King’s College London economist Emily Skarbek (GMU Econ PhD, 2009) is now guest blogging at the indispensable EconLog. Here’s Emily’s first, outstanding post.
Also over at EconLog, David Henderson reflects on the FDA’s lethal powers. And don’t miss my colleague Dan Klein’s comment on David’s post:
Nice post. One comment: The focus of the NYT article is on shaving months off the decision on a new drug application. But the real issue is the extremely protracted many-years-long process of testing that precedes even submitting the application, a process ruled over by the FDA.
It’s great that Pazdur shaves a month or two off the final step, but the real issue is the regimented system of requirements preceding the application.
Debating the speed with which the FDA decides new drug applications is a bit like debating how quickly a state Bar examination is graded.
Arnold Kling reviews Scott Sumner’s The Midas Paradox. Here’s Arnold’s concluding, wise paragraph:
In my own somewhat idiosyncratic opinion, where macroeconomic thinking goes wrong is in treating the entire economy as if it were a single firm. This limits the possible margins of adjustment in the economy to crude aggregates, involving “the” real wage and “the” level of employment. Instead, I think it is important to remember that economic activity is divided into millions of different specialized tasks, and that most of the shocks to which the economy must adjust are localized shifts in relative demands and supplies. These take place as consumers change their tastes, entrepreneurs introduce new products and production processes, and the Schumpeterian process of creative destruction plays out.
Butler Shaffer understands the minimum wage for the folly that it is. (HT James Nellis)
Nicolas Cachanosky remembers his late father, Juan Carlos Cachanosky.
