Category: Economics
I am told James Mill is buried there also
Translated from the Chinese
I think this is the Cursor moment for academia.
The Stanford REAP team has made their move, CoPaper.AI is mass-terminating the manual labor of traditional empirical papers. Link: copaper.ai/landing
If using large models to write papers before was just about polishing and compiling references for you, then this Project from Professor Ross Griebenow’s team at Stanford is like dropping a nuclear bomb in the empirical circles of social sciences and economics.
The greatest truth is the simplest; the heaviest sword has no edge. Its functions are straightforward. Feed in the raw dataset, and within 30 minutes, it can generate a complete DOCX paper complete with full Stata/R code and publication-quality charts.
It chains together EDA, variable definition, econometric model building (from OLS to advanced DID, regression discontinuity, causal forests) all using an Agent workflow.
Every chart it produces comes with 100% reproducible Stata, R, EViews source code underneath. How many low-quality paper mills and data drones’ jobs will this smash?
Data drones and paper ghostwriters are collectively facing unemployment countdown. Because from now on, for social science papers, AI handles all the entropy-increasing drudgery—humans only need to define the problem.
Here is the link. Mostly that is not true, so perhaps the Chinese are trying to demoralize us. But will it never ever be true? In two years be true? Less?
Two Roads to Fast Clinical Trials, and the US Takes Neither
The HHS (FDA, NIH, ARPA-H and related agencies) is moving to speed clinical trials in what they are calling Operation TrialBlazer (kudos on the pun). The motivator, of course, is China:
China has made biotechnology a strategic national priority, systematically expanding its clinical research infrastructure with government backing, streamlined regulatory pathways, and sustained investment. In 2021, China’s global share of Phase 1 trials surpassed the United States’ share for the first time, a milestone that would have seemed unlikely just a decade earlier. And in 2024, China surpassed the United States in the total number of clinical trials registered, with over 7,100 registered, representing 39% of global trials…. For certain cutting edge modalities, including cell and gene therapy, radioligand therapy, and stem cell therapy, China uses investigator-initiated trials to provide additional flexibility, though with some tradeoffs around oversight and quality control. This means that drugs can move into human testing if a researcher has an interest and funding. In the U.S., comparable trials might wait years to start.
I am also pleased to see that they mention Australia, another advanced democracy, as a leader in clinical trial regulation:
Australia’s Clinical Trial Notification System allows trials to begin in fewer than 70 days after a final protocol is submitted, with regulatory approval granted in as little as 21 to 28 days and sites activated within 6 to 12 weeks.
Keep those comparisons in mind. Operation TrialBlazer proposes some good reforms such as CMC clarification. CMC is Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls–and it deals with the basics of manufacturing a drug. The FDA, however, is very risk averse and companies know that so they have often gone overboard in CMC: for example, proving stability of a formula at 6+ months when the trial is to last only a few weeks or documenting their full commercial manufacturing process before they even know if the drug works and knowing full-well that the process will be changed many times before a drug actually gets to market. In short, a lot of cost for very little benefit. The FDA is now clarifying that this kind of thing is not necessary. Good, that is low-hanging fruit. There are other good ideas as well.
But note what they are not proposing. Despite using China and Australia as exemplars they are not going down either path. Where China is fastest is in cell therapy, gene therapy, radioligand, and stem cell work and in these areas, China lets trials proceed on an investigator-initiated basis: as the TrialBlazer document puts it, a drug can move into humans “if a researcher has an interest and funding.” China then combines this open (or lax) front end (for these products) with an all-of-government industrial policy to accelerate winners.
The US is declining to go down that path. Ok, not my call, but I get it. But they are also declining to follow Australia. In Australia there is also no government prospective regulatory evaluation of most early-phase clinical trials. Under the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme, the sponsor submits their protocol package to a Human Research Ethics Committee (HRECs)–Australia’s IRBs–and once the ethics committee approves, the sponsor notifies the regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and pays a fee. The TGA does not read and clear the package before the trial starts. The roughly 21-to-28-day “approval” and sub-70-day start figures in the document are fast precisely because the regulatory step is not an evaluation. The government regulator stays out of the front end for most clinical trials, although in direct contrast with China it does step in for the highest risk biologicals. China has decided, high-risk, high-reward.
Australia does certify the certifiers, the HRECs. Europe uses a similar system for medical device approval. It’s a system proposed by former medical officer at the FDA Henry Miller and one I have long supported for the US. China is more laissez-faire.
The US architecture in contrast rests on the “gold standard” FDA reviews and the “FDA will retain full regulatory authority and decision-making.” In short, all of the TrialBlazer reforms are about making the gatekeeper faster, cheaper to prepare for, and less uncertain. None of it is about getting rid of the gatekeeper.
Addendum: Full disclosure, I did some consulting with ARPA-H on related work. See also my previous post on the a radical deregulatory approach, Montana’s SB535 and a Potential Biotech Renaissance in America
Elderly Health and Longevity in the US
Rising elderly life expectancy is a well-known source of fiscal pressure on Social Security and Medicare – but how have declining mortality and morbidity affected the two programs’ relative finances? Using nearly three decades of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data (1992-2019), we estimate that these demographic changes raised expected lifetime Social Security spending by over twice as much as expected lifetime Medicare spending: 14% compared to 6%. The slower growth of elderly lifetime health care spending than annuity spending reflects two features of how longevity has increased: the additional 2.4 years of remaining life expectancy were entirely healthy – free of physical or cognitive limitations – while the expected amount of time spent with severe health limitations fell by about 30%, reducing expected lifetime nursing-home and home-health use. We then write down a stylized life-cycle model of a risk-averse retiree facing stochastic mortality and health to illuminate the key forces that affect the optimal allocation of a fixed amount of public funds across Medicare and Social Security.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein. In general I wish to switch resources from Medicare to Social Security, or at least give individuals the option to do so. You can use dollars to buy health care, but it is not always so easy to make the transformation in the opposite direction.
Alan Greenspan, RIP at 100
Here is a NYT obituary. Here is a WSJ obituary.
California’s Gay Certification Program
Chris Rufo and Austen Hufford have a good piece on California’s Gay Certification program. Yes, you read that right.
In 1986, Governor George Deukmejian signed Assembly Bill 3678, which required certain CPUC-regulated utilities to submit annual “plans” for buying goods and services from woman- and minority-owned companies. Two years later, CPUC created its “Supplier Diversity Program,” which would enforce the law and set contracting “goals” for large utilities.
Under a series of Democratic governors, the program has expanded to include gay-owned businesses. In September 2014, then-Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring CPUC to recognize “LGBT-owned businesses” as eligible for supplier-diversity benefits. Five years later, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded the program further, “encouraging” other companies involved in the energy sector to award contracts to gay-owned firms.
…This scheme raises an obvious question: How does a business qualify as officially gay? Paperwork. Supplier Clearinghouse, a group that certifies firms for the CPUC program, features a list of qualifications linked on its website. Applicants can secure certification by providing a letter from an “LGBT organization” attesting to their sexual preferences; proof that a newspaper identified them as “LGBT”; or three letters from “personal contacts” written “on company letterhead” attesting to their homosexual orientation. Corporate officials who “falsely represent” their business as gay face up to a year in county jail.
So there you have it. Under the logic of ever increasing privileges for pretty much anyone except white males we now certify whether someone is gay or not.
This is an economics blog, however, so let’s turn from the culture war and ask, following Luke Froeb at Managerial Economics, what these set-asides cost the taxpayer:
A set-aside moves price through two separate channels, and they push the same direction.
- First, it shrinks the number of bidders, so the second-lowest cost is higher (or the second-highest value is lower).
- Second, the set-aside bidders themselves may be higher-cost or lower-value than the bidders they replace.
Both channels move price against the government….The lesson applies to California. Fewer, weaker bidders mean a worse deal for the government.
Brannman and Froeb estimate that set asides for small businesses reduce revenues in timber auctions by 15%, a substantial amount.
Addendum: It is worth noting that optimal auction theory tells us that it can sometimes be in the seller’s interest to handicap a strong bidder in order to make them increase their bids. Thus, in theory, an “affirmative action” program (not a set-aside) that deemed a bid from a minority firm as say 5% higher (so a minority bid at 100 can beat a non-minority bid at 104) could raise revenues. Note, however, that this optimal auction story only works when the minority firm loses the bid! In practice, even these sorts of schemes are money losers for the taxpayer.
Bastiat’s telephone?
- Oakland has seen a 37% decrease in car break-ins over the last year.
- What’s good news for car owners is less so for repair shops that specialize in window and windshield replacements.
- Multiple businesses have reported a sharp decline in their income as a result.
Here is the article, via Air Genius Gary Leff.
Labor market effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 represents the most significant reform of the U.S. income tax code since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Previous analyses of the TCJA’s economic impact often rely on estimates based on data prior to the enactment of the legislation. This paper leverages plausibly exogenous variations in state-level tax changes brought about by the TCJA and employs local projections with two-way fixed effects to examine its effects on the labor market. Measures of TCJA tax shocks are constructed with the NBER-TAXSIM model using state-level tabulations of individual income tax returns from the Statistics of Income (SOI). Our findings suggest that tax cuts amounting to 1 percent of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) under the TCJA are associated with a 0.7–1 percentage point increase in the labor force participation rate (LFPR) and a 0.8–1.5 percent increase in payroll employment over the two years following the TCJA’s implementation. These results appear broadly robust to assumptions about heterogeneous state responses and the inclusion of interactive fixed effects.
That is from a newly published article by Anil Kumar. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
The Shingles Vaccine Reduces Dementia
In 2023 in Can the Shingles Vaccine Prevent Dementia? I wrote:
A new paper provides good evidence that the shingles vaccine can prevent dementia, which strongly suggests that some forms of dementia are caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that on initial infection causes chickenpox.
We now have three more studies–from America, Australia and Canada–that find similar results using large numbers and credible research designs. Thus, I think we can up this to the Shingles vaccine reduces dementia.
Eric Topol summarizes the new evidence and writes:
If you are 50+ and have not gotten Shingrix vaccinated, you may want to consider that. You get protection vs Shingles (which can be dreadful), slowing of your biological aging (by methylation and RNA metrics), and ~20% reduction of dementia, predominantly related to Alzheimer’s disease. All of this benefit is magnified in women compared with men, but 3 of the studies showed some reduction of dementia in men. As a tradeoff, men appear to derive more cardiovascular benefit, but that evidence is not as compelling as protection from dementia from natural experiments.
AI-Native Firms
Very important work from Hyunjin Kim and Rembrand Koning. Insead and HBS respectively:
We study how firms built around AI capabilities-“AI-native” firms-are organized. Drawing on Y Combinator batches W20-F24 and U.S. venture-backed startups whose first financing closed between 2020 and 2024, we classify each firm’s AI-native status and link it to workforce microdata on team size, function, seniority, and hierarchy. Relative to non-AI startups in the same industry-cohort, AI-native firms are 25% smaller. Their share of engineers is 13% greater, and the shares of entry-level workers and managers are each roughly 15% lower. Their hierarchies are half a seniority level flatter-yet valuations are comparable, implying more value created per employee. We argue these patterns reflect two channels: a process channel, in which AI changes how people work inside the firm, and a product channel, in which AI capabilities are built into what the firm sells. Using text from product descriptions and job postings, we find that embedding AI into the product, beyond layering on AI tools into existing workflows, is a primary way startups are scaling “knowledge work” without large teams of knowledge workers.
The tweet storm on the new paper is especially useful. Via Luis Garicano. And note those results predate the very latest and best tools.
Montana’s SB535 and a Potential Biotech Renaissance in America
In 2024, China’s NMPA approved 83 new drugs, the FDA approved 50. China’s share of new commercial clinical trials jumped from 8% globally in 2013 to 30% in 2024, just behind the US at 35%. Last year, China-based Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals overtook AstraZeneca as the top clinical trial sponsor in the world.
What’s remarkable is how China is winning: deregulation and capitalism. It’s faster and easier to set up a clinical trial in China than in the United States. China is even experimenting with the peer approval model I’ve long advocated. The Medical Tourism Pilot Zone on Hainan island lets medical institutions import and use any pharmaceutical or device approved in the EU, US, or Japan — no separate Chinese approval needed. China is using our own regulatory judgments to get treatments to its patients faster than we do.
The core problem is that our clinical trial and drug approval system is slow and expensive. Getting a new drug to market in the US takes billions of dollars and a decade or more of clinical trials — and all of that before a company earns a single dollar. The consequence is drug lag and drug loss and also learning loss. Innovation is a dynamic process. You must build to build better.
It’s not over for the United States, however. Montana’s SB535, signed into law in May 2025, is the most important regulatory innovation in drug approval in my lifetime. The law authorizes investigational drugs and therapies that have cleared Phase I trials to be prescribed and sold — bypassing the traditional FDA approval pathway. It makes Montana the first state to license experimental treatment centers, “one stop shops” for otherwise hard-to-access care.
This is a very big deal.
SB535 makes Montana the only state in the nation where firms can move more quickly from a successful Phase I trial into limited commercialization. This positions Montana as a highly attractive location for biopharma, biotherapeutics, and other life sciences companies that want to accelerate time-to-market while continuing the federal FDA approval process.
Montana’s regulatory system creates the possibility of a self-funding clinical pipeline: companies using early commercial revenues to finance the path to full FDA approval. You get treatments to patients faster, and you keep companies alive long enough to prove their treatments work. Experimental treatments are not for everyone–these treatments are cash based–no Medicaid or Medicare and probably no private insurance either–but after conventional treatments have failed experimental treatments should be available for some patients, both for their benefit and for ours.
Montana is not alone. Florida now allows non-FDA approved stem cell therapies:
A new law in Florida, CS/CS/SB 1768, allows physicians to market and administer stem cell therapies that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for orthopedic conditions, wound care and pain management.
These experiments in regulatory federalism are vital and not just for patients but also for geopolitical competition. I am thrilled China is pursuing medical innovation (I predicted and applauded this in my TED talk) but I also don’t want to see America falling behind.
The Trump administration has been supportive. I would like to see HHS and the FDA working with companies operating under state right-to-try frameworks — sharing data, clarifying federal-state boundaries favorably, and treating these experiments as the biotech competitiveness infrastructure they are.
The FDA approval process has long been treated as the only legitimate path to market. The cost of that orthodoxy is measured in companies that never reached viability, innovations that never got off the ground, and patients who died when they didn’t have to. I have spent thirty years trying to get people to see the invisible graveyard. That’s hard. Most remain blind. But China’s bursting pipeline of new drugs is visible — could this be a Sputnik moment for biotech?
An American biotech renaissance — driven by AI, federalism, and regulatory innovation — is possible. The path forward is to double down on what makes America great: the laboratories of democracy are working, and in Montana and Florida, so are the labs.
The Cultural War is a Civil War
Kevin Bryan riffs on on my post The Nationalization of American Science. He is rightfully incensed:
AT is right this is a red tape-filled science policy of “losers”. If you think “cut funds from DEI-driven professors in the small departments no one cares about” is more important than “make sure the world’s strongest fundamental science continues”, you’re an idiot.
And yes, this is also the policy of “right-wing JD-brain” folks. They haven’t worked in a lab. They don’t know how we got AI, and recent cancer breakthroughs, and on and on. It’s all culture war, all the time – just the right-wing equivalent of the worst left-wing habits.
One last thing: I *hate* the term “administration priorities” or “President’s priorities”. Totally Unamerican! The President *executes* the law created by Congress, who represent the people, and who see turnover every two years. Period. “Oh, but Democrats do this too!” Grow up!
Owning the libs may feel good today but please look just one move ahead in the game tree. When AOC controls the executive branch, she will inherit every tool Trump normalized. Look a few moves further and see the damage to American institutions.
The culture war is a civil war. If we don’t end it, American science will be collateral damage.
The bullish case for Brazil
Start with the most important number in economics, even though no one on Wall Street talks about it: calories per acre. Human civilization runs on food. Ten billion people will inhabit this planet by 2050. The amount of arable land is not growing. It is shrinking, every year, to urbanization, desertification, salinization, and topsoil erosion. The countries that can grow food at scale will be the most strategically valuable territories on earth. The countries with the best apps and the most PhDs will depend on the countries with the best dirt.
Brazil has more unused arable land than any country on earth. That sentence alone should stop every allocator in their tracks. It means that Brazil can approximately double its total cultivated area, without touching a single hectare of the Amazon, simply by converting degraded pasturelands in the Cerrado and other biomes into productive cropland using technology that already exists.
No other agricultural superpower has this headroom. The United States is fully utilized. China is losing farmland to urbanization at a rate that should terrify its central planners. India’s agricultural productivity gains are hitting diminishing returns against water stress and soil degradation. Europe is hemmed in by geography and regulation. Sub-Saharan Africa has theoretical potential, but lacks the roads, the ports, the legal frameworks, and the capital to exploit it within a generation.
Brazil is already the world’s largest net food exporter. It leads the world in soybeans, coffee, sugar, orange juice, beef, and poultry. It is the second-largest exporter of corn, pork, and ethanol, and recently surpassed the United States as the largest cotton exporter. Agribusiness generates approximately 25% of GDP and more than 40% of export revenue. And the agricultural sector has been growing productivity at 3-4% per year for two decades straight, driven by Embrapa’s tropical soil science, satellite-guided precision agriculture, and the industrialization of protein supply chains that stretch from feedlots in Mato Grosso to dinner tables in Shanghai.
A single farm in Mato Grosso can be more than twice the size of the state of Rhode Island. A literal fact. The Bom Futuro Group cultivates more than 700,000 hectares (roughly 2,700 square miles) of soybeans, corn, and cotton across 35 production units. This is farming at a scale that American and European investors cannot easily conceptualize, operating with GPS-guided machinery, drone monitoring, and soil analytics that rival anything in Iowa, but across an area that dwarfs it.
The post is interesting throughout and offers further points of interest.
Why is America less of a 24/7 society?
It’s deeply odd to me that America is a far less 24/7 hour society today than it was 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. I vividly remember friends from the UK back in 1996 marveling at the fact that in the mid-sized Indiana town where I went college it was possible to buy groceries, clothing, a lawn mower, a snow blower, Lego sets, and bow hunting gear at 3 AM on any given Tuesday of the year. That was peak American Empire, and it’s long gone.
That is from Christopher Kratovil. What are some hypotheses here? I see a few:
1. America is older. True, but this is hardly the main explanation for anything.
2. Due to increasing leisure time, fewer people want to work weird and long hours? Tighter labor markets and the Great Moderation contributed to this.
3. It is stores that are in decline. 24/7 activity has moved into the warehouse, the fulfillment center, the server farm, the delivery network, and the home.
3b. When you can do Doordash at 10:30 p.m., you do not need to go out for snacks at 3 a.m.
4. Shoplifting has become more common? If the drug stores have to lock up their wares in NYC, why should stores try to be open at 3 a.m., when presumably shoplifting risk is higher and the quantity of monitoring labor is lower?
5. Online entertainment is much better, so why go out late at night?
6. More work from home means people are not returning from their jobs at late hours and then wanting to buy things.
I would put most of my money on #3 and #5 — what do you think?
Here Comes the Sun(screen)
I have been banging on about FDA delay in approving new sunscreens since 2013. Well it has finally happened. Twenty six years after being approved by the European Union and thirteen years after then-FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg told lawmakers that sorting out the sunscreen issue was “one of the highest priorities” the FDA has approved a new sunscreeen ingredient.
The US has been slow because it regulates sunscreens under the the more expensive, time consuming and rigorous drug standard rather than the less expensive cosmetic standard. Does this mean that our sunscreens are safer? No.
In fact, American sunscreens may be less safe.
Sunscreens protect by blocking ultraviolet rays from penetrating the skin. Ultraviolet B (UVB) rays, with their shorter wavelength, primarily affect the outer skin layer and are the main cause of sunburn. In contrast, ultraviolet A (UVA) rays have a longer wavelength, penetrate more deeply into the skin and contribute to wrinkling, aging and the development of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. In many ways, UVA rays are more dangerous than UVB rays because they are more insidious. UVB rays hit when the sun is bright, and because they burn they come with a natural warning. UVA rays, though, can pass through clouds and cause skin cancer without generating obvious skin damage.
The problem is that American sunscreens work better against UVB rays than against the more dangerous UVA rays. That is, they’re better at preventing sunburn than skin cancer. In fact, many U.S. sunscreens would fail European standards for UVA protection. Precisely because European sunscreens can draw on more ingredients, they can protect better against UVA rays. Thus, instead of being safer, U.S. sunscreens may be riskier.
European sunscreens are also more pleasant to apply, and because they work better with makeup they are probably used more often as part of a skin care regimen, which may reduce the prevalence of skin cancer. Once again, the United States’ slower and seemingly more risk-averse approach actually increases risk.
The lesson, for those who are listening, is general.