3 ms·

> the opposite of "big government" is not "corrupt government". It always has been. The point is not that it's impossible to imagine a libertarian utopia wher

> the opposite of "big government" is not "corrupt government". It always has been. The point is not that it's impossible to imagine a libertarian utopia where lean and minimal regulation works for the benefit of all. It's just that everyone who's tried has ended up producing do-nothing systems like this. It's absolutely true that the FDA "has" the authority. But it's run by appointees from a culture where "doing stuff" is perceived as "big government", and therefore bad. So they don't.

leetcrew 5y ago
I'm really not sure I understand your argument here. the FDA is quite far from some libertarian ideal of minimal regulation. on the contrary, this news story makes a great example of the dangers of regulatory capture when a government institution literally decides on a case-by-case basis what products are allowed to compete in the market. I personally wouldn't go that far; I think it's worth having some oversight regarding food and drug safety. since you agree that the FDA does have the necessary legal authority, I'm curious what you think the fix is here. if we give it even more money and legal powers, would that be enough for it to do its job? I somehow doubt that.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Are big governments less corrupt?
- newacct583 5y ago
  By the metric we're looking at, where a drug gets approved despite a unanimous thumbs down from the official advisory panel? Of course they're less corrupt. This simply doesn't happen unless the FDA is captured.
  - vxNsr 5y ago
    You’ve painted a black and white painting and are now trying to fit everything in the world into one side or the other. Read through the other comments in the top thread, it’s not nearly as simple as you’re making it out. And as usual the people trying to make it seem simple are either being naive or ignorant.
  - oezi 5y ago
    The FDA definitely isn't captured. The amount of fear and respect it commands in the industry is big even in the biggest medical device companies. I experienced how a competitor got shutdown, because they took a warning letter too lightly for another product in the same plant. The competitor lost more than 500m USD and never recovered in our market.

leetcrew 5y ago

I'm really not sure I understand your argument here. the FDA is quite far from some libertarian ideal of minimal regulation. on the contrary, this news story makes a great example of the dangers of regulatory capture when a government institution literally decides on a case-by-case basis what products are allowed to compete in the market. I personally wouldn't go that far; I think it's worth having some oversight regarding food and drug safety. since you agree that the FDA does have the necessary legal authority, I'm curious what you think the fix is here. if we give it even more money and legal powers, would that be enough for it to do its job? I somehow doubt that.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

Are big governments less corrupt?

newacct583 5y ago
By the metric we're looking at, where a drug gets approved despite a unanimous thumbs down from the official advisory panel? Of course they're less corrupt. This simply doesn't happen unless the FDA is captured.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  You’ve painted a black and white painting and are now trying to fit everything in the world into one side or the other. Read through the other comments in the top thread, it’s not nearly as simple as you’re making it out. And as usual the people trying to make it seem simple are either being naive or ignorant.
- oezi 5y ago
  The FDA definitely isn't captured. The amount of fear and respect it commands in the industry is big even in the biggest medical device companies. I experienced how a competitor got shutdown, because they took a warning letter too lightly for another product in the same plant. The competitor lost more than 500m USD and never recovered in our market.