Many of those with the passion to persevere in overcoming the necessary and unnecessary (regulatory) obstacles to medical innovation, do so because they have a sense of urgency due to skin in the game–they or a relative is directly affected by the disease they are passionate to cure. Dr. Edward Scolnick whose story I quote below, is a great example. In the story, we find another example, Ted Stanley, who donated $100 million to Scolnick because Stanley’s son is also suffering mental illness. And perhaps an indirect example? Rienhoff does not directly have skin in the game, but he is playing a key role because of Scolnick’s passion, and Scolnick’s passion is due to his skin in the game.
If we want more cures we will reduce the unnecessary (regulatory) obstacles so that those with less skin in the game (and so less passion to persevere) will also innovate.
[“Skin in the game” has been emphasized by Taleb in his book with that title.]
(p. A2) The U.S. was outperforming much of the world before Trump was elected.
His agenda could extend that outperformance by making the U.S. the preferred destination for foreign investment via lower taxes and regulation and even cheaper energy, while his promised tariffs hurt others’ exports.
. . .
Many at Davos blamed Europe’s dismal outlook on the failures of its own leaders, not on Trump.
European scientists are making progress on technologies that use genetically engineered microbes to solve any number of problems, said Kasim Kutay, the chief executive of Novo Holdings, which manages the assets and wealth of the foundation that controls Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk.
It takes seven to eight years, however, to get such a product approved by European regulators, compared with two to three in the U.S., he said: “A lot of that innovation is happening in Europe, but the companies ultimately seek funding in the U.S.”
One particular source of anxiety in Europe is that its top companies will move to the U.S. in search of higher stock valuations, less regulation and kinder treatment by Trump.
Rich Nuzum, global chief investment strategist for investment consultants Mercer, said Trump’s deregulatory drive might jolt Europe into action.
“If the U.S. economy continues to power ahead, if every company wants to be headquartered in the U.S. and traded in the U.S. because of a lighter regulatory burden…European C-suites will say to European policymakers, ‘Do something, or we’re going to move overseas.’”
The U.S. accounted for 44% of Swedish telecom equipment giant Ericsson’s net sales in the third quarter of 2024, up from 31% a year earlier. Chief Executive Börje Ekholm has criticized excessive regulation for discouraging the upgrading of Europe’s networks. Asked if Ericsson would move its head office to the U.S., Ekholm said: “We are Swedish based. But I think every company in Europe will need to think about this going forward.”
Like Europe, China faces headwinds; tariffs would be just one more.
China’s problem “is not Trump,” said Keyu Jin, a British-based economist specializing in the Chinese economy. “It’s the unemployment numbers. So many companies going under. So much debt the government owes to the private sector. The problems with young people. The ‘lying flat’ problem.”
For the full story see:
(Note: ellipsis between paragraphs, added; ellipsis internal to a paragraph, in original.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date January 22, 2025, and has the title “Trump’s Arrival Brightens U.S. Outlook, Darkens Everyone Else’s.”)