Friday's interesting reads - 5/30/08

"Envisaging a World Without the FDA" Fight Aging (HT: Jon Henke):

"There is no open marketplace for medical technology in the developed world, however. Instead, we see a very different set of incentives dominating the state of research and development. Regulatory bodies like the FDA have every incentive to stop the release of new medicine: the government employees involved suffer far more from bad press for an approved medical technology than they do from the largely unexamined consequences of heavy regulation. These consequences go far beyond the obvious and announced disapproval of specific medical technologies: the far greater cost lies in all the research, innovation and development that was never undertaken because regulatory burdens ensure there would be no profit for the developer. Personal gain for the regulator is thus to destroy the gains of people they will never meet, the exact opposite of what occurs in an open marketplace."

He then quotes a BusinessWeek article that mentions how it's been 20 years since the last new drug for prostate cancer was introduced and adds:

"Twenty years! Just stop a moment and think about how far and fast biotechnology and medical science has moved in the past twenty years. Think about what the far less regulated computing industry has achieved in the same time frame. We live in the early years of the biotechnology revolution, with something amazing and new demonstrated in laboratories every week. Yet the dominant regulatory body for one of the most advanced regions of the world has managed to stop the clock at 1988 for a major disease, the subject of research in a hundred laboratories worldwide."

It goes back to what Russ Roberts and Richard Epstein discussed in this podcast: the FDA (and by extension politicians) are more afraid of Type I errors (taking a med you shouldn't) than of Type II errors (not taking a med should should). There should be more of a balance.

"Moving Toward Energy Rationing" by Charles Krauthammer for the Washington Post (via RealClearPolitics):

"For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself."

"Coburn: We ‘deserve’ to lose seats" by Walter Alarkon for The Hill:

"Coburn, a first-term senator who has crusaded against government waste, said that most Republicans in Congress are fiscal conservatives and correctly vote against spending measures put forth by Democrats. But he decried votes by "a Republican portion" to go along with the Democratic majority.

'I think they've lost their courage,' Coburn said. 'And I think the focus has been on short-term benefits, rather than long-term leaders of the country. And I think they have to start acting like Republicans. And they either have to believe it or not. And if they believe it, they'll vote that way. And if they don't, they really aren't Republicans.' "

I think he's absolutely right. It reminds me of this op-ed by Club for Growth's Pat Toomey where he discussed the opposition of some Republicans to his efforts, through the Club, to support fiscally-conservatives candidates against Republican incumbents. He reminds us that "[a] Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power."

On a similar note, while looking for the link to the Toomey op-ed, I found the following letter:

"The GOP Needs More Than Right-Wingers to Govern" by Rep. Deborah Pryce (R., Ohio):

"We represent people, Mr. Toomey; people with disparate geographic and economic backgrounds, and differing philosophies on the nature and role of their government. To serve them, we must attempt to reflect their views -- not antagonize them to keep in good standing with your scorecard. And if you were more adept in your self-proclaimed abilities to divine the representative needs of a constituency, you would be a sitting U.S. senator from Pennsylvania."

She was being critical of his op-ed and his stance against RINO's. I sent the following letter in response:

"The letter written by Rep. Deborah Pryce (R., Ohio) (“The GOP Needs More Than Right Wingers to Govern”, May 28) in response to Pat Toomey’s May 8th op-ed (“In Defense of RINO Hunting”) illustrates what is wrong with politics. Ms. Pryce concludes her letter by taking a shot at Mr. Toomey: “And if you were more adept in your self-proclaimed abilities to divine the representative needs of a constituency, you would be a sitting U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.” What she is advocating, incidentally, is for Republican candidates to adopt a flexible platform, tailored to his or her constituency, that focuses on getting elected rather than implementing sound public policy. Isn’t this why Mitt Romney has been lampooned recently as a panderer? While in liberal Massachusetts he supported moderate policies, but when his constituency expanded nationwide, as he sought the Republican nomination for president, he was forced to move his policy position to the right. While I understand his motivations for doing so (he simply played the game the way he thought best), we can see where it got him.

But unfortunately, this is our political system. The incentive for politicians is not, though we would like to believe the contrary, to pass good legislation. Rather, the incentive is to get re-elected. To do this, politicians wisely stop short of trying to be all things to all people, because that, given our diversity as a country, is impossible, and settle for just being most things to most people, as Ms. Pryce appears to promote. This frequently leads them to pass populist legislation, like the recent Farm Bill, even when it goes against their personal ideology. (To her credit, though, Ms. Pryce did vote against the Farm Bill.) Mr. Toomey, on the other hand, knows that, ultimately, it is votes on the floors of congress that matter, not in-name-only party affiliations. I wish we had more like Mr. Toomey – willing to sacrifice election victories to put policies ahead of party.

Matt Hutchison
Atlanta"

Another Pat Toomey item:

"Pat Toomey on Fox Business Channel" Club for Growth:

It's a video where he's interviewed by Neil Cavuto. Worth a watch.

"In Defense of Lobbyists" WSJ op-ed by Tom Korologos:

"Interesting, isn't it, that the Founding Fathers in that very First Amendment – and in the same print size and in the very same sentence as freedom of religion and speech and peaceful assembly – included specific language permitting all people to address the government to express their complaints or to advocate?

So why do the pundits, political operatives and segments of the media look with suspicion on advocacy? Isn't everyone entitled to have his or her voice heard? Why should lobbying by Boeing or the American Petroleum Institute be bad and lobbying by the Friends of the Earth or the National Education Association pristine? Or lobbying by the National Association of Manufacturers or Chamber of Commerce unsavory, but lobbying by the Laborers International Union and AFL-CIO virtuous?...

Isn't it wise, or at least fair, that Congress and policy makers hear all sides of every issue? Congress and executive-branch agencies actually depend on lobbyists to present complete and detailed information. There's nowhere else they can get the total range of data they require to set intelligent policy or draft prudent legislation."

I sent the following letter in response:

"Tom Korologos's defense of lobbyists ("In Defense of Lobbyists", May 30) was spot on, though he only barely, and maybe inadvertently, alluded to the real problem when he suggested that we compile a list of "members of Congress who have abused their authority". Making a scapegoat of lobbyists when Congress appeases special interests is not unlike the husband who, upon learning of his spouse's infidelity, only directs his anger at his wife's lover instead of his wife. Finding someone else to blame (they did elect the politicians, after all) is little more than a pain-avoidance mechanism that keeps voters from having to admit their elected officials might not be as virtuous as they'd like to believe.

The only reason lobbyists appear as influential as they do is because of the power of the bodies they beseech. In other words, the power of lobbyists is directly proportional to the ability of the Senate and House of Representatives to give favors to the clients of lobbying firms. Reign in government and you reign in lobbyists. Any attempt to weaken lobbyists without reforming government will do nothing more than violate the constitution and ensure our politicians become less informed than they already are. That's the equivalent of the husband simply bloodying the nose of the other half of his wife's affair, confident that doing so will solve all of his problems.

Matt Hutchison
Atlanta"

Speaking of letters, the one I sent yesterday to the WSJ got published here. I haven't been this proud of myself since I found out I got accepted into Chicago.

"Futures Markets" by Walter Williams (via Townhall):

"Supposing my guess is correct about future supply and demand conditions and corn will be scarcer in the future, what is the socially wise thing to do now so that more will be available in the future? The answer is to use less corn now. How do you get people to voluntarily use less corn now? If you said, "Let the price rise," go to the head of the class. That is exactly what happens as other speculators and I buy corn now. Today's price of corn will be bided up. The result is people will use less corn now and more corn will be available in May 2009 than would be the case if the current price of corn remained at $6. The valuable function of futures markets is that of allocating goods over time. It is wise to take the future into account in decisions that one makes today."

There were three very interesting posts on Megan McArdle's blog talking about the arrogance, purposeful or not, of child or pet adoption agencies. They are:

"Color-blind Adoption"

"Self-important Adoption Officials"

"Everyone Needs a Hippocratic Oath"

A quote from the last one sums it up nicely:

"Now, I have no doubt that virtually all TSA officials sincerely believe that relieving me of my bottle of water is crucial to preventing the next September 11 attack. Part of this is that they aren't very smart. Part of it is that they're trained to follow instructions without engaging in a lot of critical thought. But in any event, I have no doubt that they're sincere.

That doesn't change the fact that most of what happens in an airport screening line is a waste of everyone's time. An enormous amount of time is being wasted for little to no increase in security. Bruce Schneier coined the apt phrase "security theater" to describe the process: the goal isn't to make people safer; the goal is to make people feel safer.

I think much the same thing is happening in the adoption process and at the local animal shelter. It's not that adoption case-workers or pet shelter volunteers are consciously wasting peoples' time to make themselves feel more powerful. I'm sure they sincerely believe that their efforts are helping kids and cats, respectively. But I think they're wrong."

It reminds of our friends who are trying to adopt and have been unsuccessful so far. He told me that he thinks the biggest knock against them as candidates for adoption was that when he was asked what he was passionate about (or something to that effect) he told them "roses." He loves plants, studied horticulture in school, and told me he reads books about roses like others read novels. He doesn't think they were impressed with his ambition. He also told me about all the child-proof requirements they will need to adopt that we don't have. It's another example of the government trying so hard to prevent the wrong adoption (Type I error) that they don't realize the danger caused by the exclusion of the right adoption (Type II error).