≡ Menu

Some Links

My intrepid Mercatus Center colleague, Veronique de Rugy, is not impressed with the evidence offered by members of Congress of the alleged successes of their boondoggles.

My GMU Econ colleague Bryan Caplan makes the case for housing deregulation. A slice:

Second, building off the work of Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag, Build, Baby, Build shows that housing regulation also reduces the upward mobility of the poor. Decades ago, when housing prices were much lower — and more nationally uniform — poor Americans had a clear path to a better life: move to a higher‐​wage part of the country. Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath notwithstanding, this strategy worked well. Now, however, poor Americans who try this route typically find that the extra housing cost in high‐​wage regions eats up more than 100 percent of the wage gain. Lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps is still possible, but used to be quite a bit easier.

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board decries the latest lawless power-grab by the Biden administration. A slice:

We’ve been chronicling how Biden regulators are dusting off old laws to seize more power over the private economy. Now comes the Food and Drug Administration, which on Monday redefined blood cancer, genetic and other innovative lab tests as—get this—medical devices like pacemakers.

FDA’s 528-page rule snatches authority over tests that are developed, manufactured and performed by labs. Doctors prescribe such tests to identify prenatal genetic abnormalities, predict hereditary disease risks, select therapies, diagnose infectious diseases, and more. They increasingly use algorithms and artificial intelligence.

The agency claims it has long held the authority to regulate tests under the 1976 Medical Device Amendments, which augmented its purview over diagnostic devices such as blood-glucose monitors and test materials. But lab tests aren’t devices. They are analytical processes and patient services.

No matter. The FDA will now require some 12,000 labs to submit tests for agency review.

Robby Soave is right: Despite the vileness of campus antisemitism, Congress has no business trying to restrict antisemitic speech there.

GMU Econ alum Jon Murphy explains that market concentration does not signal monopoly. A slice:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently launched an antitrust investigation into Amazon, alleging the firm had used monopoly power to suppress competition. Through the Amazon Marketplace, Amazon supposedly limits competition to promote certain sellers and brands at the expense of others. Prima facie, this complaint may make sense, but the economic understanding of a firm discussed above gives us reason to question the FTC’s argument. We must ask the question “as compared to what?” Absent Amazon Marketplace, would these sellers and their listed products exist? Amazon Marketplace reduces the cost, in both money and time, of online buyer-seller transactions. These independent sellers get access to Amazon’s platform, Amazon’s customers, Amazon’s payment handling system, and as such are able to quickly and efficiently coordinate with potential buyers. All of these transaction costs, when not subsidized by a large firm, can represent a significant hurdle to would-be sellers. By reducing transaction costs, Amazon increases the number of sellers (and buyers) in the market; they make it easier for sellers to enter the market, find buyers, and complete transactions. Thus, we see the FTC’s complaint gets things exactly backward: Amazon isn’t reducing competition. Amazon is increasing competition! Breaking up Amazon’s supposed monopoly would likely result in less competition, even if it makes the market appear to be less concentrated.

GMU Econ alum Paul Mueller chews on Florida’s ban on producing lab-grown meat.

Megan McArdle writes insightfully about campus protestors and Democratic politics. A slice:

Generations of progressive strategists have nonetheless been dazzled by visions of the enormous coalition they could build if young voters would just turn out to vote as readily as retirees do. But there’s a reason these visions keep failing to materialize. When you ask young voters what they care about most, bread-and-butter issues such as inflation, health care and jobs top the list, while progressive priorities such as climate change, student loan forgiveness and Israel-Palestine are at the bottom. Moreover, this is especially true of young voters who don’t vote regularly: “at all ages, less-engaged people are less ideological and more moderate than consistent voters,” political analyst Matt Yglesias writes.

Randy Holcombe is understandably unhappy with the TSA.

Juliette Sellgren talks with Alice Temnick about Adam Smith as educator.

Less Marx, More Mises.”