The biggest advantage I see is the increased number of drugs coming to market, the cost of which would be radically decreased consumer confidence in drugs because the drugs would be slightly riskier (more people die or are adversely affected). Personally, I think that would be a net benefit (with some caveats, next ¶). We’re fighting illness, after all, not knots in kitten hair. The alternative for much of these applications is death. I think we err too much on the side of caution with the FDA, which means companies waste time treating easier things and less time treating hard things when we really want it the other way.
Nevertheless, I wish you were more evenhanded in your assessment of costs, rather than examining just the benefits. Ditching the FDA would 100% definitely without question mean more deaths from drugs. If tort law were not tweaked as well, this could be a massive problem and would result in a net decrease in benefits IMO. It’s not as simple as carfax.com.
You’re thinking of a Giffen good, which is a product where demand increases when price increases. A product that has a market only because it’s priced cheaply is an “inferior good”.
I am extraordinarily skeptical of the value of economics and it is largely because people like Friedman should have predicted and avoided the problems of the 1980s, Enron, constant gas gouging and our current deep recession and probable recession. (And yes, I know he died a year or two ago and wasn’t working before that. I did hear a very light lecture he gave a two or three years ago, he seemed like a very nice man). Krugman has some value to me because he points out why in detail why the people chanting “free markets” all the time are vastly oversimplifying a complex system. OPEC and oil prices are another example of their group think. According to classic economic theory oil should be dirt cheap because of increased production after 35 years of intense cartel activity. The price is still volatile. There are excuses for why this hasn’t worked out, such as inelastic demand, etc. that I find to be circular. Given fancy names, such as inelastic demand, this is elevated to a religion. Are some economic insights useful? Yes, in a very limited sense. The fact of the matter is that economics is a supremely complex system that depends of every other factor available: weather (which can only be predicted 5 days in advance), human psychology (which is weakly understood at best and not at all in groups), sun flares, etc. The factors that we do understand: making highly risky lending illegal, short selling in a panicked market prohibited, golden parachutes and enormous top executive pay we are told we cannot regulate because it interferes with “free markets” strikes me also as stupidly religious without adequate backing. Recently short sales were suspended and that halted an incredibly fast slide. They have been unsuspended and we are in a long term depression like slide. It strikes me that the study of mob mentality would be more productive than the worship of free market religion.
Now at the risk of being accused of being a commie or something, free marketism is the prevailing way of thinking and might be better than substituting something less well understood. But I do think that we should be prepared and very accepting of using exceptions to free marketism when we have good reason to believe it will work. I’m not prepared to put a high presumption on the good of the free market when there is need and reasonable evidence that something will offer an improvement. Government intervention is merely another actor in the system and should not be treated as it is an inherent evil. Government is better than anarchy, which is substantially worse than government.
Economics as a tool isn’t worthless, but its limits are much greater than its practitioners will admit.
That’s because regulations are all about preventing worst case situations. A command economy would have the government ordering a drug company to work on drug X. That would be bad. A regulatory economy says that if a drug company has developed drug X, the drug must do what it claims and not have inordinate side effects that are more harmful than its benefits.
I don’t know that much about auto regulations, but I do know that you can’t drive a car without headlights or brakes. So there are regulations to the extent that they are necessary to preserve the health and safety of the drivers and others. There are different drugs for the same ailment, just as there are different cars. Driving a Yugo won’t kill you, so it is legal.
Even for drugs, doctors are not enough. Ever browse through the PDR? You think that every doctor knows what is in there. And the information in there is reasonably accurate thanks to regulations. If you look at computer review sites, you’ll find that about any model has good reviews and bad. If you have a heart problem, you want to depend on that level of filtering?
If they did, they could sue for false advertising - there’s that nasty regulation again. And they could return it with no great harm. Not quite so easy if my blood thinner is a phony and I die of a stroke, is it?
So, you’re okay with a company publishing that there is a 10% chance of dying if you take their drug, but advertising it heavily? And those who die from not being clever enough to find the data, what of them? Is the drug company not liable since they followed the law? Or is everything fine since the drugmaker will get sued - and no doubt go bankrupt before paying the settlements.
If you want cheap drugs, there is a nice alternative medicine section in your supermarket, filled with all sorts of “drugs” that claim to cure your ills. They won’t do shit, but who cares - they aren’t expensive like real drugs.
That’s a totally different problem - one lying in the details of the pluses and minuses of regulation. I think there is a good case for approving drugs early when the alternative is death, but I can agree with that while not disputing the benefit of regulation in general.
Every drug has side effects. How to balance the negatives from the side effects with the positive of the cure is done on a case by case basis.
Regulation deals with the basic irrationality (or imperfection) of participants in the market. It’s not just the amount of information out there, it is the ability of people to interpret the information. Instead of turning in your clinical studies to the FDA, you can publish all 10,000 pages of them on the web. How many people will be able to make informed decisions with that information? Of those few, how many people are going to have the time to sort through the information and extract what they need to know in time to treat their illness. Sure, websites will pop up with analyses of this, but how do you know the site you’re visiting isn’t secretly sponsored by the drug company?
The benefit of the FDA is to be a trusted and unbiased filter of this information, so that when you see a drug on the shelves, you can buy it with confidence, and not have to spend a month figuring out the probability it will work and not kill you. Sure the FDA isn’t perfect, but given the complexity of the problem, it is pretty good.
Perhaps. But then this really does get into a sticky place where the FDA decides what’s important enough to warrant special treatment, and lobbying efforts distort your otherwise quite reasonable notion. Which is not to say that there aren’t distortions available if we banished the FDA. My comment was not so much that I agree the FDA should be banished as it was to say, “There’s costs to both plans, not just benefits.” It’s impossible to discuss which way is better without both sides of the picture.
But this is definitely not an area where I want a government bureaucracy in place. The problem is I don’t know that I want a corporate bureaucracy in place here, either.
Anyway, I think getting rid of the FDA could result in a net benefit, if other issues were dealt with; or would be a net cost, if they weren’t. That’s all. A very wishy-washy position.
So you want the average person to do it? We’ve already found that the average person can’t figure out that he or she can’t afford certain mortgages - and you want them to decide on the safety and efficacy of a drug? That takes a lot more than junior high algebra! Not to be an elitist, but I don’t think a country where over half the people don’t accept evolution is one where I want them to interpret clinical studies. I mean, it would probably raise the average IQ, but come on …
Hmm. I’m not really drawing that conclusion. I think people responded to easy money by taking easy money. But if you’re asking me whether Pharmaceutical Consumer Reports or DrugFax.com could work out, the answer is “I don’t know, but I think it could, if other problems were addressed.” I don’t think medicine is a magic product that spontaneously produces market failures, basically, no.
I have no idea how to build an engine or start a semiconductor fabrication plant. So what? I still buy cards and design circuit boards.
So when you say “totally free market” you mean “totally unregulated market”? So why not use the accepted terminology rather than a rather confusing one? What is the point if not creating confusion?
One question for the advocates of an unregulated free market: who regulates it? Obviously the most economically advantageous marketing startegy for me to follow is to sell cheap and shoddy merchandise and put a fraudulent “FDA approved” label on them. Aren’t you going to need some agency with the enforcement power to prevent this type of fraud?
I’m not worried about market failures. I’m worried about kidney failures. Sure, some people bought houses on false assurances that they could refinance before the rates reset. You think some people won’t dump expensive treatments for cheap ones they’re assured are just as good. Who do you think buys the fake boner pills advertised on late night TV? Certainly no one who did any research. Those are fine, since they won’t hurt anyone and just separate chumps from their change. I’d be a bit more disturbed about kids losing their father because he was convinced the $10 pill could cure his cancer.
Knowing evolution is more like knowing that you to supply power to your board. I’ve been involved in chip design, and I don’t know how to design a fab. I bet you know how to read a data sheet and a timing diagram, though. You also probably know not to buy processors from Xu’s processor depot in China, especially if “Intel” is written in in magic marker.
You can have a totally unregulated market which isn’t free - for instance if there are lots of tariffs. The terms are not equivalent, and we had been talking about free markets. Now a totally free market I think has to have total regulation, but that is necessary and not sufficient.
;)Have any of you been using a new science called Behavioral Response Forecasting to predict the behaviour of the Dow Jones? There is a company called Mightyz, you can find them on the web, which predicts human behaviour 7 days in advance. It seems that this behaviour is also reflected in the markets.
So far it seems to be farily consistent with the Dow Jones closing higher/lower. It basis it’s forecasting on scientific studies that show human emotions are governed by earth’s geomagnetic field. This makes sense in that pigeons and other animals use this same field for navigation, why couldn’t this same force be used in influencing human emotion?
My thought is that there are a lot of people who either:
a) want to believe that the world has secret mysterious forces the understanding of which will unlock all sorts of complex problems with simple solutions
or
b) would like to make a lot of money by convincing other people that the world has secret mysterious forces the understanding of which will unlock all sorts of complex problems with simple solutions and that they have, indeed, unlocked those secrets.
and
c) oddly enough passed up the opportunity to become immensely rich from their system instead of selling it to the masses. How generous these guys must be!
(I wouldn’t have responded to this zombie if you hadn’t!)
