The FDA’s mission is to ensure the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. In doing so, FDA officials can make two types of errors. They can approve a drug that has unanticipated dangerous side effects, or they can disapprove or delay a drug that is both safe and effective.
FDA officials have unequal incentives to avoid these two types of errors. If the FDA official errs on the side of under-caution — approving a dangerous drug — the victims are visible, and he is held directly accountable. If he errs on the side of over-caution — holding up approval of a safe and effective drug — who’s to know? The cost and the victims are invisible. Politicians and bureaucrats prefer invisible victims."
Don’t let Bernanke tell you otherwise. The Fed has in fact made this process much harder and much more treacherous, as we have seen, as capital structure profitability becomes highly illusory.
The great Austrian tradition and the market forces it elucidates in its a priori methodology for economic understanding provides an equally important, though unappreciated, methodology for investing.
It seems to me that “tail hedging”, as I’ve been practicing it for about 15 years now (and I dare not speak for any others who are so new to the game), could be called “central bank hedging”—or, better yet, “Austrian investing.”31 Indeed, this activity over my career likely would have been much less interesting without the insights of Dr. Mises and the actions of Drs. Greenspan and Bernanke."
— Mark Spitznagel Chief Investment Officer of Universa "The Austrians and the Swan: Birds of a Different Feather"
LTMC: A Whole Foods market just opened up about a half hour from where I live. I went there yesterday, and they were selling “organic” rotisserie chickens for $15. I can get the same product at my local grocery store for $5, but without the “organic” label.
Herein lies yet another problem with the unscientific hysteria over GMO: companies like Whole Foods are exploiting customer’s fears to charge them outrageous prices on the presumption that they’re buying healthier food. But GMO’s have never shown to be harmful to health. As former anti-GMO activist Mark Lynas said last year at Oxfam:
[T]he GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe – over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. More to the point, people have died from choosing organic, but no-one has died from eating GM.
I highly suggest reading or watching Lynas’s speech in full. It goes in depth into policy reasons why GMO technology is not only safe, but essential to feeding the world’s growing population.
Some people mistakenly characterize this as a ‘race to the bottom’. Those sweatshops, that as soon as a country gets richer they leave and go find poor labor somewhere else. Well, yeah but it’s not like Hong Kong was left in shambles when the sweatshops left. The problem was labor got too productive in Hong Kong, so it was too valuable to use in making garments, and garment factories could not bid enough to get those workers there, compared to the other industries they were competing with. So they left and went to another place. Sweatshops are like the second to bottom rung on the ladder of economic development, and as they leave you country it’s a sign that you’ve graduated to a higher standard of living and someone else is about to get on that chain."