download an MP3 is close to nothing, people are willing to pay at least a dollar for a genuine, high quality audio file.
Nooooo, it would have been heresy for a bunch of lawyers to settle for a win-win solution. No sir! We must win and customers must lose even though what we win is but a miniscule portion of the dough Apple made with iTunes. Coincidentally, the inventor of the intarwebs was available to lend a sympathetic ear, and the stupid DMCA was passed with one significant "loophole" that allowed more win-win solutions to be developed: Safe harbors.
Now, we are at a crossroads again. There is a win-win solution: The large content publishers with their stockpiles of cash can take chances on innovative startups and find new ways of making even more money. But, nah, the lawyer mentality balks at that. Someone must always lose. There can't be win-win.
Therefore, we get SOPA (which actually means "stick" in Turkish ;-)
When a pair of ostriches bearing the young meets another pair, the parents will fight and the winning pair will be parents of both pairs' offspring. It has been reported that the biggest group of ostriches contains 300 offspring!
If true, this is kind of curious, and suggests somehow that possession of others' offspring enhances the fitness of one's own.
There's a longstanding myth about ostriches that, when frightened, they will bury their head in the sand and pretend the danger isn't there. This, of course, is ridiculous. Such horribly unadaptive behavior would have been bred out of the species by the evolutionary process (or by whichever God you believe in tweaking his code a bit) as hungry African predators would have delighted in seeing stationary feathery meals.
Of course, if such behavior were triggered after the ostrich had a chance to reproduce, there would be no a priori reason to expect that it would lead to extinction. It might even be adaptive if offspring that can fend for themselves get a chance to escape while the predators occupied themselves with the stationary adult.
First off, thank you very much for picking this up.
I am not as concerned with police officers' actions as I am with the attitude of the members of the commission that they can freely restrict people's right to record and disseminate news.
The "disruptive behavior" criterion seems to be anything that bothers the commission chairperson. A commission that is working on restricting the supply of transportation services to citizens of a city whose work does not involve anything related to national security, or violation of anyone's privacy has no acceptable reason to restrict the information flow.
It seems to me that various public officials preferred the days when no one knew about the meetings which were announced on a dusty panel in the basement of the city sanitation services department, no one attended them and no one watched them on public access TV.
There's no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and itís far too late to start making a fuss about it now. Ö What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven's sake, mankind, it's only four light years away, you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that's your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
Today's technology is making it easier for such things to come out in the open and we are better off for it.
I don't understand why you would want to institute a fee for immigration. What is the advantage of that?
The idea is to set the fee somewhere near the poverty line to ensure that only people who expect make more that (i.e. who believe they can provide more value than they might impose social costs in today's generous welfare environment) to choose to come. Plus, $10,000 is comparable to the monetary outlays --if not the psychic costs-- people incur to come to the U.S. to work illegally, and why not take that rent and maybe fund stronger border controls etc.