Category: Regulations

Private Sector Succeeds Where Public Sector Fails at Operating a Successful Passenger Train

The New York Times recently ran a surprising (for them) article highlighting the success of the privately owned Brightline passenger railroad on the east coast of Florida. The Times contrasts the private success of Brightline with the public failures of Amtrak and California’s mostly undone proposed bullet train. Amtrak ran an operating deficit of over $700 million in 2024. The long-planned, barely-begun, pared-back California bullet train is now estimated to require over $100 billion to reach completion.

Maybe Brightline succeeds because the private sector allows entrepreneurs to use what Deirdre McCloskey calls trade-tested innovation to pursue their projects.

The private sector allows innovative dynamism.

The New York Times article is:

Michael Kimmelman. “What’s So Hard About Building High-Speed Trains?” The New York Times (Sat., April 19, 2025): B4-B5.

(Note: the online version of the article was updated April 18, 2025, and has the title “What’s So Hard About Building Trains?”)

McCloskey discusses trade-tested innovation in:

McCloskey, Deirdre N. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital, Transformed the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2016.

I discuss innovative dynamism in:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

“If She Ever Had a Clever Thought, It Died Alone and Afraid”

I still smile whenever I see a Tesla Cybertruck. Boldly audacious–its mere existence gives me hope for the future. If I could charge its battery as fast as I can fill a tank of gas, I would buy one tomorrow. I still worry that Musk will implode or cave. But right now he looks like a genuine hero, defending free speech by buying Twitter, taking on the deep state by creating DOGE, solving the engineering challenges to make the dream of Mars a reality!

(p. B1) When Jennifer Trebb first pulled into her driveway two years ago with her sleek Tesla Model Y, it was — as she put it — “kind of like a ‘Back to the Future’ moment.”

She was helping the environment, she said, but driving a Tesla also had cachet. “It was definitely a little bit of a cool moment to have something that was innovative and different,” she said.

But Ms. Trebb recently made a U-turn, joining the ranks of Tesla owners in the United States and overseas — some well known, including the singer Sheryl Crow — who are selling their vehicles because the values and politics of the company’s billionaire chief executive, Elon Musk, are alienating them, they say.

. . .

(p. B6) In the United States, perhaps the most notable rebuke of the car brand was lodged by Ms. Crow, the singer-songwriter, who posted an Instagram video in February [2025] showing her waving goodbye as her electric vehicle was driven away on a flatbed truck.

. . .

In an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, mocked Ms. Crow’s protest.

“I think she means well, but if she ever had a clever thought, it died alone and afraid,” Mr. Kennedy said.

For the full story see:

Neil Vigdor. “Tesla for Sale: Buyer’s Remorse Sets In For E.V. Owners Who’ve Soured on Musk.” The New York Times (Friday, March 7, 2025): B1 & B6.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated March 5, 2025, and has the title “Tesla for Sale: Buyer’s Remorse Sinks In for Elon Musk’s E.V.-Owning Critics.”)

Trump Hits ‘New High Water Mark’ for Deregulation

In my friendly debate with fellow libertarians, the passages quoted below support my claim/hope that Trump’s deregulation and downsizing efforts will prove to be substantial.

(p. A2) WASHINGTON—President Trump is following through on his pledge to usher in one of the most sweeping deregulatory drives in modern U.S. history, moving swiftly to slash environmental rules and bank oversight, remove barriers to cryptocurrencies, and reverse the Biden administration’s restrictions on energy production.

The most aggressive plans for a red-tape rollback have come from the Environmental Protection Agency, which in a single day announced 31 actions to deregulate U.S. environmental policies, including rules for power plants, the oil-and-gas industry, electric vehicles and wastewater.

Venture Global, a liquefied natural gas exporter, in early March announced an $18 billion investment in a Louisiana project, following the administration’s reversal of President Joe Biden’s freeze on approvals for LNG gas export plants, which has yielded plans for new projects and expansions. The Trump administration is “getting the red tape, getting the federal government off the back of the worker, off the back of companies,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in an address to workers at the Louisiana facility.

. . .

Trump’s deregulatory moves are widespread: The Securities and Exchange Commission is backing away from Biden’s climate-related disclosure rules; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. rolled back a Biden-era policy that had stepped up scrutiny of large bank mergers; and the Interior and Housing and Urban Development departments are aiming to streamline regulations to spur the construction of housing on millions of acres of federal land.

Taken together, Trump’s moves are setting “the new high water mark in terms of the deregulatory agenda,” said Travis Fisher, who served in the first Trump administration and is now the director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank. He added that Trump is “moving more boldly than Ronald Reagan.”

Investors, bullish about Trump’s deregulatory agenda, sent stocks soaring after the election.

For the full story see:

Scott Patterson and Amrith Ramkumar. “Deregulation Hits ‘New High Water Mark’.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., March 29, 2025): A2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 28, 2025, and has the title “Trump Ushers In ‘New High Water Mark’ for Deregulation.” The passages quoted include a couple of sentences that appear in the online, but not the printed, version of the article.)

Ramaswamy Avowed That the F.D.A. “Erects Unnecessary Barriers to Innovation”

The New York Times article quoted below worried that if Vivek Ramaswamy succeeded in “slashing regulation” of drugs, his own drug development firm would have benefitted. Maybe so, but that misses the main point–all the rest of us also would have benefitted by medical entrepreneurs being allowed to create more and quicker cures. Presumably The New York Times was relieved when Ramaswamy resigned from DOGE, but I was discouraged.

I was in favor of Elon Musk’s push to reduce the number of federal employees. But I was even more in favor of Vivek Ramaswamy’s push to deregulate innovative entrepreneurs.

[By the way, isn’t it predictable that The New York Times delights in highlighting Roivant’s one failure, but gives only passing scant mention to its six successes?]

(p. A10) Vivek Ramaswamy is the less famous and less wealthy half of the duo of billionaires that President-elect Donald J. Trump has designated to slash government costs.

. . .

At 39, he is one of the world’s youngest billionaires, having made his fortune in the pharmaceutical industry.  . . .

Mr. Ramaswamy, who owns a stake currently valued at nearly $600 million in a biotechnology company he started, has called for changes at the Food and Drug Administration that would speed up drug approvals.

. . .

Since being named to jointly lead DOGE, Mr. Ramaswamy had until recently been posting on Mr. Musk’s social media site X, hinting about where he may look to make changes in the government.

He called for slashing regulation, not just cutting government spending. He pointed to federal workers focused on diversity as potential targets for “mass firings.”

And he has been taking aim at the F.D.A. “My #1 issue with FDA is that it erects unnecessary barriers to innovation,” he wrote on X. He criticized the agency’s general requirement that drugmakers conduct two successful major studies to win approval rather than one.

Mr. Ramaswamy founded his biotechnology company, Roivant Sciences, in 2014, betting that he could find hidden gems whose potential had been overlooked by large drugmakers. The idea was to hunt for experimental medications languishing within large pharmaceutical companies, buy them for cheap and spin out a web of subsidiaries to bring them to market.

The venture is best known for a spectacular failure.

In 2015, Mr. Ramaswamy whipped up hype and investment around one of his finds, a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease being developed by one of his subsidiaries, Axovant. Two years later, a clinical trial showed that it did not work, erasing more than $1.3 billion in Axovant’s stock value in a single day.

Mr. Ramaswamy personally lost money on paper on the failure, but thanks to the savvy way he had structured his web of companies he and Roivant weathered the storm. Six products have won F.D.A. approval, and today Roivant has a market valuation of $8 billion.

Mr. Ramaswamy sold some of his Roivant stock to take a large payout in 2020, reporting nearly $175 million in capital gains on his tax return that year. But he is still one of the company’s largest shareholders.

If Mr. Ramaswamy recommends changes that speed up drug approvals through DOGE, that could be good news for Roivant, which is developing drugs that might come up for approval during Mr. Trump’s second term. The faster it can get medicines onto the market, the more valuable the company — and Mr. Ramaswamy’s stake in it — stands to become.

For the full story see:

Rebecca Robbins, Maureen Farrell and Jonathan Weisman. “From Ramaswamy’s High-Profile Perch, a Web of Potential Conflicts.” The New York Times (Thursday, January 16, 2025): A10.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 15, 2025, and has the title “Ramaswamy Has a High-Profile Perch and a Raft of Potential Conflicts.” At one point this entry was posted on March 30. I had not noted that another entry had been posted for March 30, so for consistency I moved this entry to April 23.)

If Risks Are Low and Alternatives Few, Let Patients Try Therapies That Lack Proof of Efficacy

I like Dr. Shirvalkar’s decision process quoted below. He says that a patient should be allowed to take a therapy without proof of efficacy, if the costs and risks are low.

This decision process is consistent with my suggestion that the F.D.A. should stop mandating efficacy, and limit itself to only mandating safety, thus greatly reducing the costs of drug development.

(p. D7) Acetaminophen. Acupuncture. Massage. Muscle relaxants. Cannabinoids. Opioids. The list of available treatments for low back pain goes on and on. But there’s not good evidence that these treatments actually reduce the pain, according to a new study that summarized the results of hundreds of randomized trials.

. . .

Aidan Cashin, the paper’s first author and deputy director of the research group Center for Pain IMPACT at Neuroscience Research Australia, said the aim of the study was to identify which first-line treatments for low back pain had any specific effects beyond a placebo, which might merit further study and which may not be worth pursuing.

. . .

One limitation of the type of analysis that Dr. Cashin conducted was that it aggregated data from different studies and different populations in order to emulate one large trial. But in the process, a strong signal from one study that a treatment worked could be diluted amid noise from other studies that may not have been designed as well, he said.

. . .

The evidence for something like heat might be inconclusive, doctors said, but they would still recommend that patients try it. “It’s cheap, it’s accessible, it almost causes no harm,” Dr. Shirvalkar said.

For the full story see:

Nina Agrawal. “Low Back Pain Relief Is Stubbornly Elusive.” The New York Times (Tuesday, March 25, 2025): D7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated March 24, 2025, and has the title “What Works for Low Back Pain? Not Much, a New Study Says.” Where the versions differ, in the passages quoted above, I follow the online version.)

Alternatives to Government F.D.A.: Private “High-Quality Third-Party Seals of Approval”

The many label inaccuracies found in the “2022 study” (Crawford et al. 2022) mentioned below would seem to bode ill for the supplement consumer. But if you look at the “new study” you will find that NONE of the 30 supplements they examined had “a third-party certification seal.” This leaves open the plausible possibility that prudent consumers could do well for themselves by limiting their supplement purchases to those with a private third-party certification seal. It would be very useful if someone does another study–this one to confirm or refute my hypothesis that supplements with third-party certification seals had many fewer label inaccuracies. Confirmation would be evidence that the consumer could do well without the F.D.A.’s governmental regulatory mandates.

The relevant quotation from the “2022 study” (Crawford et al. 2022) is:

“No product had a third-party certification seal (ie, naming the third-party company), such as BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), NSF (National Sanitation Foundation)International, Informed Sport, or USP (US Pharmacopeia), presented on the label” (Crawford et al. 2022, pp. 3 & 5 [all of p. 4 was a table]).”

(p. D7) Supplements claiming to support immunity often contain vitamins and minerals necessary for the immune system. So it isn’t unreasonable to believe that these products could help you sidestep common viral infections or lessen symptoms once you’ve become sick.

In fact, some nutrients such as vitamins A, C, D and zinc are needed to protect against germs, and deficiencies in them raise your risk of becoming sick, said Dr. Mahtab Jafari, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine.

. . .

It’s hard to firmly state the benefits of immune system supplements because there are few high-quality randomized clinical trials, the gold standard of medical research, assessing their effectiveness, said Dr. Pieter Cohen, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who studies dietary supplement safety.

And dietary supplements aren’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration before hitting the market.

This means companies can sell products containing ingredients that haven’t been rigorously tested to offer benefits, Dr. Cohen said, and they generally don’t have to prove to the F.D.A. that their products contain what they claim.

A 2022 study analyzing 30 supplements marketed to support the immune system found that more than half had inaccurate labels, 13 were misbranded and nine contained ingredients not listed on the label.

. . .

“You need to have a really healthy dose of skepticism when you’re pulling something off the shelf,” Dr. Ben-Aderet said.

But if you want to give supplements a try, check for high-quality third-party seals of approval from organizations such as U.S. Pharmacopeia or NSF, which test the quality of dietary supplements, Dr. Jafari said.

For the full story see:

Katie Mogg. “Supplements and Claims of Improved Immunity.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 25, 2025): D7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated March 3, 2025, and has the title “Can Vitamin C and Zinc Actually Boost Your Immune System?”)

The “2022 study” mentioned above is:

Crawford, Cindy, Bharathi Avula, Andrea T. Lindsey, Abraham Walter, Kumar Katragunta, Ikhlas A. Khan, and Patricia A. Deuster. “Analysis of Select Dietary Supplement Products Marketed to Support or Boost the Immune System.” JAMA Network Open 5, no. 8 (2022): e2226040-e40.

New York Times Says Trump “Has Waged a Multipronged Assault at Regulations” on Environment

The passages quoted below are further evidence apropos my dialogue with my libertarian friends who argue that the Trump administration’s efforts to deregulate and downsize have failed.

(p. 1) With a flurry of actions that have stretched the limits of presidential power, Mr. Trump has gutted federal climate efforts, rolled back regulations aimed at limiting pollution and given a major boost to the fossil fuel industry.

. . .

To achieve such a wholesale overhaul of the country’s climate policies in such a short time, the Trump administration has reneged on federal grants, fired workers en masse and attacked longstanding environmental regulations.

. . .

(p. 31) [Trump] has waged a multipronged assault at regulations designed to curb pollution, immediately sweeping some rules to the side and circumventing the normally lengthy rule-making processes. At the same time, Mr. Trump has declared an energy emergency, giving himself the authority to fast-track the construction of oil and gas projects as he works to stoke supply as well as demand for fossil fuels.

. . .

The administration and Republicans in Congress plan to use a legislative maneuver to quickly erase California’s authority to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars in the state by 2035. That authority has never before been challenged in this way, and critics say the maneuver is illegal. But it would be much faster than trying to overturn the California ban through the standard process that requires months of public notice and comment.

“They’re doing all the things I thought they would do, and they’re doing other things that I only dreamed they might do,” said Myron Ebell, a conservative activist who led the E.P.A. transition team during Mr. Trump’s first term.

. . .

And in a move that could have far-reaching implications for government efforts to regulate industry, Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the E.P.A., has recommended that the agency reverse its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare, according to three people familiar with the decision. That would eliminate the legal basis for the government’s climate laws, such as limits on pollution from automobiles and power plants.

“We’re talking about undoing 50 years of environmental regulation and accelerating the extinction crisis and risking the health of the American people,” said Ben Jealous, the executive director of the Sierra Club. “There’s so much shocking news every day. People are struggling to process all of it.”

. . .

Much of the damage to the country’s environmental regulatory apparatus may be long-lasting.

. . .

On Wednesday [Feb. 26, 2025] Trump said he believed Mr. Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, would be cutting about 65 percent of the agency’s more than 17,000 jobs. Mr. Zeldin later said that he thought the E.PA. could cut at least 65 percent of its budget and make cuts to its work force.

For the full story see:

David Gelles, Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer. “Undoing Years of Climate Policy in a Few Weeks.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, March 2, 2025): 1 & 31.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed name and date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 2, 2025, and has the title “‘Full on Fight Club’: How Trump Is Crushing U.S. Climate Policy.”)

Breakthrough Innovations Often Reach Success Through Incremental Improvements

After 130 days, the patient with the longest (so far) transplant of a pig kidney decided to have the transplant “explanted” and return to dialysis. Her surgeon explained that this should not be viewed as a failure of the basic innovation. The patient had the option to continue improvisations to keep the pig kidney alive, but decided that for her the risks had become too high.

The surgeon, Dr. Robert Montgomery said:

“All this takes time,” he said. “This game is going to be won by incremental improvements, singles and doubles, not trying to swing for the fences and get a home run.” (p. A24)

The pig kidney transplants follow the pattern of many other medical innovations, where on-the-fly adjustments, when the protocol allows them, lead to longer duration successes with fewer side effects. Emil Freireich found this with his chemo cocktails for childhood leukemia. Early human heart transplants also followed this pattern.

We should not allow early setbacks to push us to overregulate the incremental progress that can eventually leads to success.

My source is:

Roni Caryn Rabin. “Pig Kidney Is Removed From an Alabama Woman After Organ Is Rejected.” The New York Times (Sat., April 12, 2025): A24.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date April 11, 2025, and has the title “Pig Kidney Removed From Alabama Woman After Organ Rejection.”)

Trump Deregulates Biden’s Logging and Mining Bans on Public Lands

Trump’s agriculture secretary announced the deregulation of logging on 113 million acres of public lands–logging is now allowed on those lands. The Agriculture Department also announced the deregulation of mining on 264,000 acres of public lands, in order to “boost production of critical minerals” (p. A19).

Source:

Lisa Friedman. “White House Reverses Biden Limits on Drilling and Mining on Public Lands.” The New York Times (Thurs., April 10, 2025): A19.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date April 8, 2025, and has the title “Trump Administration Opens More Public Land to Drilling and Mining.”)

Trump Orders That Regulations Include “Sunset” Provisions

Several of my free market or libertarian friends are extremely upset about Trump’s tariff policies. I am confused and discouraged about them too. But I have said to my friends that while we criticize the tariff policies we should also find time to praise the Trump policies reducing regulations and downsizing government.

The response from several libertarians has been that nothing significant has been achieved on deregulation and downsizing. So I have resolved that at least for the next few weeks I will be alert to evidence on this issue, and occasionally run a post when I find some.

For instance, the NYT reported on Saturday that last week Trump instructed 10 federal agencies to add “sunset” clauses to most of their regulations saying that they will expire by October 2026. If the agency decides a regulation should be kept, they are to add a clause that the regulation will expire in five years unless reapproved. Trump also told all of his cabinet secretaries that within 60 days they are to have plans on which of the regulations in their areas should be repealed.

Trump also ordered the specific repeal of regulations limiting water flow in shower heads. (I like this one. Let’s Make America Clean Again (MACA) or at least let’s let people be free to choose to be clean.)

My source is:

Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman. “Trump Deploys Shortcuts As He Moves to Eliminate Many Federal Regulations.” The New York Times (Sat., April 12, 2025): A15.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date April 11, 2025, and has the title “Trump’s New Way to Kill Regulations: Because I Say So.”)

Healthcare Under ObamaCare’s “Affordable” Care Act Is Neither Popular Nor Affordable

In my Openness book, I argue that government regulations bind entrepreneurs and reduce innovation. As part of an antidote, I suggest that “sunset laws,” where regulations automatically expire, if not renewed. Later, at a small conference on Adam Thierer’s latest book, I was discouraged to hear a couple of participants grant the plausibility of the “antidote,” but report that in actual practice it does not work because almost all old regulations get renewed. Some hope returned when I read a report from James Broughel of a successful sunset review process:

(p. A17) Well, well. Progressives are at last acknowledging that ObamaCare is a failure. They aren’t doing so explicitly, of course, but their social-media screeds against insurers, triggered by last week’s murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, suggest as much. “We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” CBS News medical contributor Céline Gounder said during a Friday segment on the roasting of health insurers.

A Gallup survey released Friday [Dec. 6, 2024] affirms the sentiment, finding that only 44% of Americans rate U.S. healthcare good or excellent, down from 62% when Democrats passed ObamaCare in 2010. A mere 28% rate the country’s insurance coverage highly, an 11-point decline. ObamaCare may rank as the biggest political bait-and-switch in history.

Remember Barack Obama’s promise that if you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them? Sorry. How about his claim that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected? Also not true. The biggest howler, however, was that healthcare would become more affordable.

Grant Democrats this: The law has advanced their political goal of expanding government control over insurers, in return for lavishing Americans with subsidies to buy overpriced, lousy products.

. . .

At the same time, ObamaCare’s perverse effects are fueling public rage against insurers and support for a single-payer system that would eliminate them. Mr. Obama and Peter Orszag, the law’s chief architect, must be smiling. Mr. Orszag, now CEO of the financial-services firm Lazard, has dined out on advising health insurers on mergers he says were spurred by the law’s regulations. How convenient.

. . .

If the goal were to help Americans with costly health conditions, it would have been far simpler and less expensive to boost subsidies for state high-risk pools. But that wouldn’t have accomplished Democrats’ actual goal, which is to turn insurers into de facto public utilities and jerry-rig a halfway house to single-payer healthcare. What a con.

For the full commentary see:

Allysia Finley. “Life Science; UnitedHealthcare and the ObamaCare Con.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Dec. 9, 2024): A17.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date December 8, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

The Gallup poll results mentioned above can be viewed at:

Brenan, Megan. “View of U.S. Healthcare Quality Declines to 24-Year Low.” Gallup, Inc., Dec. 6, 2024 [cited March 27, 2025]. Available from https://news.gallup.com/poll/654044/view-healthcare-quality-declines-year-low.aspx.