How many people has the FDA killed today?

Beta blockers regulate hypertension and heart problems. The FDA held up approval of beta blockers for eight years because it believed they caused cancer. Dr. Louis Lasagna of the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development estimated that 119,000 people died who might have been helped by that medication.

Clozaril was first approved and used in 1970 in Europe to treat schizophrenics who did not respond to other medicines. The drug was not approved in the United States until 1990 because companies believed the FDA would reject it on the grounds that 1 per cent of all patients who take the drug contract a blood disease. Clozaril has a beneficial effect on 30 to 50 per cent of patients. FDA delay meant nearly 250,000 people with schizophrenia suffered needlessly.

cat

Mevacor is a cholesterol-lowering drug that became available in Europe in 1989 but did not in the United States until 1992. Taking the drug reduced death due to heart disease by about 55 per cent. During that three-year period as many as a thousand people a year died from heart disease because of this FDA delay.

From 1938 until 1962, the FDA had sixty days to disapprove the application of a new drug. If it did not, the drug could be marketed. The system worked without significant incident.

The dead are many but who did the FDA save from unsafe drugs. There is an infallible test. That test is based on the FDA not being infallible.

The FDA must have made some errors and let some unsafe drugs slip through which caused the hundreds of thousands of deaths needed to make up for the deaths  – the premature deaths –  that were the result of drug delays. What were those drugs that slipped through the net?

via Unpleasant Economists : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education.

Instalments in the meaning of life

Believe me, if a person speaks about his troubles all day long, it gives him a certain pleasure - because true grief is wordless - Samuel Johnson Quotes - StatusMind.com

Image

Political philosophers have weird debates

The debate with Robert Nozick over self-ownership got to the level of do we own our own eyes or are they open for harvest and redistribution to be blind. Two working eyes is a matter of genetic luck

G.A. Cohen in Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality says your right to your own body outweighs commonly used socialist principles that mandate redistribution. You are entitled to keep your eyes even if the fact that you have two working eyes is a matter of genetic luck and even if a blind person needs an eye more than you do.  Good eyes are the winnings of the genetic lottery and yet

They do not immediately agree that, were eye transplants easy to achieve, it would then be acceptable for the state to conscribe potential eye donors into a lottery whose losers must yield an eye to beneficiaries who would other- wise be not one-eyed but blind.

Cohen then concluded that our real objection to an eye lottery in the actual world is not that it violates self-ownership but that people have a right to bodily integrity.

p.s. English moral philosopher, John Harris, does support a compulsory organ lottery

HT: David Gordon

The Great Enrichment foretold

Thomas Babington Macaulay’s books on British history are hailed as literary masterpieces.

His writing are famous for their emphasis on a progressive model of British history, according to which the country threw off superstition, autocracy and confusion to create a balanced constitution and a forward-looking culture combined with freedom of belief and expression.

This model of human progress has been called the Whig interpretation of history where civilisation marches onwards and upwards towards the light. I do know how he explained the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages.

Friedman on middle-class welfare

Video

Good old fashioned altruism versus a grubby market for kidneys

alt

via Carpe Diem

Image

One utopian?

alt

Image

People say things they later regret and their friends regret they said it at all

There are plenty, now on the left and the right, who in the past, and sometimes too recent past, dabbled in ideologies that did not include an unwavering commitment to democratic government, the rule of law, and peaceful change through the ballot box.

Ex-communists: they are allowed back into polite society and into left-wing political parties often without have to admit and openly repent for being the fools that they were. Some of these ex-communists took a long time and were well past their immature youth to see the foolishness of their ways.

The forgiveness for ex-communists is odd as Hayek in the Road to Serfdom challenged the general view among British academics that fascism was a capitalist reaction against socialism, instead arguing that fascism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and the power of the state over the individual.

The inter-war communists hated the Fascists because both competed for the working class vote and because ex-comrades such as Mussolini had worked out that co-opting nationalism with anti-big business rhetoric was a sure path into the hearts of the working class, lower-middle class, and small business and greatly increased the chances to seize power quickly and legally with wide support in times of discontent.

The economist Joan Robinson gazed on China and North Korea with “starry eyes”, as Geoffrey Harcourt put it, as well as making some utterly devastating criticisms of Marxian economics at earlier points in her long career. Robinson became more left wing as she aged, and in Economic Management in China (1975), she praised the Cultural Revolution! Her colleagues were quite embarrassed.

Noam Chomsky spoke when he should have listened on Cambodia under Pol Pot.

Orwell’s Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’ is a wonderful dissection of renegade liberal that glorified communist experiments. For Orwell, these intellectuals loved the Stalin’s Soviet Union despite the purges, mocked bourgeois liberty despite their own pleasing bourgeois circumstances, and identified with communists would who have shipped them off to camps straight after the revolution. The renegade liberals excused the Moscow purges because communists were just ‘liberals in a hurry’!

Richard Epstein lecture on Piketty 19 June 2014

http://vimeo.com/98657610

Video

We can all join together in one Utopia!

Image

H.L Mencken on meddlesome preferences

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.  - H. L. Mencken

Image

Hero worship in left-wing politics

It is the Left who hero worships its leaders and even have photos of them on the walls inside their houses. Right-wing party leaders are mostly forgotten 5 minutes after they left office.

Do you recall the wide smiles on the faces of Bob Brown and Adam Bandt when the parliament was addressed by the Drone Commander-in-Chief Obama.

Bob Brown and Barack Obama - President Obama Visits Australia - Day 2

Did Bob Brown interrupt Obama’s speech to ask about the war in Afghanistan and drone strikes? He interrupted Bush when he addressed parliament.

The Left is inherently prone to hero worship because the Left wants to reshape the world and the leaders of that movement have heroic missions. As Mises explained:

The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart’s Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life’s game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude.

The 10 Commandments of Logic

HT: theness.com/neurologicablog

James Buchanan and a non-discriminatory democracy?

James Buchanan was a classical liberal who admired the Swedish welfare state because it was based on the principle of generality.
 
Under Buchanan’s generality norm, governments impose uniform regulation and use flat rate taxes on uniform tax bases to fund an equal-per-head demogrant (or a guaranteed minimum income) to replace all existing government cash transfers. Such a government would account for a large share of GDP. That did not bother him:

It seems to me that far too much of our politics is favourable treatment or unfavourable treatment for particularised groups. If we could somehow introduce into politics the requirement that would be analogous to the rule of law, that is, don’t treat one group differently from another group.

That has a lot of implications. That would not necessarily mean we’d have much smaller politics or government. It would mean there’d be a quite different characteristic of government…

The normative thrust of my current work is to try to push the generalization principle to the maximum extent possible, that is, so you don’t have particularised exemptions. One person gets it, everybody gets it. It cuts in favour of something like a flat tax. It cuts against means testing.

Buchanan has said that all successful welfare states (such as Sweden) apply a generality norm in some form or another.

For Buchanan, the very logic of majority rule implies unequal treatment or discrimination. If left unconstrained, majority coalitions will promote the interests of their own members at the expense of others.

Buchanan proposed a non-discriminatory democracy through the principle of generality:

  1. If extended to any single industry, tariff or quota protection also be extended and on equal terms to all industries.
  2. Tax structures would necessarily become simple, since the same tax rate would have to apply across-the-board on all sources or uses of tax base. Flat rate or proportional taxes on all incomes would broadly meet the generality norm.
  3. On the transfer side of the budget account, payments would have to be made in demogrants, equally available to all persons.

This is equivalent to Rawls’ veil of ignorance: choices must be without knowing where you lie in society so you make choices that are to the benefit of all.

Buchanan argued that if politics generates undesirable results, it is better to examine the rules than to argue about different policies or to elect different representatives. He build on Hayek who called a constitutional amendment that should read:

Congress shall make no law authorizing government to take any discriminatory measures of coercion.

Hayek went on say that, with such an amendment, all of the other rights would be unnecessary. In a non-discriminatory democracy, government choices are limited to those that benefit all.

If I Gave a High School Graduation Speech | Arnold Kling

Arnold Kling

I am going to talk about community service…and why I am against it…

If you judge people by how their life’s work contributed to better lives for people and less poverty in the world, then I will gladly stack up the Henry Fords and Thomas Edison’s against the Mother Theresa’s. Collectively, the capitalists and entrepreneurs have a much better claim on our gratitude than do the icons of community service.

What would you rather have in your community? Would you rather have the Wal-mart that hires the workers that other businesses cannot use and for whom politicians can offer no assistance–people with little education or training, including people with disabilities? Or would you rather have the “activists” who fight to keep out Wal-Mart or who insist that they should dictate Wal-Mart’s labour policies?

via If I Gave a High School Graduation Speech | askblog.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Bassett, Brash & Hide

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Truth on the Market

Scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

The Undercover Historian

Beatrice Cherrier's blog

Matua Kahurangi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Temple of Sociology

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Why Evolution Is True

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.

Down to Earth Kiwi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

NoTricksZone

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Homepaddock

A rural perspective with a blue tint by Ele Ludemann

Kiwiblog

DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

The Dangerous Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

The Logical Place

Tim Harding's writings on rationality, informal logic and skepticism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

Liberty Scott

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Point of Order

Politics and the economy

James Bowden's Blog

A blog (primarily) on Canadian and Commonwealth political history and institutions

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Peter Winsley

Economics, and such stuff as dreams are made on

A Venerable Puzzle

"The British constitution has always been puzzling, and always will be." --Queen Elizabeth II

The Antiplanner

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Bet On It

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

History of Sorts

WORLD WAR II, MUSIC, HISTORY, HOLOCAUST

Roger Pielke Jr.

Undisciplined scholar, recovering academic

Offsetting Behaviour

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Conversable Economist

In Hume’s spirit, I will attempt to serve as an ambassador from my world of economics, and help in “finding topics of conversation fit for the entertainment of rational creatures.”

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

The History of Parliament

Articles and research from the History of Parliament Trust

Books & Boots

Reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

European Royal History

Exploring the Monarchs of Europe

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Marginal REVOLUTION

Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“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.

STOP THESE THINGS

The truth about the great wind power fraud - we're not here to debate the wind industry, we're here to destroy it.

Lindsay Mitchell

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Alt-M

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

croaking cassandra

Economics, public policy, monetary policy, financial regulation, with a New Zealand perspective

The Grumpy Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

International Liberty

Restraining Government in America and Around the World