Sam Peltzman Drops the Mic

 As you may recall from my NY Times a piece a few years ago, one has to recognize that the regulatory problem is not just parametric optimization. In my example, the problem was that football helmets, which are actually quite good at protecting the head, result in MORE head injuries. 

Interestingly, last year--2020--there were far fewer cars on the roads, because of social distancing, the shutdown of bars and restaurants, and the fact that many people did not commute to work at all. 

The result: MORE TRAFFIC DEATHS. People drove much more aggressively on the nearly empty roads. To be fair, the total number of accidents did in fact fall by quite a bit, as you would expect. But the severity of the accidents that did happen? That was up sharply, especially outside of cities. 

The point? Regulations have to take into account the likely response of citizens, based on expectations. You can't just twirl dials and pull levers when it comes to public policy. 

 (If you don't get the Peltzman reference....)

 

 

No Causal Connection Between Sugar-Sodas, Fast Food, Candy, and Obesity

For almost everyone, there is no relationship between access to fast food and candy, and obesity.

Fast food, soft drink and candy intake is unrelated to body mass index for 95% of American adults

David Just & Brian Wansink
Obesity Science & Practice,
December 2015, Pages 126–130

Methods: Using 2007–2008 Centers for Disease Control's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the consumption incidence of targeted foods on two non-continuous days was examined across discrete ranges of BMI. Data were analysed in 2011. Results: After excluding the clinically underweight and morbidly obese, consumption incidence of fast food, soft drinks or candy was not positively correlated with measures of BMI. This was true for sweet snacks (r = 0.005, p  l.t.e. 0.001) and salty snacks (r = 0.001, p = 0.040). No significant variation was found between BMI subcategories in weekly consumption frequency of fast food meals.

Conclusions: For 95% of this study's sample, the association between the intake frequency of fast food, soft drinks and candy and BMI was negative. This result suggests that a strategy that focuses solely on these problem foods may be ineffective in reducing weight. Reducing the total calories of food eaten at home and the frequency of snacking may be more successful dieting advice for the majority of individuals.  

New Jersey has a "Jones" for Salt, But Can't Act

The U.S. has a  law that protects... no one, actually.

The Jones Act.

It may help some unions a little bit, but not really.  The main point seems to be to protect U.S. pride in a shipping industry it doesn't (and shouldn't) have.  This fellow...he's not good.  This fellow, not surprisingly, is more sensible.

I can't blame DHS, tho.  They have to enforce the law as it's written.  There is no "common sense" ground for a waiver.  So this, I think, is mistaken.  For once, the administration is actually enforcing the law.

A Good Guy with a Gun Stopped a Bad Guy with a Gun

So, the kid in Colorado bought a shotgun, and waited a pretty long time before going on his rampage.

None, yes, none of the proposed laws and restrictions on guns would have affected this at all.  No one has proposed that restrictions be placed on shotguns.  Obama himself was famously shown shooting one.  It was ridiculous, but that's the "safe" gun Mr. Obama wanted to be associated with.

What did work?  We all mocked the NRA's Wayne LaPierre for advocating an armed guard.  I did, too. It is not a great idea, and it's expensive.  But in this case, it worked. 

I still don't think that excuses the NRA's pigheadedness on perfectly plausible gun regulation.  I let my membership lapse, in fact, because the NRA is clearly trying to protect extremists and corporate stooges.  But in this case, you gotta say...LaPierre 1, Obama 0.

Why Not Try?

A lot of people get all giggly and (even more) condescending when someone says, "Why not try a society that is more libertarian?"  But then those same people get all upset when they see stuff like this:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

Seems like a disconnect.  Government regulation benefits two groups: (1) Government.  (2) Big corporations.  People watch stuff like this, and say, "That's terrible.  We need more regulation."

Fail.

The Left in NC Discovers Anew An Ancient Truth

It's fun to watch when the little kids discover something on their own.  They remember it better that way, that's a rule of teaching.  So, even though all the grown-ups knew this all along, it's better to let the younglings figure it out.

It appears that the Progressives, the Left, whatever you want to call them, in North Carolina have "discovered" that regulation, even regulation that the regulator says is benign, can be harmful.  It's intrusive, it makes everything more expensive, and it has a chilling effect on people being willing to use your product.

Now, the Prog-Left has discovered this truth about abortion clinics in NC.  Regulating abortion clinics is going to make it much more difficult, more scary, and more expensive to get an abortion, or even to get counseling.  Abortions are legal, but regulations will make it harder for customers to obtain them, and it will be impossible for businesses to provide this otherwise legal service.  It's like someone is saying, "Oh, you can do this, but we are just going to regulate it," as a way of actually outlawing the activity.

Let's hope they take this deep insight and apply to other kinds of small businesses.   The same thing, THE SAME THING, is true for all the regulations, from petty to draconian, that you folks want to impose on businesses of all kinds. Because the Prog-Left has always pretended (until now, when they actually care about the business) that regulations are a benefit, rather than a harm.  Sauce for the goose...

Price-Gouging Law in OK

So, the intrepid folks of OK state government are out on patrol.  Be warned!  If you try to sell stuff that people need, especially if they REALLY REALLY need it, you will likely be arrested.

OK Gov announces price gouging enforcement.

I wish that the OK legislature could watch this short video:

On the other hand, to be fair, it wouldn't matter.  Price-gouging laws are extremely popular among voters.  To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, voters want price justice, and it is the job of government to give it to 'em, good and hard.

With thanks to Chris Zorn...

UPDATE:  Note that the authorities are careful to muddy the waters, conflating price-gouging and fraud.  Fraud is a problem, fraud is illegal.  It is COMPLETELY different from price-gouging.

Non-Single Peaked Preferences?

Three sizes for "growlers," or reusable take-out beer jugs:  32 oz (quart), 64 oz, and 128 oz (gallon).  Guess which one is illegal in Florida?  The MIDDLE one!

A story full of rich detail, raising many questions.

1. Are preferences really non-single-peaked, with the middle alternative worst?  Or is this just silly bureaucracy at work?

2. Did this really happen?  "At his urging, Sen. Maria Sachs, D-Delray Beach, tried to add a nearly 12-page amendment to Sen. Jack Latvala's two-line bill." Nice.  Very nice.

3.  One of the reasons beer is relatively expensive in the U.S. is the gigantic political power, and gross inefficiency, of distributors.  I hope we lift up this rock and look at all the scary things that crawl out.

4.  An irony:  Angus can't even drink beer, for health reasons.  But he's definitely a "growler."

A nod to Jeremy B.

Minimum Wage

Interesting piece in the FREEMAN on minimum wage.

Still, I have to admit I have been converted to Angus's position.  Minimum wage is probably a bad policy, and it should be indexed.  But if you want to make a list of the really awful things the state does to regulate prices or kill people, minimum wage is not really worth your time.

In 2006 I wrote this.

But now I think this is right.

Speedometers: Immoral?

It appears that people like to have speedometers that, like the amps for Spinal Tap, go all the way to 11.   The story.

Okay, in this case it's a little different, because Spinal Tap really could turn up the amp all the way.  But there is NO way that a Corolla is going to do 160.

This may be silly.  Fine, in fact it is silly.  But should the government regulate it?  And is this the reason government should regulate it?  It's IMMORAL?

The rising speedometer numbers aren't surprising to Joan Claybrook, the top federal auto safety regulator under President Jimmy Carter. She's been fighting the escalation for years and says it encourages drivers _ especially younger ones _ to drive too fast. During her tenure, she briefly got speedometer numbers lowered.

"They think that speed sells," she said of automakers. "People buy these cars because they want to go fast." ...For years, most speedometers topped out at 120 _ even though that was 50 mph over the limit in most states. Then, in 1980, Claybrook, who ran the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, limited speedometers to 85 mph, even though cars could go much faster.

The move, designed to end the temptation to push cars to their limits, drew outrage from gearheads nationwide. Some automakers got around the rule by ending the numbers at 85 but leaving lines beyond that to show higher speeds. The government also forced automakers to highlight 55 mph, which at the time was the fuel-saving national speed limit.

The limit was short-lived, overturned two years later by President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a pledge to end onerous government regulations. Cars with 85 mph speedometers lingered for several years until they were redesigned and the maximum speeds for most returned to 120.

By the 2000s, however, the speedometer speeds crept higher. Even compact cars showed 130 or 140 mph. The 2014 Chevrolet Corvette speedometer and some Jaguar models now peak at 200.

Claybrook concedes there's no data to show the 85 mph limit saved lives, but she believes it did. She calls the ever-higher speedometer numbers "immoral."

 Lagniappe:  "The fuel-saving national speed limit"?  The fuel-saving limit would be zero.  Further, there is only one resource we can't get more off:  time.  Fuel we can work around, get more of, etc.  The 55 speed limit was a "time-wasting national speed limit."

A New Mandatory "Option": An Interlock System for Alcohol

From Big Brother motors!  You'll like it.  And if you don't like it, you'll have to buy it anyway.  Even though the touchscreen monitor you ALSO have as an option is more of a danger.

In other news, the sun rose in the east....again

So, it turns out that insuring lots of additional people who have pre-existing conditions and no money to pay premiums actually costs a LOT more than before.

This in spite of the claim that ACA would actually SAVE money.

Now, it may be possible to argue that "we" (whoever that is) are saving money overall, because the costs of untreated health problems are externalities imposed on all of us in the form of lost productivity and desperate families.  And it may be that universal coverage is a good thing, just in terms of basic fairness.

But that was not the argument.  The argument was that ACA would straight up save money, and make insurance cheaper.  There was never any chance that this was actually true, and its' not true.  I love the way the craven, hypocritical WaPo puts:  Funds run low...  Well, yeah, that's what "giant budget-busting spending" does.  I guess Ms. Pelosi should have said, "Let's pass this bill and later we can figure out [how to pay for] what's in it."

ACA available at your grocer! Not to receive, but to pay for...

ACA was supposed to save money.  That was never possible, of course, and people who favored it on that ground were pretty dumb.

But the magnitude, and actual form, of the increased costs....THAT is surprising.  You will seen get a chance to pay for ACA at the grocery store.

The point is that we'd be better off with single-payer, by a lot.  ACA is about the worst outcome imaginable. I'd like to think the ACA supporters knew that all along, and were trying to get single-payer as a result.  But instead I expect us to be stuck with ACA for...a long time.

To be fair, there is nothing wrong with ACA, if you are an insurance company or big pharma.  Since those guys own the Democratic party, they wrote the legislation.  But for doctors and patients, ACA is going to be a nightmare.

KPC Readers: The BEST

KPC readers are the best, the very best around.  The sharp-eyed MK saw this, and just knew right away it was KPC-worthy.

Excerpt:


Waning infestations of [pubic lice] have been linked by doctors to pubic depilation, especially a technique popularized in the 1990s by a Manhattan salon run by seven Brazilian sisters. More than 80 percent of college students in the U.S. remove all or some of their pubic hair -- part of a trend that’s increasing in western countries. In Australia, Sydney’s main sexual health clinic hasn’t seen a woman with pubic lice since 2008 and male cases have fallen 80 percent from about 100 a decade ago.

“It used to be extremely common; it’s now rarely seen,” said Basil Donovan, head of sexual health at the University of New South Wales’s Kirby Institute and a physician at the Sydney Sexual Health Centre. “Without doubt, it’s better grooming.”

The trend suggests an alternative way of stemming one of the globe’s most contagious sexually transmitted infections. Pubic lice are usually treated with topical insecticides, which once included toxic ones developed before and during World War 2. While they aren’t known to spread disease, itchy skin reactions and subsequent infections make pubic lice a hazardous pest.

Clipping, waxing and shaving the groin destroy the optimal habitat of pubic lice. The practice has helped spur sales of depilatory products for companies such as Procter & Gamble Co. (PG) and Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc. (RB/). 

...About a block from New York’s famous Fifth Avenue shopping strip, women in fur coats and Louis Vuitton handbags are filing in and out of a beauty salon on a recent Friday afternoon. They perch on metallic silver and red floral sofas in the reception located in a Midtown Manhattan office building, waiting for a woman dressed in white to escort them to a waxing room.

The shop run by Jonice Padilha and her sisters Jocely, Janea, Joyce, Juracy, Jussara and Judeseia may be ground zero in the war on pubic lice. Growing up in the Brazilian coastal city of Vitoria, the sisters, like other women there, routinely waxed their pubic hair off to accommodate the ever shrinking bikinis worn on the beach.

In 1994, they introduced the waxing technique at the J Sisters nail salon they opened in 1986. Things exploded from there, Padilha said.

About 200 clients a day, including celebrities such as Sarah Jessica Parker, come for treatments ranging from complete hair removal to custom designs. Regulars returning every four weeks pay $75 for a Brazilian. Men of all ages and sexual orientation are going for the “Sunga” wax, a $90 treatment in which all pubic hair, including on the testicles, is removed.  Hygiene and comfort are key reasons customers keep coming back, she said.

“It’s like a freedom,” said Padilha of the salon’s signature bikini wax treatment. “When we started the salon 26 years ago, we never thought it would be a success.”

Nor was it expected to aid in the fight against pubic lice, she said.  “Pubic grooming has led to a severe depletion of crab louse populations,” said Ian F. Burgess, a medical entomologist with Insect Research & Development Ltd. in Cambridge, England. “Add to that other aspects of body hair depilation, and you can see an environmental disaster in the making for this species.” 

1.  First of all:  Sunga wax?  Good God.
2.  Is the Obama admin going to outlaw waxing?  Suppose, for the sake of argument, that pubic lice really do become so scarce as to endangered, and that waxing really is the reason.   As MK put it, in an email:  "When the last pubic louse is gone from Mother Gaia, we will all be the poorer for it."

Knowledge Problem

Regulatory Fog: The Role of Information in Regulatory Persistence

Patrick Warren & Tom Wilkening
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, December 2012, Pages 840–856

Abstract: Regulation is very persistent, even when inefficient. We propose an explanation for regulatory persistence based on regulatory fog, the phenomenon by which regulation obscures information regarding the value of counterfactual policies. We construct a dynamic model of regulation in which the underlying need for regulation varies stochastically, and regulation undermines the social planner's ability to observe the state of the world. Compared to a full-information benchmark, regulation is highly persistent, often lasting indefinitely. Regulatory fog is robust to a broad range of partially informative policies and can be quite detrimental to social welfare. Regulatory experiments, modeled as costly and imperfect signals of the underlying state, do not eliminate the effects of regulatory fog. We characterize their effects and provide a framework for choosing amongst a set of potential regulatory experiments.

Save the Balls!

The "save our balls" campaign from Bucky Balls.  Those little magnetic balls, you know.

Are we really going to outlaw everything in the world that's poison, or small?  If so, Harry Reid's brain will be outlawed, on both counts.

Nod to Anonyman

 

Regulation is AlwaysTurned into Cartelization

"[The California Environmental Quality Act] passed in 1970 has also been increasingly abused, opening the door to lawsuits — sometimes brought by business competitors or for reasons unrelated to the environment — that, regardless of their merit, can delay even green development projects for years or sometimes kill them completely...In San Francisco, the city’s plan to paint bicycle lanes, one of the main goals of environmentalists, was delayed for four years by a lawsuit filed by a local resident who claimed that the lanes could cause pollution. And it is not only big projects that are litigation targets. In San Jose, a gas station has been indefinitely prevented from adding another pump because of a lawsuit filed by the owner of a competing gas station across the street...But in the 42 years since Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Environmental Quality Act into law, attacks against the measure have largely failed" [NYT article]

Nod to Kevin Lewis

Helium Markets

This is a strange story.

First, the Congress apparently decided to privatize helium producing "mines" in 1996.  I hadn't realized that the helium industry was a state-owned enterprise in the first place.  Was it really necessary to nationalize the inert gas industry, when we already have an inert Senate?

But, okay, fair enough, we privatized the industry.  But the federal government still sets the price?  According to this article, that's the case.

The problem is that very few new producers have entered the "industry."  That may be because there are not many underground stocks of pressurized pure helium.  But it also may be because THE FREAKIN' FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS STILL SETTING THE PRICE.

Economics is hard, but it's not THAT hard.

License to Raise Entry Barriers

Is it plausible that cosmetologists need, on average, 10 times as many days
to fulfill their educational and training requirements (372) than emergency
medical technicians (33), who literally hold lives in their hands? That is
the reality in most states.

Read the rest...

Regulatory Capture Video

KPC friend Susan Dudley on regulatory capture. Nicely done, ma'am!