Unintended Consequences

During the covid pandemic, it became popular for folks to say “just follow the science” when it came to making decisions about medical treatment and public health. But in this episode – which covers ivermectin, psychologists’ prescription authority, and warning labels for pediatric anti-depressants – Paul and Peter discuss just how complicated the science can be and why both "just following the science" and "doing your own research" are inadequate responses.

In conjunction with Regulation Spring 2026
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission threatened to not renew licenses for broadcasters that were too negative in their coverage of the US-Iran War. But this abuse of FCC authority in the name of protecting the “public interest” is merely the latest episode in a long and dismal history. This week, Peter and Paul discuss the downsides of government licensing of broadcast speech, how it violates the founding principles of this country, and the surprisingly simple solution that would bring it to a well-deserved end. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Handling corporate debt has long been a standardized process, but something strange has been happening with contract law in recent years. These loan agreements are like the oil that lubricates our economic engine, yet the oil is breaking down as lawyers increasingly exploit contract loopholes to pocket higher returns at the expense of investors. Paul and Peter discuss the trend as described in the paper, “Swiss Cheese Contracts: The Costs of Creative Lawyering,” (Stephen Choi et al), and why it doesn’t quite fit traditional libertarian assumptions about market efficiency. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Economists use something called the “social cost of carbon” to estimate the future physical and economic damages caused by climate change. Yet the final dollar cost assigned to carbon emissions fluctuates wildly: from roughly $7 under Trump to $190 under Biden! In this episode, Paul and Peter discuss the article “How Should We Value the Future?” (by Peter and David Kemp), how these numbers are generated, and how it’s not purely a product of scientific calculation but rather a profound ethical choice about intergenerational stewardship mediated by the political process. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Milton Friedman thought that the weight of careful research about the negative effects of the minimum wage would lead to an overwhelming consensus among economists and ultimately end public support for the policy. It didn’t work out that way, as anyone old enough to remember the “Fight for Fifteen” movement knows. Peter and Paul discuss Richard McKenzie’s article about Friedman’s prediction, why Friedman got it wrong, and the furor over an influential 1994 study that showed no negative employment effects.

In conjunction with Regulation Magazine Winter 2025 Edition.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.