Category: Economics

Regulations Slow Eradication of Cancer

(p. D3) . . . the triumph of chemotherapy for Hodgkin’s and then for many other tumors opened an interlocking series of dilemmas. In the clinic and the hospital, the new protocols demanded that doctors muster the courage to make their patients very sick in order to make them well. But how sick was too sick? The risks and benefits of the powerful treatments now needed careful, deliberate assessment at every stage of the disease.
Similar questions dogged those who developed, evaluated and regulated the drugs. How poisonous could these agents safely be? How assiduously should desperate patients be saved by their government from pharmaceutical risk?
Dr. DeVita stands firmly among those affirming cancer patients’ right to aggressive treatment. One particular exchange summarizes his philosophy: “Do your patients speak to you after you do this to them?” one skeptic asked him early on. “The answer is yes,” he replied, “and for a lot longer.”
The regulatory caution of the Food and Drug Administration has been a thorn in his side for decades: “I’d like to be able to say that as cancer drugs have become increasingly more complex and sophisticated, the F.D.A. has as well. But it has not.” In fact, he writes, “the rate-limiting step in eradicating cancer today is not the science but the regulatory environment we work in.”

For the full review, see:
ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D. “An Unbowed Warrior.” The New York Times (Tues., Dec.. 1, 2015): D3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date NOV. 30, 2015, and has the title “Review: Science and Politics Collide in ‘The Death of Cancer’.”)

The book under review, is:
DeVita, Vincent T., and Elizabeth DeVita-Raeburn. The Death of Cancer: After Fifty Years on the Front Lines of Medicine, a Pioneering Oncologist Reveals Why the War on Cancer Is Winnable–and How We Can Get There. New York: Sarah Crichton Books, 2015.

Private Start-Ups Pursue Fusion Approaches Ignored by Government

(p. B5) Fusion reactions release no carbon dioxide. Their fuel, derived from water, is abundant. Compared with contemporary nuclear reactors, which produce energy by splitting atoms apart, a fusion plant would produce little radioactive waste.
The possibilities have attracted Jeffrey P. Bezos, founder of Amazon.com. He has invested in General Fusion, a start-up in British Columbia, through Bezos Expeditions, the firm that manages his venture capital investments. Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft, is betting on another fusion company, Tri Alpha Energy, based in Foothill Ranch, Calif., an hour south of Los Angeles, through his venture arm, Vulcan Capital.
Peter Thiel — the co-founder of PayPal, who once lamented the superficiality of the technology sector by saying, “We were promised flying cars and we got 140 characters” — has invested in a third fusion start-up, Helion Energy, based near Seattle, through Mithril Capital Management.
Government money fueled a surge in fusion research in the 1970s, but the fusion budget was cut nearly in half over the next decade. Federal research narrowed on what scientists saw as the most promising prototype — a machine called a tokamak, which uses magnets to contain and fuse a spinning, doughnut-shape cloud of hydrogen.
Today’s start-ups are trying to perfect some of the ideas that the government left by the wayside.
After earning his doctorate from the University of California, Irvine, in the mid-1990s, Michl Binderbauer had trouble securing federal funds to research an alternative approach to fusion that the American government briefly explored — one that adds the element boron into the hydrogen fuel. The advantage of the mixture is that the reaction does not fling off neutrons that, like shrapnel, can wear down machine parts and make them radioactive.
Mr. Binderbauer, along with his Ph.D. adviser, Norman Rostoker, founded Tri Alpha Energy, eventually raising money from the venture capital arms of Mr. Allen and the Rockefeller family. The company has raised over $200 million.

For the full story, see:
DINO GRANDONI. “Start-Ups Take on Challenge of Fusion.” The New York Times (Mon., OCT. 26, 2015): B1 & B5.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date OCT. 25, 2015, and has the title “Start-Ups Take On Challenge of Nuclear Fusion.”)

Koch Employees Motivated by the Fulfillment of Meaningful Work

(p. A11) . . . , Mr. Koch defines “principled entrepreneurship” as the effort to maximize profit by “creating superior value,” as well as by “acting lawfully and with integrity.” What is good for business, he says, is good for society–another aspect of good profit.
The culture of a company is formed, Mr. Koch observes, when employees internalize such principles and practices. Although employees should be urged, he says, to be agents of change, to think critically and, when necessary, to challenge the decisions of their bosses, they will find that their most significant motivation is a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. “We cannot ignite a passion for creating the greatest value,” Mr. Koch writes, “if there is no meaning in our work.”

For the full review, see:
JOSEPH MACIARIELLO. “BOOKSHELF; The Company He Keeps; Respect means treating people on their merits–not according to the rigid categories of identity politics. Merit will always create value.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., Oct. 23, 2015): A11.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Oct. 22, 2015.)

The book under review, is:
Koch, Charles G. Good Profit: How Creating Value for Others Built One of the World’s Most Successful Companies. New York: Crown Business, 2015.

Focused Investing by Entrepreneurs Can Create Illiquid Wealth that Is Large But Precarious

The implications of the point made in the passages quoted below, were boldly drawn out by George Gilder in his article “The Enigma of Entrepreneurial Wealth.”

(p. B4) Wealth-X found that from July 2014 to July 2015, 45 percent of the ultrawealthy in the United States lost some part of their wealth; 11 percent lost more than half of it.

The reasons for the drop in wealth differed. But why so many ultra-wealthy people — defined as those with more than $30 million — lost so much of their wealth so quickly offers lessons in financial management, no matter how much money you have.
Sure, this group still has a lot of money. But those who lost a lot of money made similar mistakes: Too much of their money was tied up in one investment and too little of their money was in cash or some other liquid investment. And too often, they didn’t think enough about the likelihood that something could go wrong.
. . .
“A lot of people have this view that wealth is inherited,” said Mykolas Rambus, chief executive of Wealth-X. “That’s very much not the case.” Most are successful entrepreneurs who built fortunes, he said, “And most of their money is in privately held companies, not your Googles and Facebooks.”
He said 75 percent of the world’s wealth, when real estate is included, was privately held.
In the period examined by Wealth-X, overconcentration and illiquidity were big factors when someone lost a fortune.
Curtis James Jackson III, better known as the rapper 50 Cent, was worth $240 million in May 2014 and about $50 million last month, according to Wealth-X. The precipitous drop was caused almost entirely by the falling values of four of his companies, with interests ranging from clothing to film production. They declined to $7.2 million from $150 million in 12 months, according to Wealth-X’s research.
The same could be said for Mr. Charney, who was ousted from his company American Apparel, which later filed for bankruptcy protection. His share of the company was estimated at over $65 million in May 2014 and is now virtually worthless. At American Apparel’s height, in 2007, Forbes put Mr. Charney’s stake at $550 million.
“Every financial adviser in the United States says you’ve got to diversify,” Mr. Rambus said. “There is a lesson here about volatility and concentration. Rewind to the dot-com crash. There were plenty of folks who were seriously overexposed to tech and lost their shirts.”
But there’s a paradox here. Generally, it was overconcentration in one, illiquid company — whose value rose exponentially — that made people ultrawealthy in the first place.

For the full story, see:
PAUL SULLIVAN . “Wealth Matters; Reversal of Fortunes for Some Superrich.” The New York Times (Sat., DEC. 12, 2015): B4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 11, 2015, and has the title “Wealth Matters; The Bad Fortune of Some Ultrawealthy People.”)

The Gilder article praised above, is:
Gilder, George. “The Enigma of Entrepreneurial Wealth.” Inc. 14, no. 10 (Oct. 1992): 161-64, 66 & 68.

North Dakota Plans a Drone Silicon Valley

For many years state governments and universities have been trying to plan the creation of new Silicon Valleys in their own backyards. Success has been elusive. Now North Dakota is tying to create a drone Silicon Valley. My take: Silicon Valleys cannot be planned, though they can be encouraged by low taxes and limited regulations.

(p. A1) FARGO, N.D. — “California and New York want what we’ve got,” said Shawn Muehler, a 30-year-old Fargo resident, gazing at a horizon of empty fields, silos, windbreak trees and hardly any people. A winged craft traces the air, mapping a field with pinpoint accuracy for his start-up, a drone software company called Botlink. “They like drones, but they’ve got a steep learning curve ahead.”

For years, entrepreneurs have come here to farm and to drill for oil and natural gas. Now a new, tech-savvy generation is grabbing a piece of the growing market for drone technology and officials want to help them do it here, where there is plenty of open space and — unlike in other sparsely populated states — lots of expertise already in place.
Silicon Valley has the big money and know-how, Mr. Muehler and others say, but North Dakota can take unmanned aerial vehicles, as the officials prefer to call drones, from a fast-growing hobby to an industry. And just as Silicon Valley got its start with military contracts, entrepreneurs and cooperative universities, they believe they can do the same with drones.
“The potential up here is tremendous,” said Jack Dalrymple, the state’s governor. “It’s not about supporting a company or two; it’s creating the leading edge of an industry.”
North Dakota has spent about (p. B7) $34 million fostering the state’s unmanned aerial vehicle business, most notably with a civilian industrial park for drones near Grand Forks Air Force Base. The base, a former Cold War installation, now flies nothing but robot aircraft for the United States military and Customs and Border Protection.

For the full story, see:
QUENTIN HARDY. “A Silicon Valley for Drone Craft in Great Plains.” The New York Times (Sat., DEC. 26, 2015): A1 & B7.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 25, 2015, and has the title “A Silicon Valley for Drones, in North Dakota.”)

Behavioral Economists Ignore Biases and Irrationalities of Governments

(p. A4) . . . it is quite a leap between acknowledging markets sometimes fail and arguing they are inherently flawed. Policy makers who work from the second assumption risk overreaching, by seeing market failure where there is none and ignoring their own behavioral biases, in either case leaving people worse off, not better. Public trust in free markets hasn’t wavered notably in the U.S. or Britain from precrisis levels and even in the pope’s native Argentina, attitudes aren’t much more negative than in 2009.
. . .
. . . , consumers don’t seem irrational when they evaluate fuel economy; one study found changes in gasoline prices are closely reflected in the relative prices of less fuel-efficient used cars.
Besides, as Mr. Viscusi and Mr. Gayer note, the government has behavioral biases of its own. Courts and regulators assign more value to the potential harm of a new drug than its potential benefits. Politicians take actions out of proportion to the risks, for example by closing schools during the Ebola scare or imposing onerous airline-security checks to prevent terrorist hijackings.

For the full commentary, see:
GREG IP. “Market Critics Shouldn’t Overreach.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Sept. 24, 2015): A2.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 23, 2015, and has the title “Critics of Free Market Shouldn’t Overreach.” Where there are minor differences between the print and online versions of the article, the sentences quoted above follow the online version.)

The Vicusi and Gayer paper mentioned above, is:
Viscusi, W. Kip, and Ted Gayer. “Behavioral Public Choice: The Behavioral Paradox of Government Policy.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 38, no. 3 (Summer 2015): 973-1007.

How to Monopolize a Dead Technology

(p. C3) LOS ANGELES — When Quentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” is released in a special roadshow version (with overture, intermission and additional footage) on Dec. 25, it will represent a feat worthy of the heist in the director’s “Jackie Brown.”
The film is scheduled to open on 96 screens in the United States and four in Canada, all in 70-millimeter projection, a premium format associated with extravaganzas of the 1950s and 1960s.
Yet from a theatrical standpoint, the technology is nearly obsolete. Last year, “Interstellar” opened in 70 millimeter at only 11 comparable locations. There were only 16 in 2012 for “The Master,” which renewed interested in the format. No film has opened with 100 70-millimeter prints since 1992. According to the National Association of Theater Owners, 97 percent of the 40,000 screens in the United States now use digital projection.

. . .
“We looked around for anybody who was selling them,” said Erik Lomis, Weinstein’s president of theatrical distribution and home entertainment. “We tried to keep it as quiet as possible as to why. Eventually word leaked out why we were looking for them, and then the price went up.”
. . .
“We’ve been accused of actually cornering the market on 70-millimeter projectors,” Mr. Cutler said. “It’s probably pretty true. There probably aren’t too many out there that we didn’t find.” Most of them were destroyed, he added, during the conversion to digital projection.
. . .
Ultra Panavision also produces subtle aesthetic effects, unusual even to viewers familiar with 70 millimeter. The lens “for lack of a better word is a softer lens,” Mr. Sasaki said. During a screening of test footage for the film, he pointed out the impressionistic qualities of the focus and explained how the image catered to our eyes’ natural depth cues.
With projectors found and lenses made, the next hurdle is labor: Most theaters no longer have projectionists with a working knowledge of these machines. Mr. Cutler’s company will provide training for each site. “One way or the other, we will fulfill this need,” he said. “It will be a combination of house staff that we can train, professional projectionists that we can bring in, projectionists that we can find locally, and potentially some technical staff that we’ll bring in.” Every theater showing the film will get a spare set of belts, fuses and light bulbs, and instructions. Mr. Cutler’s staff will also be standing by for calls.

For the full story, see:
BEN KENIGSBERG. “In a World Gone Digital, Room for a Lost Format.” The New York Times (Thurs., NOV. 12, 2015): C3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date NOV. 11, 2015, and has the title “Tarantino’s ‘The Hateful Eight’ Resurrects Nearly Obsolete Technology.”)

Fewer Startups and Slower Growth Among the Fewer: Double Whammy to Economic Growth

(p. 7B) Previous studies have shown that, despite the success of firms like Facebook, the number of startups has dropped sharply, from about 13 percent of all firms in the late 1980s to about 8 percent in 2011. Now, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research reports that the expansion of the remaining startups — which traditionally has been much faster than the growth of existing companies — has slowed considerably. By some measures, it now barely exceeds the average of older companies.
So there’s a double whammy: fewer startups and slower growth among the survivors. This could be one reason why the recovery from the Great Recession has been so sluggish, with the economy’s growth averaging about 2 percent annually from 2010 to 2014, much slower than earlier post-World War II recoveries.

For the full commentary, see:
Robert J. Samuelson. “Our rate of startups is stalling at an inopportune time.” Omaha World-Herald (Sun., Dec. 20, 2015): 7B.

I strongly suspect, but am not sure, that the NBER working paper referred to above, is:
Decker, Ryan, John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. “Where Has All the Skewness Gone? The Decline in High-Growth (Young) Firms in the U.S.” NBER Working Paper # 21776, Dec. 2015.

“We’re from the Streets and We Want Change”

(p. A9) CARACAS, Venezuela — On a sunny afternoon, Jorge Millán, an opposition candidate for congress, walked through the narrow streets of a lower-middle-class neighborhood, pressing the flesh in what was once a no man’s land for people like him.

. . .
With the economy sinking under the weight of triple-digit inflation, a deep recession, shortages of basic goods and long lines at stores despite the nation’s vast oil reserves, the opposition has its best chance in years to win a legislative majority.
. . .
“I was a Chavista, but Chávez isn’t here anymore,” said Mr. Omaña, referring to the followers of the former president.
“It’s this guy,” he said, referring to Mr. Maduro. “It’s not the same.”
Mr. Omaña complained about having to stand in long lines to buy food and about the fast-rising prices, saying that for the first time since Mr. Chávez was elected in 1998 he would vote for an opposition candidate.
“Enough is enough,” he said. “We need something good for Venezuela.”
Venezuelan politics was dominated after 1998 by Mr. Chávez and the movement he started, which he called the Bolivarian revolution, after the country’s independence hero, Simón Bolívar. Mr. Chávez died in 2013, and his disciple, Mr. Maduro, was elected to succeed him, vowing to continue Mr. Chávez’s socialist-inspired policies.
. . .
Opposition candidates said one of the biggest surprises of the campaign has been the warm reception they have received in what were once hostile pro-government strongholds.
Carlos Mendoza, 53, a motorcycle taxi driver and former convict who works in the district where Mr. Millán is running, said that he belongs to a group, known as a colectivo, that in the past was paid by the government to help out during campaigns, attend rallies and drive voters to the polls. Such groups were also often used to intimidate opposition supporters.
“They called us again this time,” Mr. Mendoza said. “I told them, ‘No way, you’re not using me again.’ ”
“We’re from the streets,” he said, “and we want change.”

For the full story, see:
WILLIAM NEUMAN. “Venezuela’s Economic Pain Gives Opposition Lift Before Vote.” The New York Times (Sat., DEC. 5, 2015): A9.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 4, 2015, and has the title “Venezuela’s Economic Woes Buoy Opposition Before Election.”)

Affirmative Action Reduces Number of Black Scientists

Malcolm Gladwell, in chapter three of David and Goliath, persuasively argues that science students who would thrive at a solid public university, may be at the bottom of their class at Harvard, and in discouragement switch to an easier non-science major. Gladwell’s argument has implications for affirmative action, as noted by Gail Heriot in the passages quoted below.

(p. A13) . . . , numerous studies–as I explain in a recent report for the Heritage Foundation–show that the supposed beneficiaries of affirmative action are less likely to go on to high-prestige careers than otherwise-identical students who attend schools where their entering academic credentials put them in the middle of the class or higher. In other words, encouraging black students to attend schools where their entering credentials place them near the bottom of the class has resulted in fewer black physicians, engineers, scientists, lawyers and professors than would otherwise be the case.

But university administrators don’t want to hear that their support for affirmative action has left many intended beneficiaries worse off, and they refuse to take the evidence seriously.
The mainstream media support them on this. The Washington Post, for instance, recently featured a story lamenting that black students are less likely to major in science and engineering than their Asian or white counterparts. Left unstated was why. As my report shows, while black students tend to be a little more interested in majoring in science and engineering than whites when they first enter college, they transfer into softer majors in much larger numbers and so end up with fewer science or engineering degrees.
This is not because they don’t have the right stuff. Many do–as demonstrated by the fact that students with identical entering academic credentials attending somewhat less competitive schools persevere in their quest for a science or engineering degree and ultimately succeed. Rather, for many, it is because they took on too much, too soon given their level of academic preparation.

For the full commentary, see:
GAIL HERIOT. “Why Aren’t There More Black Scientists? The evidence suggests that one reason is the perverse impact of university racial preferences.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Oct. 22, 2015): A13.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated on Oct. 21, 2015.)

Heriot’s report for the Heritage Foundation, is:
Heriot, Gail. “A “Dubious Expediency”: How Race-Preferential Admissions Policies on Campus Hurt Minority Students.” Heritage Foundation Special Report #167, Aug. 31, 2015.

Gladwell’s book, mentioned above, is:
Gladwell, Malcolm. David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2013.

“Growing Emphasis on Climate Aid Is Immoral”

(p. A13) . . . aid is being diverted to climate-related matters at the expense of improved public health, education and economic development. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has analyzed about 70% of total global development aid and found that about one in four of those dollars goes to climate-related aid.
In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.

For the full commentary, see:
BJORN LOMBORG. “This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel; Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Oct. 22, 2015): A13.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated on Oct. 21, 2015.)