3 ms·

I agree with this in that I believe that many industries (esp. health care) are being harmed by hyper-financialization, which is reducing transparency for consu

I agree with this in that I believe that many industries (esp. health care) are being harmed by hyper-financialization, which is reducing transparency for consumers and creating massive waste. What worries me is the part about judging the worthiness of an intervention based on a hypothetical homo economicus' decision to pay for it. These kinds of cost-benefit analyses end up feeling really strange when applied to things with strong "intangible" value. Even if set up in a well intentioned manner, I could see these kinds of analyses themselves becoming victims of regulatory capture and being used to restrict access to care rather than improve it, similar to how the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs[0] has used economic arguments to gut regulations on coal ash, vaping, and prison rape. [0]: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/did-economists-stop-congress-from https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/did-economists-stop-congr...

gowld 7y ago
I don't understand how the analysts could put a price tag of $300K+ on a prison rape, multiply by the number of rapes, and still conclude that it's not worth investing in prevention. Or, you know, if their argument is that the cost of preventing a rape is less than the cost of compensating victims, why the law isn't compensating victims. As it is, it's levying massive tax on victims of crimes. Same for the car backup camera law. OIRA is economically incoherent, by optimizing for supposed total utilitarian benefit without any regard for who gets the benefit. They block laws because they claim the cost to society is greater than the benefit to victims, and therefore rule that victims of catastrophes should get nothing. Under their own economic model, it's blatant theft from the poor to give to the rich. Here's the NYT trying to be "fair and balanced", but at least linking to a critical report, and a much later Reuters article with more critical detail. Naturally, since this malfeasance occured in the Democratic Obama administration, almost no one cared, and Twitter wasn't ablaze with complaints that Obama was killing children. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/science/earth/cass-sunstein-to-leave-top-regulatory-post.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/science/earth/cass-sunste... https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-regulations-oira/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-regu...

gowld 7y ago

I don't understand how the analysts could put a price tag of $300K+ on a prison rape, multiply by the number of rapes, and still conclude that it's not worth investing in prevention. Or, you know, if their argument is that the cost of preventing a rape is less than the cost of compensating victims, why the law isn't compensating victims. As it is, it's levying massive tax on victims of crimes. Same for the car backup camera law. OIRA is economically incoherent, by optimizing for supposed total utilitarian benefit without any regard for who gets the benefit. They block laws because they claim the cost to society is greater than the benefit to victims, and therefore rule that victims of catastrophes should get nothing. Under their own economic model, it's blatant theft from the poor to give to the rich. Here's the NYT trying to be "fair and balanced", but at least linking to a critical report, and a much later Reuters article with more critical detail. Naturally, since this malfeasance occured in the Democratic Obama administration, almost no one cared, and Twitter wasn't ablaze with complaints that Obama was killing children. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/science/earth/cass-sunstein-to-leave-top-regulatory-post.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/science/earth/cass-sunste... https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-regulations-oira/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-regu...