The Washington Post had an interesting article on how Pfizer learned that its arthritis drug, Enbrel, may be useful in slowing the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. According to the article, Pfizer chose not to pursue any further testing of the usefulness of Enbrel as an Alzheimer’s treatment, nor did it share its evidence with anyone else.
The most obvious reason why it did not pursue further testing itself is that the main patent on Enbrel was about to expire. This meant that if Pfizer invested the tens of millions, or possibly even hundreds of millions, needed for the clinical testing and FDA approval, it would likely be selling Enbrel as a generic competing with other companies who only have to cover their manufacturing cost. This means that Pfizer would never be able to recover the cost of the clinical tests and going through the FDA approval process.
The most obvious reason Pfizer didn’t share its evidence with the scientific community is that it is a drug company that exists to make profits. It is not in the habit of making research publicly available to advance public health.
It is interesting to think of what this story might look like in a system of publicly funded research, where a condition of getting the money is that all findings are made available as soon as practical. (This system is described here and in chapter five of Rigged [it’s free].)
In this case, the Pfizer equivalent that is finding evidence that the arthritis drug it developed would quickly post this on the web. Since its funding does not depend on patents, it may opt to pursue further research itself. However, if it is not well-situated to actually carry through the research on Alzheimer’s, other researchers could pick up the ball and do the work themselves.
In the event that it proved to be a useful treatment for Alzheimer’s the Pfizer equivalent would use this success as an argument for renewing and/or expanding its contract for research. While it is obviously better to actually test and prove the effectiveness of a new drug, finding an important discovery that laid the basis for further testing is a valuable contribution that should be rewarded. In this case, it doesn’t seem the patent system would provide such a reward.
The Washington Post had an interesting article on how Pfizer learned that its arthritis drug, Enbrel, may be useful in slowing the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. According to the article, Pfizer chose not to pursue any further testing of the usefulness of Enbrel as an Alzheimer’s treatment, nor did it share its evidence with anyone else.
The most obvious reason why it did not pursue further testing itself is that the main patent on Enbrel was about to expire. This meant that if Pfizer invested the tens of millions, or possibly even hundreds of millions, needed for the clinical testing and FDA approval, it would likely be selling Enbrel as a generic competing with other companies who only have to cover their manufacturing cost. This means that Pfizer would never be able to recover the cost of the clinical tests and going through the FDA approval process.
The most obvious reason Pfizer didn’t share its evidence with the scientific community is that it is a drug company that exists to make profits. It is not in the habit of making research publicly available to advance public health.
It is interesting to think of what this story might look like in a system of publicly funded research, where a condition of getting the money is that all findings are made available as soon as practical. (This system is described here and in chapter five of Rigged [it’s free].)
In this case, the Pfizer equivalent that is finding evidence that the arthritis drug it developed would quickly post this on the web. Since its funding does not depend on patents, it may opt to pursue further research itself. However, if it is not well-situated to actually carry through the research on Alzheimer’s, other researchers could pick up the ball and do the work themselves.
In the event that it proved to be a useful treatment for Alzheimer’s the Pfizer equivalent would use this success as an argument for renewing and/or expanding its contract for research. While it is obviously better to actually test and prove the effectiveness of a new drug, finding an important discovery that laid the basis for further testing is a valuable contribution that should be rewarded. In this case, it doesn’t seem the patent system would provide such a reward.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Paul Krugman used his column today to criticize Donald Trump’s tariffs for everything policy. While he provides a useful historical account of the abuse of tariffs in the 1920s, he left out one important reason why tariffs can be pernicious, especially in the hands of someone like Donald Trump.
Trump obviously views the presidency as a position to use for rewarding friends, punishing foes, and enriching his family. Tariffs give him a great opportunity to do this.
Not only can he put a tariff on an essential imported input for a company that criticizes him, but he can also give exemptions to tariffs (they always have exemptions) for his friends. The NYT had a good piece on the issuing of exemptions last year.
The potential for abuse of the discretion associated with tariff policy is a cause for concern in general. However, with a president and a Republican party that have corruption as a guiding principle, this discretion is a very big deal. We should absolutely assume that Trump will abuse his tariff authority. It would probably never even occur to him that it is wrong.
Paul Krugman used his column today to criticize Donald Trump’s tariffs for everything policy. While he provides a useful historical account of the abuse of tariffs in the 1920s, he left out one important reason why tariffs can be pernicious, especially in the hands of someone like Donald Trump.
Trump obviously views the presidency as a position to use for rewarding friends, punishing foes, and enriching his family. Tariffs give him a great opportunity to do this.
Not only can he put a tariff on an essential imported input for a company that criticizes him, but he can also give exemptions to tariffs (they always have exemptions) for his friends. The NYT had a good piece on the issuing of exemptions last year.
The potential for abuse of the discretion associated with tariff policy is a cause for concern in general. However, with a president and a Republican party that have corruption as a guiding principle, this discretion is a very big deal. We should absolutely assume that Trump will abuse his tariff authority. It would probably never even occur to him that it is wrong.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Sometimes events in the world can lead one to believe in a higher power. Just after I had a Twitter exchange with Matt Yglesias on the backlash against globalization and other changes in society over the last four decades, Jim Hoagland was good enough to give me a beautiful example of the elite attitude that fostered the backlash.
As I said in my tweet in response to Matt:
“Yes, and that we cosmopolitan types aggressively pushed integration in a way that was designed to reduce the wages of the bulk of the population. And, then to deny that we did it and there is something wrong with the people who are upset about it.“
Hoagland’s piece is exactly the sort of mindless trashing of people unhappy with the current economic and social situation. As the headline puts it, “the tech economy is hard to explain. Running against the Other is much easier.”
The argument is straightforward, those dumb rubes can’t figure out that their standard of living was wrecked by technology and globalization, so they lash out at immigrants and other out groups.
I know there is a large industry that insists that all Trump supporters are hopeless racists, some of whom voted twice for a black man for president, but I am not really interested in the souls of Trump voters. I am more interested in having a truthful dialogue among people who pretend to be knowledgeable intellectual types.
There was nothing inevitable about the upward redistribution of the last four decades. It was not the result of technology, it was the result of our policy technology.
Let me put this in a way that even Jim Hoagland could understand. How rich would Bill Gates be if Microsoft didn’t hold any copyrights or patents on software? While I’m sure Bill Gates would still be doing fine, he’s a smart and ambitious guy, he would not have $100 billion. In fact, he probably wouldn’t even have $1 billion.
We have patents and copyrights to provide incentives for innovation and creative work. We can make them longer and stronger or shorter and weaker. We can also have alternative mechanisms (see Rigged, chapter 5 [It’s free]). If we wanted the gains from growth to be broadly shared, instead of flowing to the top, then we could make patents and copyrights shorter and weaker. The decision to make them longer and stronger was a decision to transfer money from the “ignorant” masses to elites who then denounce them as racist.
Anyhow, we aren’t likely to see a piece making this obvious point in the Post, but it does happen to be true.
Sometimes events in the world can lead one to believe in a higher power. Just after I had a Twitter exchange with Matt Yglesias on the backlash against globalization and other changes in society over the last four decades, Jim Hoagland was good enough to give me a beautiful example of the elite attitude that fostered the backlash.
As I said in my tweet in response to Matt:
“Yes, and that we cosmopolitan types aggressively pushed integration in a way that was designed to reduce the wages of the bulk of the population. And, then to deny that we did it and there is something wrong with the people who are upset about it.“
Hoagland’s piece is exactly the sort of mindless trashing of people unhappy with the current economic and social situation. As the headline puts it, “the tech economy is hard to explain. Running against the Other is much easier.”
The argument is straightforward, those dumb rubes can’t figure out that their standard of living was wrecked by technology and globalization, so they lash out at immigrants and other out groups.
I know there is a large industry that insists that all Trump supporters are hopeless racists, some of whom voted twice for a black man for president, but I am not really interested in the souls of Trump voters. I am more interested in having a truthful dialogue among people who pretend to be knowledgeable intellectual types.
There was nothing inevitable about the upward redistribution of the last four decades. It was not the result of technology, it was the result of our policy technology.
Let me put this in a way that even Jim Hoagland could understand. How rich would Bill Gates be if Microsoft didn’t hold any copyrights or patents on software? While I’m sure Bill Gates would still be doing fine, he’s a smart and ambitious guy, he would not have $100 billion. In fact, he probably wouldn’t even have $1 billion.
We have patents and copyrights to provide incentives for innovation and creative work. We can make them longer and stronger or shorter and weaker. We can also have alternative mechanisms (see Rigged, chapter 5 [It’s free]). If we wanted the gains from growth to be broadly shared, instead of flowing to the top, then we could make patents and copyrights shorter and weaker. The decision to make them longer and stronger was a decision to transfer money from the “ignorant” masses to elites who then denounce them as racist.
Anyhow, we aren’t likely to see a piece making this obvious point in the Post, but it does happen to be true.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Most people probably know of Robert Rubin as the person who thought deregulating finance and having a huge housing bubble was cool. They may also know that he hugely profited from the bubble personally as a top executive at Citigroup, a bank that was at the center of the bubble’s finance and would have gone bankrupt in the crash, had it not been for a massive government bailout.
They may also know Robert Rubin as the person who pushed for an over-valued dollar, which led to a huge trade deficit and decimated U.S. manufacturing. And, they may know Robert Rubin as the person who wanted the Fed to raise interest rates back in 2014 when the overall unemployment rate was over 6.0 percent and the unemployment rate for blacks was over 11.0 percent.
But, thanks to the New York Times, we can also learn that Robert Rubin wants us to take into account the federal government’s savings on health care costs associated with programs like food stamps. Rubin is of course right on this, but it would really be hard to beat him on the trivia scale here.
Most people probably know of Robert Rubin as the person who thought deregulating finance and having a huge housing bubble was cool. They may also know that he hugely profited from the bubble personally as a top executive at Citigroup, a bank that was at the center of the bubble’s finance and would have gone bankrupt in the crash, had it not been for a massive government bailout.
They may also know Robert Rubin as the person who pushed for an over-valued dollar, which led to a huge trade deficit and decimated U.S. manufacturing. And, they may know Robert Rubin as the person who wanted the Fed to raise interest rates back in 2014 when the overall unemployment rate was over 6.0 percent and the unemployment rate for blacks was over 11.0 percent.
But, thanks to the New York Times, we can also learn that Robert Rubin wants us to take into account the federal government’s savings on health care costs associated with programs like food stamps. Rubin is of course right on this, but it would really be hard to beat him on the trivia scale here.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Back in the old days, economists used to think that having a profitable business was evidence of a successful business model. This success could be based on things like ripping off workers and/or customers or destroying the environment, which obviously are not good, but if a business was not profitable, it would be hard to call it a success, whether or not it followed the law and social norms.
However, for Roger Lowenstein and the Washington Post, profits no longer matter. Lowenstein proclaimed the taxi services Uber and Lyft successes based on the large amount of money they raised in their IPOs. This is in spite of the fact that both companies are huge money losers, with no immediate prospect of reversing course. Also, they both have difficulty following the law in areas like treating their drivers as employees and following labor law on issues like minimum wages and overtime. (They insist their drivers are independent contractors, but since both companies set their pay, this price setting among independent contractors would violate anti-trust law.)
The argument that a company has a successful business model because it can fetch a high stock price would mean all the crazy dotcoms of the 1990s stock boom had successful business models as did Theranos. It should not be too much to demand that a company at least show a capacity to earn a profit before being touted for its successful business model.
Lowenstein is correct that the taxi system was horribly regulated for the benefit of the taxi companies. However, it does not follow that we should want completely unregulated taxis from Uber and Lyft. People getting a ride should be able to know that their driver won’t assault them, that they are not driving drunk, that they will be covered by insurance if there is an accident, and that the car is safe. And the drivers should be protected by minimum wage and overtime regulations and other basic labor standards.
These are legitimate forms of regulation that both companies have fiercely resisted. When they can comply with regulations in these areas and make a profit, then we will know that they have a successful business model.
Back in the old days, economists used to think that having a profitable business was evidence of a successful business model. This success could be based on things like ripping off workers and/or customers or destroying the environment, which obviously are not good, but if a business was not profitable, it would be hard to call it a success, whether or not it followed the law and social norms.
However, for Roger Lowenstein and the Washington Post, profits no longer matter. Lowenstein proclaimed the taxi services Uber and Lyft successes based on the large amount of money they raised in their IPOs. This is in spite of the fact that both companies are huge money losers, with no immediate prospect of reversing course. Also, they both have difficulty following the law in areas like treating their drivers as employees and following labor law on issues like minimum wages and overtime. (They insist their drivers are independent contractors, but since both companies set their pay, this price setting among independent contractors would violate anti-trust law.)
The argument that a company has a successful business model because it can fetch a high stock price would mean all the crazy dotcoms of the 1990s stock boom had successful business models as did Theranos. It should not be too much to demand that a company at least show a capacity to earn a profit before being touted for its successful business model.
Lowenstein is correct that the taxi system was horribly regulated for the benefit of the taxi companies. However, it does not follow that we should want completely unregulated taxis from Uber and Lyft. People getting a ride should be able to know that their driver won’t assault them, that they are not driving drunk, that they will be covered by insurance if there is an accident, and that the car is safe. And the drivers should be protected by minimum wage and overtime regulations and other basic labor standards.
These are legitimate forms of regulation that both companies have fiercely resisted. When they can comply with regulations in these areas and make a profit, then we will know that they have a successful business model.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
With the trade war between the U.S. and China heating up, Robert Samuelson warns us that China may just sell the trillions of dollars worth of U.S. assets it holds. While the idea is that this is a potential threat, it is not clear why.
Other things equal, China’s decision to sell large amounts of Treasury bonds would drive up interest rates in the United States. That would be bad news, but if the Fed did not want interest rates to rise, then it could simply buy the Treasury bonds that China is selling, leaving interest rates unchanged.
China’s decision to sell large amounts of U.S. Treasury bonds and other dollar-based assets would have the effect of lowering the value of the dollar against the yuan, ending its currency management, or “manipulation,” as Donald Trump calls it. This would make U.S. goods and services relatively more competitive internationally and Chinese goods and services less competitive.
That could be a peace gesture in the trade war, as it would likely mean a sharply lower U.S. trade deficit with China, but this is not how Samuelson is presenting it.
With the trade war between the U.S. and China heating up, Robert Samuelson warns us that China may just sell the trillions of dollars worth of U.S. assets it holds. While the idea is that this is a potential threat, it is not clear why.
Other things equal, China’s decision to sell large amounts of Treasury bonds would drive up interest rates in the United States. That would be bad news, but if the Fed did not want interest rates to rise, then it could simply buy the Treasury bonds that China is selling, leaving interest rates unchanged.
China’s decision to sell large amounts of U.S. Treasury bonds and other dollar-based assets would have the effect of lowering the value of the dollar against the yuan, ending its currency management, or “manipulation,” as Donald Trump calls it. This would make U.S. goods and services relatively more competitive internationally and Chinese goods and services less competitive.
That could be a peace gesture in the trade war, as it would likely mean a sharply lower U.S. trade deficit with China, but this is not how Samuelson is presenting it.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
You have to love Robert Samuelson. He writes a column noting that baby boomers are leaving the workforce, and some are dying off, leaving the country to our children and grandchildren. He concludes the piece with a comment on the national debt.
“To boot, there’s also a massive federal debt. Good luck.”
Given the enormous damage that we have done to the environment, our children and grandchildren would be enormously forgiving if all they blamed us for is the national debt. Of course, since we (baby boomers) will all be dead at some point, we will also be passing on the bonds that constitute the national debt to our children and grandchildren.
Most kids will not be inheriting bonds, due to the inequality of wealth, but at some future point, the debt will be held by the children and grandchildren of Bill Gates and his ilk, making the debt an issue of intra-generational inequality, not inter-generational inequality. But even beyond this logical point, the burden of the debt is also relatively low these days, around 1.0 percent of GDP, as opposed to 3.0 percent of GDP in the early 1990s. So it’s hard to see what the big deal is.
Also, Samuelson consistently ignores (like all deficit hawks) the implicit debt that the government creates by granting patent and copyright monopolies. These government-granted monopolies raise the price of items like prescription drugs, medical equipment, software, and other products by many hundred billion dollars annually above the free market price. Yet, the deficit hawks want us to pay no attention to this burden. If I were more cynical I would think they were getting money from the interest groups that benefit from these monopolies.
Anyhow, if the only thing our kids think we did was wrong was run up large government debt, then we failed big-time in giving them a decent education.
You have to love Robert Samuelson. He writes a column noting that baby boomers are leaving the workforce, and some are dying off, leaving the country to our children and grandchildren. He concludes the piece with a comment on the national debt.
“To boot, there’s also a massive federal debt. Good luck.”
Given the enormous damage that we have done to the environment, our children and grandchildren would be enormously forgiving if all they blamed us for is the national debt. Of course, since we (baby boomers) will all be dead at some point, we will also be passing on the bonds that constitute the national debt to our children and grandchildren.
Most kids will not be inheriting bonds, due to the inequality of wealth, but at some future point, the debt will be held by the children and grandchildren of Bill Gates and his ilk, making the debt an issue of intra-generational inequality, not inter-generational inequality. But even beyond this logical point, the burden of the debt is also relatively low these days, around 1.0 percent of GDP, as opposed to 3.0 percent of GDP in the early 1990s. So it’s hard to see what the big deal is.
Also, Samuelson consistently ignores (like all deficit hawks) the implicit debt that the government creates by granting patent and copyright monopolies. These government-granted monopolies raise the price of items like prescription drugs, medical equipment, software, and other products by many hundred billion dollars annually above the free market price. Yet, the deficit hawks want us to pay no attention to this burden. If I were more cynical I would think they were getting money from the interest groups that benefit from these monopolies.
Anyhow, if the only thing our kids think we did was wrong was run up large government debt, then we failed big-time in giving them a decent education.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The New York Times had an article on the Middle East peace plan being developed by Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. The piece tells readers:
“The idea is to secure financial commitments from wealthy Persian Gulf states as well as donors in Europe and Asia to induce the Palestinians and their allies to make political concessions to resolve the decades-old conflict with Israel. The White House has indicated that it is seeking tens of billions of dollars but would not identify a precise figure; diplomats and lawmakers have been told the goal is about $68 billion for the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.”
This is obviously quite vague, but it might be helpful to readers to put this $68 billion figure in context. First, it is a bit more than half of the estimated fortune of Jeff Bezos.
More importantly, if we take the total population of the four groups listed, it comes to roughly 120 million. This means that the sum that Trump and Kushner hope to raise to induce a commitment to their peace plan comes to $560 per person. This seems to be a one-time figure rather than any ongoing commitment of aid.
The New York Times had an article on the Middle East peace plan being developed by Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. The piece tells readers:
“The idea is to secure financial commitments from wealthy Persian Gulf states as well as donors in Europe and Asia to induce the Palestinians and their allies to make political concessions to resolve the decades-old conflict with Israel. The White House has indicated that it is seeking tens of billions of dollars but would not identify a precise figure; diplomats and lawmakers have been told the goal is about $68 billion for the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.”
This is obviously quite vague, but it might be helpful to readers to put this $68 billion figure in context. First, it is a bit more than half of the estimated fortune of Jeff Bezos.
More importantly, if we take the total population of the four groups listed, it comes to roughly 120 million. This means that the sum that Trump and Kushner hope to raise to induce a commitment to their peace plan comes to $560 per person. This seems to be a one-time figure rather than any ongoing commitment of aid.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
