Month: July 2009

Pharmaceutical Cosmopolitanism, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

As someone who works at FDA I can say the problem with this idea is that drug companies submit their applications for approval to the US, EU and Japan at the same time. Differences in approval times generally differ by only a few months at most; when they don't there is generally an important reason why not.

Another reader adds:

 Friedersdorf asks for objections to allowing drugs approved in trusted countries to be approved here. One reason should be drug companies will "forum shop" for the cheapest, easiest approval process on the list. This means if, say, Japan is more willing to approve OTC painkillers for some reason, then any concerns by American regulators about the safety or efficacy of a such drugs would be effectively ignored. Every class of drugs would be approved by the laxest board on the list, and any specific concerns about a class of drugs (e.g. does this new cox-2 inhibitor cause heart attacks?) would only be propagated to actual results in regulation when every country on the list was unanimous in its application of a certain standard.

Poor Putz

by Chris Bodenner

Friedersdorf compiles a series of slavish comments on Mark Levine's Facebook page in response to his remark, "Frank Rich is a putz." By far the best:

LOL I had a dog named ‘Putz’ and always think of him when I hear that term. It’s hard for me to think of it as an insult since I loved that dog so much. However, I take it as intended and agree that Frank Rich is a putz.

Creating Terrorists

by Chris Bodenner

Christina Larson points to the "tragic irony" of the recent Chinese crackdown on Uighurs:

[T]he Chinese insistence that Uighur dissent is rooted in ideology and religion, and that recent incidents of violence–such as the string of bus bombings and attacks on police that last year riled southwestern Xinjiang–are the work of Islamic extremists and agitators tied to foreign campaigns. In truth, the Uighurs' observance of Islam is largely apolitical, but by treating the Muslim faith itself as a threat and sharply curbing religious practice in Xinjiang, Chinese security forces may end up breeding the very kind of insurrection they are now trying to quell.

I had that same creeping feeling during the Republican uproar over releasing our Guantanamo Uighurs to a luxurious life in Bermuda. We had detained those poor innocent bastards for years without a shred of evidence against them, so the least we could do was give them a house with a swimming pool. But more to the point: it was in our own national interest to generously compensate them, lest they become so pissed off that they actually do resort to radicalism and revenge. What Newt and others mocked as appeasement was just sound preemptive policy – something neocons supposedly believed in.

Why Do We Care About Polls?

By Conor Clarke

A few days ago John Sides published a reasonably snarky blog post about a piece I wrote last week: The case against polling. The basic argument of my piece was that polls are annoying because (1) we should want our democratic institutions to operate according to pre-established mechanisms, not random quasi-referenda; (2) Lots of polls are wrong or misleading (duh); and (3) Present opinion polls can affect future opinion polls, due to information cascades. My feeling is that one's opinions should change after an exchange of reasons, not after he or she acquires the knowledge that one opinion is more popular than another.

Anyway, John gave me an exchange of reasons. Since he studies this stuff for a living, he's certainly got the moral authority to get snarky. And I think he makes some good points, some of which I find convincing and some of which I need to think about a bit more. But what I think is missing from John's post is the affirmative case for polls. (And I mean political polls — how many people support Obama's health care plan and so forth — not social science research polls.) Weakening the case against polling strikes me as a necessary but insufficient defense. What good reason do we have (besides morbid curiosity) to consume polls we see in the morning's paper? What value is there in letting the public know what the public already thinks?

Update: I notice that Ed Kilgore also weighs in, in a damning-with-high-flattery kind of way.

Energy Diets, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

The post on Energy Diets follows a very typical flaw in the argument used against reducing carbon emissions – that to do so is to reduce energy production.  Creating the emotionally wrenching dilemma of a choice between extinction and suicide is both cruel and incorrect.  What we can and must do is produce more "carbon free" energy.  Reducing emissions does not equate to reducing production.  As Amory Lovins always says, "we want hot showers and cold beer".  We don't need to consume less, and shouldn't expect developing countries to consume less either.  We just need to ensure (and set an example) that we reduce carbon emissions *while* producing as much energy as we need.

The Chain Gang

by Conor Friedersdorf

In a post about calorie labeling in restaurants — and a New York City law requiring chain restaurants to post caloric information — Matt Yglesias writes:

What seems really wrongheaded about the NYC law is to limit its effect to chain restaurants. If the data on this kind of very soft paternalism looks promising, then I’d want to see its scope expanded.

That sounds like an excellent way to create marginally more chain restaurants! There are more than 350 McDonald's in New York City. There are occasional minor menu changes, but the offerings are relatively static. The calorie labeling cost per restaurant is relatively low… compared to the cost for a single burger joint that has a rotating daily special, occasionally changes bun suppliers, and changes menu items frequently as it tries to experiment and gain a foothold in the neighborhood.

There are a lot of people — and I am one — who love one-off restaurants, specials written on chalk boards because they change everyday, fish dishes that depend on the catch, always changing menus, the use of local in season produce, etc. I do not want marginally less of these things! More broadly, the proliferation of regulations more easily born by large corporations than by small business owners is one reason why so many places in America are overrun with chains — as opposed to singular businesses that provide unique products to consumers and rewarding livelihoods for their proprietors. Of course, every little regulatory burden seems like a good idea on its own. But they all add up. Does Matt really want to make the rest of New York City look a little bit more like Times Square?

Why Should We Care About Inequality?

By Conor Clarke

I took Conor F's advice from yesterday and read Will Wilkinson's new Cato paper on inequality, which basically argues that the level, effects and origins of American inequality are not as bad as some people on the left (read: Paul Krugman) claim. The paper has a lot of great arguments, and I'm open to being convinced that the level and effects of American inequality are often overstated. (It does seem to me that there's nothing inherently unjust about any given level of inequality, although I do think there's some evidence, weak and tentative though it is, that inequality makes people less happy than they otherwise would be.) I also agree with Will that inequality of opportunity is the bigger cause for alarm.

But generally, Will's bar doesn't strike me as a high enough one to clear.

When I think about inequality, I think about John Rawls' difference principle: Inequalities are only justified when they lead to the greatest benefit for the least well-off members of society. (Simplifying about 800 pages of tedium: This is because we do not deserve the social positions we start with. No one meaningfully "deserves" to be born rich or poor, or intelligent or dense, or with a capacity for hard work or risk taking.) That's not a moral principle that Will has to accept, of course. But for someone like me to be convinced that the current level of inequality is justified, I want to be convinced of more than that the lives of the poorest members of our society are getting better. I want to convinced that they are the best possible lives.

For what it's worth, the difference principle can still justify plenty of inequality: I think capitalism is wonderful because it has tremendous benefits for the least well-off, even though it creates inequalities. But inequality is not acceptable by default. So my question for Will is this: Do you think the present level of inequality gives the least well-off members of our society their best possible lives?