Totally In Love!
Russell Roberts writes about a talk he saw about the link between opulence and regulation.#
The second relationship between progress and opulence is that opulence shields regulation. This was the truly depressing part of the talk. Here Sam argued that because we steadily grow wealthier as a nation, destructive regulations look much better than they really are. The best (or perhaps the right word is "worst") example he gave was the FDA. Ineffective or dangerous drugs get weeded out by the market. Not immediately and harm can be done. But impatience with that imperfect process leads to the FDA. Fewer ineffective or dangerous drugs make it to market. But as a result of preventing this harm, a different harm is incurred: effective, safe drugs take longer to get to market as a result of the lengthy approval process. [...]
Peltzman argues that thousands more lives are lost than saved, but that no furor is raised because the natural progress of opulence results in improved overall health. It's hard to notice the detrimental effect of the FDA.
Peter Leeson has a new installment of "Games Economists Play":#
Congrats on the marriage. To avoid any suboptimal behavior on your part I've decided to make sure that you smooth consumption over your lifetime in accordance with Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis. Thus, while your total gift is $100, this year you only get $1.67. The rest will be paid to you in equal annual increments for the remainder of your life.* Go buy yourself an ice cream cone, it's Uncle Milty's treat.
Alex Tabarrok wonders about something like Robin Hanson's suggestion for improving science.#
Grant: "One thing I resent about motorcycles, especially Harleys, is that they make the heavens tremble as if before the approach of a God. But the "god" in question sometimes turns out to be a greasy, 50 year old, biker with a prison record, a meth problem and a history of wife abuse. Unless of course he is one of those boomer executives who have taken to riding Harleys, in which case you can scratch the meth problem."#
Larry E. Ribstein claims that Kerry is Republican operative.#
Political observers have long wondered how it is that Bush, a widely hated president whose judgment on Iraq and handling of the economy has been questioned by many, nevertheless manages to have dominated this campaign, and to have escaped a serious debate of the issues.
The answer begins last winter when Democrats chose a nominee. Kerry, a man with long-known presidential ambitions, an undistinguished senator with a long and confused voting record, particularly including a recent flip-flop on Iraq, was not an obvious choice. By a stroke of sheer luck, Kerry managed to secure the nomination.
Voluntary Exchange notes the New Growth Theory.#
The controller theory of economic growth is that it is driven by technological innovation. Wrong! Since the development of new growth theory by future Nobel Prize winner Paul Romer in the 1980's it has become clear to economists that economic growth did not start with the industrial revolution in the 18th century, but with the creation of market mechanisms and social institutions in the 17th century which created a fertile ground for the exploitation of technological advances. Those changes were all about making decentralized decision making viable, rather than enforcing viability through central control.
Governments and their agencies don't get this though. They think spaceflight must be created through central direction, rather than nurtured through the vagaries of decentralized decision making. But, some of the technologists are starting to get this idea right.
Russell Roberts reminds me of why I am "pro-Choice". Hahahaha.#