Category: Law
Give Innovation a Chance
Elizabeth Currid-Halkett writing in the NYTimes discusses her son’s muscular dystrophy and his treatment with the controversial gene-therapy Elevidys. Currid-Halkett, like many parents whose children have been treated with Elevidys, reports much better results than appear in the statistics.
On Aug. 29, [my son] finally received the one-time infusion. Three weeks later, he was marching upstairs and able to jump over and over. After four weeks, he could hop on one foot. Six weeks after treatment, Eliot’s neurologist decided to re-administer the North Star Ambulatory Assessment, used to test boys with D.M.D. on skills like balance, jumping and getting up off the floor unassisted. In June, Eliot’s score was a 22 out of 34. In the second week of October, it was a perfect 34 — that of a typically developing, healthy 4-year-old boy. Head in my hands, I wept with joy. This was science at its very best, close to a miracle.
…a narrow focus on numbers ignores the real quality-of-life benefits doctors, patients and their families see from these treatments. During the advisory committee meeting for Elevidys in May 2023, I listened to F.D.A. analysts express skepticism about the drug after they watched videos of boys treated with Elevidys swimming and riding bikes. These experts — given the highest responsibility to evaluate treatments on behalf of others’ lives — seemed unable to see the forest for the trees as they focused on statistics versus real-life examples.
Frankly, I side with the statistics. We don’t hear from the parents in the placebo group whose children also spontaneously made improvements.
Even though I side the statistics, I side with approval. Innovation is a dynamic process. It’s not surprising that the first gene therapy for DMD offers only modest benefits; you don’t hit a home run the first time at bat. But if the therapy isn’t approved, the scientists don’t go back to the drawing board and keep going. If the therapy isn’t approved, it dies and you lose the money, experience and learning by doing that are needed to develop, refine and improve.
Approval is not the end of innovation but a stepping stone on the path of progress. Here’s an example I gave earlier of the same principle. When we banned supersonic aircraft, we lost the money, experience and learning by doing needed to develop quieter supersonic aircraft. A ban makes technological developments in the industry much slower and dependent upon exogeneous progress in other industries.
You must build to build better.
Addendum: Peter Marks is the best and perhaps the most important director CBER has ever had. CBER, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, is responsible for biological products, including vaccines and gene therapies. Marks has repeatedly pushed and sometimes overruled his staff in approving products like Elevidys. Marks named and was the driving force at the FDA behind Operation Warp Speed, a tremendous FDA success and break with tradition. Marks has been challenging the FDA’s conservative culture. I hope his changes survive his tenure.
Avoiding Repugnance
Works in Progress has a good review of the state of compensating organ donors, especially doing so with nudges or non-price factors to avoid backlash from those who find mixing money and organs to be repugnant. My own idea for this, first expressed in Entrepreneurial Economics, but many times since is a no-give, no-take rule. Under no-give, no-take, people who sign their organ donor cards get priority should they one day need an organ. The great virtue of no-give, no-take is that it provides an incentive to sign one’s organ donor card but one that strikes most people as fair and just and not repugnant. Israel introduced a no-give, no-take policy in 2008 and it appears to have worked well.
In March 2008, to increase donations, the Israeli government implemented a ‘priority allocation’ policy to encourage more people to sign up to donate organs after their deaths. Once someone has been registered as a donor for three years, they receive priority allocation if they themselves need a transplant. If a donor dies and their organs are usable, their close family members also get higher priority for transplants if they need them – which also means that families are more inclined to give their consent for their deceased relatives’ organs to be used.
In its first year, the scheme led to 70,000 additional sign-ups. The momentum continued, with 11.1 percent of all potential organ donors being registered in the five years after the scheme was introduced, compared to 7.7 percent before. According to a 2017 study, when presented with the decision to authorize the donation of their dead relative’s organs, 55 percent of families decided to donate after the priority scheme, compared to 45 percent before.
How did Madrid become the capital of European liberalism?
But in the case of Madrid, the last 25 years have been a clear move towards higher degree of tax competitiveness, smart regulation, and an overall liberal policy in the economic sense. And then our society is fairly open and tolerant and recognized to be what we would broadly described as a free society, an open society.
And I guess that began to make sense 10 years ago, but it’s really started to make sense in the last several years. Following the pandemic, I think we had a great opportunity to show that mentality to the rest of the world because as everybody was shutting down, Madrid was Europe’s only open capital for very long in 2020 and 2021.
And I guess that raised a lot of eyebrows. And that is why a lot of people are moving to Madrid. People are voting with their feet. They want more of this. And that’s the Madrid way of liberalism that I discuss in this book. And to be honest, It’s not so common that you get to see 25 years of ongoing, non-stop free market reforms coupled together with an open, tolerant society…
Barcelona had been the icon of openness and the region that projected itself as a more European territory within our country and its economic power powerhouse as well. But sadly for Catalonia and happily for Madrid, there’s been a big change and a big shift to the point that this no longer applies. And it’s not been the case at all for the last few decades. I think the international level, of course, perceptions are harder to shift, but I don’t think anyone in Spain today will argue that Catalonia, as they have moved closer to the ideas of separatism and as nationalism has become a powerful figure in the regional politics, hasn’t been slowly becoming a more closed society.
That is from Diego Sánchez de la Cruz, interviewed by Rasheed Griffith, both podcast and transcript at the link. Interesting throughout, and Diego has a new book out Liberalismo a la madrileña.
Revisiting the T-Mobile-Sprint Merger
T-Mobile’s takeover of Sprint was controversial among analysts. “If this merger is not anticompetitive,” Eleanor Fox, a trade regulation and antitrust law professor at New York University, told reporters in 2020, “it is hard to know what is.” Yale economist and antitrust scholar Fiona Scott Morton delivered her verdict on the deal in a co-authored 2021 article: “The era of aggressive price competition in wireless is over.” The authors predicted that the wireless industry, whittled down to a big three, would “nestle into a cozy triopoly.”
The prediction proved wrong. Average monthly mobile subscription fees dropped sharply. In the three years before the merger, according to government price data, mobile charges declined in real terms by about 8%. In the three years following the merger, the real price decline has been nearly 12%.
These trends were even more impressive given dramatically improving network performance. Before the merger, the top four U.S. carriers delivered data download speeds averaging about 26 megabits per second, nearly all via 3G or 4G. By early 2023, with 5G deployments spreading, Verizon and AT&T data flowed 24% to 39% faster, while T-Mobile was more than three times as fast as before. T-Mobile’s high-speed coverage had also expanded; half of its connections were via 5G by January 2023, against just 10% to 20% for its rivals.
…Further evidence that the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint was pro-competitive was seen with Verizon and AT&T share prices. From 2018 to 2023, Verizon and AT&T stock prices declined sharply, losing more than a third of their real value. The postmerger marketplace was a great victory for T-Mobile but a blow for its rivals. The cozy-cartel thesis collapsed.
That’s the excellent Tom Hazlett writing in the WSJ–useful facts to remember when thinking about the current rise of antitrust.
The California tax burden is driving people out
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one bit:
California’s highest income tax rate is 13.3%. That is in addition to a top federal tax rate of 37%. California also has a state sales tax rate of 7.25%, and many localities impose a smaller sales tax. So if a wealthy person earns and spends labor income in the state of California, the tax rate at the margin could approach 60%. Then there is the corporate state income tax rate of 8.84%, some of which is passed along to consumers through higher prices. That increases the tax burden further yet.
And this:
Researchers Joshua Rauh and Ryan Shyu, currently and formerly at Stanford business school, have studied the behavioral response to Proposition 30, which boosted California’s marginal tax rates by up to 3% for high earners for seven years, from 2012 to 2018. They found that in 2013, an additional 0.8% of the top bracket of the residential tax base left the state. That is several times higher than the tax responses usually seen in the data.
These high-earning California residents seem to have reached a tipping point: Maybe many of them could afford the extra tax burden, but at some point they got fed up, read the signals and decided the broader system wasn’t working in their interest.
Overall, Proposition 30 increased total tax revenue for California — but not nearly as much as intended. Due to departures, the state lost more than 45% of its windfall tax revenues from the policy change, and within two years the state lost more than 60% of those same revenues.
What should I ask Coleman Hughes?
I will be doing a Conversation with him, based in part around his new book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. On Coleman more generally, here is Wikipedia:
Coleman Cruz Hughes (born February 25, 1996) is an American writer and podcast host. He was a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a fellow and contributing editor at their City Journal, and he is the host of the podcast Conversations with Coleman.
Also from Wikipedia:
Hughes began studying violin at age three. He is a hobbyist rapper—in 2021 and 2022, he released several rap singles on YouTube and Spotify, using the moniker COLDXMAN, including a music video for a track titled “Blasphemy”, which appeared in January 2022. Hughes also plays jazz trombone with a Charles Mingus tribute band that plays regularly at the Jazz Standard in New York City.
I saw Coleman perform quite recently, and I can vouch for his musical excellence, including as a singer. So what should I ask Coleman?
Is El Salvador special?
But Bukele copycats and those who believe his model can be replicated far and wide overlook a key point: The conditions that allowed him to wipe out El Salvador’s gangs are unlikely to jointly appear elsewhere in Latin America.
El Salvador’s gangs were unique, and far from the most formidable criminal organizations in the entire region. For decades, a handful of gangs fought one another for control of territory and became socially and politically powerful. But, unlike cartels in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, El Salvador’s gangs weren’t big players in the global drug trade and focused more on extortion. Compared to these other groups, they were poorly financed and not as heavily armed.
Mr. Bukele started to deactivate the gangs by negotiating with their leaders, according to Salvadoran investigative journalists and a criminal investigation led by a former attorney general. (The government denies this.) When Mr. Bukele then arrested their foot soldiers in large sweeps that landed many innocent people in prison, the gangs collapsed.
It would not be such a simple story elsewhere in Latin America, where criminal organizations are wealthier, more internationally connected and much better armed than El Salvador’s gangs once were. When other governments in the region have tried to take down gang and cartel leaders, these groups haven’t simply crumbled. They have fought back, or new criminal groups have quickly filled the void, drawn by the drug trade’s huge profits. Pablo Escobar’s war on the state in 1980s-90s Colombia, the backlash by cartels to Mexican law enforcement activity since the mid-2000s, and the violent response to Ecuador’s government’s recent moves against gangs are just a few examples.
El Salvador also had more formidable and professional security forces, committed to crushing the gangs when Mr. Bukele called on them, than some of its neighbors. Take Honduras, where gang-sponsored corruption among security forces apparently runs deep. That helped doom Ms. Castro’s attempts to emulate Mr. Bukele from the start. In other countries, like Mexico, criminal groups have also reportedly managed to co-opt high-ranking members of the military and police. In Venezuela, it has been reported that military officials have run their own drug trafficking operation. Even if presidents send soldiers and police to do Bukele-style mass roundups, security forces may not be prepared, or may have incentives to undermine the task at hand.
Here is more from Will Freeman and (NYT), interesting throughout.
How much does status competition lower Korean fertility?
Using a quantitative heterogeneous-agent model calibrated to Korea, we find that fertility would be 28% higher in the absence of the status externality and that childlessness in the poorest quintile would fall from five to less than one percent. We then explore the effects of various government policies. A pro-natal transfer or an education tax can increase fertility and reduce education spending, with heterogeneous effects across the income distribution. The policy mix that maximizes the current generation’s welfare consists of an education tax of 22% and moderate pro-natal transfers. This would raise average fertility by about 11% and decrease education spending by 39%.
Here is the full paper by Seongeun Kim, Michèle Tertilt, and Minchul Yum. Here is the version forthcoming in the AER.
Might a Georgist land tax help revive Detroit?
That is the topic of my Bloomberg column. Maybe they should try it for federalism/discovery purposes, but overall I am skeptical. Here is one excerpt:
The history of “enterprise zones,” which are specially designated areas (usually urban) with lower taxes and fewer regulations, offers a cautionary tale. Enterprise zones have at best mixed results in revitalizing declining areas. Could fiddling with the marginal incentives embedded in the property tax code really make that much more of a difference? Most economic decisions are made on the basis of broad criteria such as labor force quality, nearby markets and the ease of doing business.
By itself, the uneven record of enterprise zones is no reason not to experiment with land value taxation. But it does limit the upside from any change.
A possible downside from land value taxation is that it discourages land speculation. Land speculators do not, I concede, have the best reputation — but speculation can be either a positive or negative, depending on whether entrepreneurs have good foresight. On the plus side, speculation can keep land from being developed prematurely, or from being locked into uses that later turn out to be too low in value.
If dormant land in Detroit is taxed at a higher rate, that might encourage property owners to develop low-quality housing or retail to lower their tax burden. A landowner might build a small house, for example, rather than holding out for a large, higher-quality apartment complex. The city might get modest growth, but lose out on the chance for a bigger economic redevelopment. Detroit has in recent times shown signs of a revival, so perhaps waiting for the right opportunity is sometimes best.
Of course, speculators can also make mistakes, for example by failing to develop their property more quickly. Still, whether the tax authorities have the foresight and flexibility to do better than property speculators is an open question. In the meantime, some speculators may abandon their holdings to avoid the tax, putting more property in the hands of the municipal government — hardly an ideal outcome.
Note also that the proposal is revenue neutral by design (taxes on developments are supposed to go down), but over time it might simply evolve into a flat-out tax increase.
Comparing Large Language Models Against Lawyers
This paper presents a groundbreaking comparison between Large Language Models and traditional legal contract reviewers, Junior Lawyers and Legal Process Outsourcers. We dissect whether LLMs can outperform humans in accuracy, speed, and cost efficiency during contract review. Our empirical analysis benchmarks LLMs against a ground truth set by Senior Lawyers, uncovering that advanced models match or exceed human accuracy in determining legal issues. In speed, LLMs complete reviews in mere seconds, eclipsing the hours required by their human counterparts. Cost wise, LLMs operate at a fraction of the price, offering a staggering 99.97 percent reduction in cost over traditional methods. These results are not just statistics, they signal a seismic shift in legal practice. LLMs stand poised to disrupt the legal industry, enhancing accessibility and efficiency of legal services. Our research asserts that the era of LLM dominance in legal contract review is upon us, challenging the status quo and calling for a reimagined future of legal workflows.
That is from a new paper by Lauren Martin, Nick Whitehouse, Stephanie Yiu, Lizzie Catterson, and Rivindu Perera. Via Malinga.
Nominal wages are sticky in prison
“The only problem I have with my job is the pay hasn’t increased in over two decades,” wrote Nelson. At the time, she worked in a prison factory where she was forced to save two weeks’ pay “to buy one 18-pack of feminine hygiene pads,” a basic necessity.
Here is the full story, via The Browser.
My TLS essay on the Clinton administration
Here is the link, I am reviewing a bad book on the Clinton administration (A Fabulous Failure, by Lichtenstein and Stern). Here is one excerpt:
Clinton-era welfare reform is another area where many commentators go astray, and Lichtenstein and Stein are no exception. The Clinton pronouncement “I have a plan to end welfare as we know it” has stuck in people’s minds. The reality is that, after Clinton-era welfare reforms, America spent more money on helping the poor. Welfare payments were attached to work requirements, but the states could redeploy federal money to programmes other than simple welfare payments, so funds for childcare, college scholarships, food stamps and tax credits for the poor all went up. The rate at which children fall into poverty has declined steadily. A significant Medicaid expansion followed under President Obama.
Yet the authors state that “The Era of Big Government is Over” in the section on welfare reform. If you squint you can see periodic references to the fact that Clinton-era welfare reform was not entirely radical, but nonetheless they write that this was “a drastic reform of the welfare system … that did in fact repudiate its New Deal heritage”. Calling the policy “an utterly misogynist step backward”, they note that Clinton’s “reputation as a heartless neoliberal was hereby well advanced within the ranks of progressive America”. Again, argument by adjective displaces the numbers.
And here is my summary judgment:
Too often the authors’ substantive arguments are presented in an “argument by adjective” form, relabelling events, institutions and individuals with negative adjectives or connotations, but without providing enough firm evidence. They write as if describing a policy reform as not having done enough for labour unions is per se a damning critique…
I can’t help but feel this work is largely directed at an internal Democratic Party dialogue. The basic premisses, or even the interpretations of the facts, don’t need to be argued for much. But good Democrats need to be told how to think about their own history. If strong labour unions are a sine qua non for social and economic progress, and if all good (and bad) things come together, how would the rest of history, including that of the Clinton administration, have to read? The notion that such stifling readings have become part of the problem, rather than the solution, does not appear in Nelson Lichtenstein’s and Judith Stein’s book.
I had turned down the previous invitation to review, because I didn’t think the book in question was good enough.
The economics of illicit sand markets
Very few people are looking closely at the illegal sand system or calling for changes, however, because sand is a mundane resource. Yet sand mining is the world’s largest extraction industry because sand is a main ingredient in concrete, and the global construction industry has been soaring for decades. Every year the world uses up to 50 billion metric tons of sand, according to a United Nations Environment Program report. The only natural resource more widely consumed is water. A 2022 study by researchers at the University of Amsterdam concluded that we are dredging river sand at rates that far outstrip nature’s ability to replace it, so much so that the world could run out of construction-grade sand by 2050. The U.N. report confirms that sand mining at current rates is unsustainable.
And:
Most sand gets used in the country where it is mined, but with some national supplies dwindling, imports reached $1.9 billion in 2018, according to Harvard’s Atlas of Economic Complexity.
Companies large and small dredge up sand from waterways and the ocean floor and transport it to wholesalers, construction firms and retailers. Even the legal sand trade is hard to track. Two experts estimate the global market at about $100 billion a year, yet the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries indicates the value could be as high as $785 billion. Sand in riverbeds, lake beds and shorelines is the best for construction, but scarcity opens the market to less suitable sand from beaches and dunes, much of it scraped illegally and cheaply. With a shortage looming and prices rising, sand from Moroccan beaches and dunes is sold inside the country and is also shipped abroad, using organized crime’s extensive transport networks, Abderrahmane has found. More than half of Morocco’s sand is illegally mined, he says.
Of course these are usually unowned, unpriced resources:
Luis Fernando Ramadon, a federal police specialist in Brazil who studies extractive industries, estimates that the global illegal sand trade ranges from $200 billion to $350 billion a year—more than illegal logging, gold mining and fishing combined. Buyers rarely check the provenance of sand; legal and black market sand look identical. Illegal mining rarely draws heat from law enforcement because it looks like legitimate mining—trucks, backhoes and shovels—there’s no property owner lodging complaints, and officials may be profiting. For crime syndicates, it’s easy money.
Here is the full Scientific American piece by David A. Taylor.
Milei update, a further report will be pending
🇦🇷Milei's has hit the limits of his reform agenda w/ the govt being forced to rescind all of the articles in the omnibus reform bill related to fiscal matters. A sticking point: provinces oppose the increase & expansion of the scope of export taxeshttps://t.co/9o4uOU0CBN
— Nicolás Saldías (@NicSaldias) January 28, 2024
Surgery is Not FDA Regulated
What would happen if the FDA regulated pharmaceuticals much less than currently? I have pointed to one useful comparison, new uses of old drugs do not have to go through FDA required efficacy trials in the new use. In other words, new uses of old drugs are regulated for safety-only. Thus,
“off-label prescribing” provides a window on to what a world of safety-only FDA regulation would look like. Off-label prescribing surely results in errors and problems but overall physicians tell us that off-label prescribing is highly beneficial and critical to good medical care.
Maxwell Tabarrok points to another useful comparison, surgery. Surgery is not FDA regulated, despite having many of the same asymmetric information problems as pharmaceuticals. Some surgical procedures are surely ineffective and unsafe. Yet, once again, the FDA-absent surgery market appears beneficial overall and like other markets it improves over time with greater safety and more efficacy. For example,
In the US, the death rate from medical and surgical care complications declined by 39% from 1999 to 2009.
Would we be better off if every new surgical procedure had to go through FDA-required efficacy trials before it could be offered to consumers?
Neither of these comparison proves that a world with less FDA regulation would be a better world but both refute the stories of a world run amuck in the absence of the FDA. In essence, the reason is that the world contains many sources of approval, recommendation, certification and review beyond the FDA and these would grow in scope and stature absent the FDA.
See Maximum Progress for more.
Addendum: More excellent Tabarrok material: The Spice Must Flow: The Dutch-Portuguese War-Part 1.