In an interesting new paper Federal Reserve economists Marianna Kudlyak, Murat Tasci and Didem Tüzemen look at what happens to job vacancy postings when the minimum wage increases. The vacancy data in our analysis come from the job openings data from the Conference Board as a part of its Help Wanted OnLine (HWOL) data series. […]
Ed Glaeser is the chairman of Harvard’s Department of Economics. He’s also widely credited with reviving the entire field of Urban Economics. His 2018 “The Economics of Housing Supply” (with Joe Gyourko) in the Journal of Economic Perspectives was a major inspiration for my Build, Baby, Build. So in the latest “Fast Takes” interview, I…
Here is one excerpt: What few appreciate is that the overregulation of housing has blocked a classic American path: moving to a higher-wage part of the country to secure a better life. A paper by the economists Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag shows that housing costs now routinely outweigh wage gains: While janitors and waiters do indeed […]
There has been a fair bit of discussion over the Ocker court decision re Uber and their dishonest ways. In many countries, including Oz and New Zealand, Uber came in and set up illegal operations. In New Zealand they put anyone who wanted a go on their books. At that time New Zealand had rather […]
One annoying thing about writing a Saturday column for the Stuff papers is never knowing whether a piece will show up in print.I’d thought this one was a banger. I’ll be talking about related issues tomorrow night as part of a panel for A City for People. 🟨🟪 Our speaker line up has dropped! 🟪🟨Join us on…
Last week, Housing Minister Chris Bishop gave perhaps the most important speech by the new Government since the election. In a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, he said he wanted the ratio of house prices to median household income to more than halve to between 3 and 5 over the next 10…
The Housing Theory of Everything has one of those wonderful self-explanatory titles. A good title matters. The recent and thorough essay explains how the anglosphere’s unnecessarily expensive housing affects, well, everything. Or at least almost everything.Zoning makes it too hard to build houses where people want to build. Urban containment policies block new subdivisions, so…
Deciding if a new drug is safe is a serious issue. Separate to this is whether the drug is better than existing drugs.
In 1962, an amended law gave the FDA authority to judge if a new drug produced the results for which it had been developed. Formerly, the FDA monitored only drug safety. It previously had only sixty days to decide this. Drug trials can now take up to 10 years.
Who cares if a safe drug works or not? If a new drug does not work or is no better than the existing drugs on the market, the investors in the development of the new drug bear the (unrecoverable) development costs. Capitalism is a profit AND loss system. Losses are a signal that you should try something else.
Sam Peltzman showed in a famous paper in 1973 that these 1962 amendments reduced the introduction of effective new drugs in the USA from an average of forty-three annually in the decade before the 1962 amendments to sixteen annually in the ten years afterwards. No increase in drug safety was identified.
Drugs became available years after they were on the market outside the USA. To quote David Friedman:
“In 1981… the FDA published a press release confessing to mass murder. That was not, of course, the way in which the release was worded; it was simply an announcement that the FDA had approved the use of timolol, a ß-blocker, to prevent recurrences of heart attacks.
At the time timolol was approved, ß-blockers had been widely used outside the U.S. for over ten years.
It was estimated that the use of timolol would save from seven thousand to ten thousand lives a year in the U.S. So the FDA, by forbidding the use of ß-blockers before 1981, was responsible for something close to a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths.”
AZT double-blind trials collapsed in the mid-1980s in the USA because participants sold the drug in the black market.
If memory serves right, Australian drug regulators planned to duplicate these double-blind trials in Australia before approving the drug. Last time I checked, the physiology of Australians was the same as any other human being. What did they plan to find that justified the delay in approving AZT?
The duplicate double-blind AZT trials in Australia were abandoned not because they were mad and evil, but because again the participants sold the drug in the black market. That was to be expected too so the duplicate double-blind AZT trials in Australia in the 1980s were a double evil.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments