4 ms·
One problem with this system in practice is that the federal government is already so expansive in terms of regulation and tax burden that there is not very muc
by jacoblyles 17y ago
One problem with this system in practice is that the federal government is already so expansive in terms of regulation and tax burden that there is not very much room left for states to experiment in.
California and Texas are very different states by some measures, but there are no states without Social Security, No Child Left Behind, the FDA, the War on Drugs or the Patriot Act, all things that I would prefer to do without.
- diN0bot 17y agoi'm curious about your qualms with the FDA and what you'd like to replace it with.
- jacoblyles 17y agoFDA liberalization is not exactly a fringe position among economists. The basic argument is that the FDA may kill more people than it saves and may hamper medical innovation in the long run. It's hard to measure counterfactuals, but you can measure the costs of FDA regulation which are huge, about 80% of the cost of a new drug. So the benefits of the FDA would also have to be huge to justify its existence. The arguments are out there if you are curious. You can find people that argue the position better than I can on a Hacker News comment thread.