1. Against ridicule.
2. Should you be allowed to know what's in your DNA?
4. Poop transplants.
5. Hail Bryan Caplan! (if only he meant it and in the meantime I beg that he be a Straussian).
6. Good post on sectoral shifts and required skill upgrades.
Churchill’s famous one-line ridicules of Lady Astor are humurous, but not substantive. And so it likely is as a device for counter-arguing – even if the underlying point it makes is poignant. For once the ridicule is heard by the listener, she/he is no longer attentive to the argument’s content on its own merits – but rather now concentrating on the emotional attack and whether it’s really justified. BTW, the French movie Ridicule is one of the best flicks I’ve seen. Cheers.
Any recommendations for Straussian books that aren’t filled with dense, philosophical prose?
The article on genetic testing is hilariously bad. After boilerplate ranting against the fact that the government dares to inspect any product before releasing it into the market, they eventually grudgingly admit that it is the government’s job to prevent fraud — which is exactly what the inspections and tests are for in the first place!
Furthermore, the experiences of market societies clearly show that while the scrutiny of consumers may be “merciless”, it is also inept. Defective products frequently sell very well for quite a while and their defects are often not discovered until a lot of damage has been done. This applies both to the tests themselves, and to the interpretation services which the linked article postulates. (Seriously, have they ever even heard the word “quack” used to refer to something other than waterfowl sounds? Do they think the scrutiny of the market is actually effective at weeding out bad medicine? Strictly speaking, not all quacks are frauds; some are merely deluded. But both kinds waste resources and endanger patient health.)
Finally, genetic insurance would only work as social insurance, not as market insurance. In this case risk isn’t a behavior and moral hazard is impossible, but selective underwriting still *is* possible and would prevent genetic insurance from being bought effectively by people likely to need it (based on their family history, for example).
As in the case of health insurance, the conclusion that some people are too expensive to keep alive is socially unacceptable, even if it is rationally true. But as long as it is rationally true, the market will latch on to it if allowed to do so. So the market answer is useless.
“I wonder how abortion rights activists feel about government control over genetic testing, and more generally, the government control of prescription drug. “Our bodies, ourselves,” … right?”
I might be mistaken but I believe abortions are regulated as well. In order to perform an abortion you must be certified. The FDA isn’t attempting to control genetic testing, only making sure that the tests are properly performed. Just like a doctor who performs abortions must be certified, a genetic testing lab must be certified. The common stance pro-choice stance on abortion is not at odds with this new regulation.
Anon, a most valid conclusion … and funny you should mention Cry Wolf, since I just saw a movie by that very title an hour ago – with Errol Flynn and Barbara Stanwyck, rated 2.5 stars. I thought it much better (more star-worthy) until the last ten minutes, but it was a rushed ending that fell flat – ridiculing the build-up it could’ve been (was headed for a 4 star I thought, but its writers lost the umph).
“Any recommendations for Straussian books that aren’t filled with dense, philosophical prose?”
Try this.
http://www.archive.org/details/ClosingOfTheAmericanMind
No, the FDA doesn’t have to regulate everything just because we don’t want errors.
No, regulation by the FDA does not eliminate all errors.
Anyway, if an Ipod doesn’t work, it doesn’t work.
Why does the government seem to specialize in these unfalsifiable endeavors?
Thank God I’m back at Marginal Revolution. I was sucked into a world of idiot readers when I read #2. The comments lacked relevance to the issue under discussion and never actually addressed the real questions.
I would offer that there are plenty of companies, such as Johnson & Johnson, that have issued “medical devices” that they had to pay fees for and wouldn’t want these genetic testers to have the benefit of avoiding this process. Maybe they got ratted out?
Comments on this entry are closed.