Month: September 2024

Alex Tabarrok points today to an interesting RAND study of prescription drug prices. It turns out that we pay much higher prices than other countries for new, branded drugs, but other countries pay much higher prices for older generics:

But I found this even more interesting:

U.S. prices for brand-name originator drugs were 422 percent of prices in comparison countries, while U.S. unbranded generics, which we found account for 90 percent of U.S. prescription volume, were on average cheaper at 67 percent of prices in comparison countries, where on average only 41 percent of prescription volume is for unbranded generics.

Why do other countries use so few generics? Obviously they have less price pressure to do so since brand-name drugs are relatively cheap compared to the US. But is there more to it? National health care systems could nevertheless reduce drug spending if they pushed generics harder, and it would be low hanging fruit for health systems that are always under budgetary pressure. So why not? Are Europeans just more suspicious of generics than Americans?

I don't remember why I got curious about this, but earlier this evening I looked up the word colorway to find out where it came from. Why did the folks in the sneaker industry invent this odd word?

They didn't. According to the OED, the earliest use is 1941 in the Guardian. Another source places its origin in the textile industry in the late 19th century. And the Google Ngram viewer has instances starting in 1844. Here's the first century of colorway (as always, click to embiggen):

There a sudden outburst in 1844 in the US, followed by very rare and sporadic usage through 1940—also mostly in the US. Here's the second century:

Common usage doesn't start until 1952, followed by a steady rise and then a huge spike in the US in 2003—presumably the result of its adoption by the sneaker industry.

Anyway, colorway just means a particular combination of two or more colors, but I can't find an explanation of where it came from. The best guess seems to be that it's a shortening of "a way of using color," but I'm not sure I find that very convincing. But I don't have any better ideas.

The New York Times celebrates the stock market's record high today with a standard chart showing the S&P 500 since the year 2000. Nothing wrong with that.

But if you really want to know how the market is doing, you should do two things. First, adjust for inflation. Who cares if the S&P is up 5% if inflation is also running at 5%?

Second, you should look at total returns, which includes reinvested dividends. Here it is:

Since 2000, the S&P 500 is up 120% after adjusting for inflation. Not bad. But if you put actual money into a fund that reinvested dividends, it would have returned 250% by now. Even better!

Note, however, that even with reinvested dividends the total return from 2000 to 2013 was 0%. Equities are a good bet in the long run, but sometimes the long run is pretty long.

According to the American Historical Association, states have been busy in recent years adding new requirements to the social studies curriculum:

Since 2017 there's been an uptick in the number of states requiring the study of specific groups (Black, LGBT, etc). Since 2012 there's been a steady increase in civics and US government requirements. In the entire period since 2000, diversity wins have outscored civics wins 155-110.

This is the Volksgarten in central Vienna. During spring it's covered in beds of roses, and each rosebush carries a personal dedication to a friend or family member.

In the background is the dome of the Natural History Museum.

Sure enough, no one has bothered to even mention Donald Trump's loony proposal to punish banks by capping credit card interest rates at 10%. I found a grand total of two items in the news this morning: a MarketWatch piece saying nobody is taking it seriously and a short criticism in National Review.

By contrast, Kamala Harris's comparatively moderate price gouging proposal, often couched as "price controls," absolutely blanketed the discourse last month. The criticism of her attack on the free market was almost unanimous and went on for weeks.

But Trump's attack on the free market? Crickets. Funny how this works, isn't it?

Here's a quick summary of Donald Trump's economic policy, as it's been announced on a random basis over the past few months. There's something for everybody:

No tax on tips! No tax on Social Security! No tax on overtime! Restore the SALT deduction! Extend the tax cuts for the rich! Cap credit card interest rates! 20% tariffs on everything! Cut the estate tax! Tax woke universities! Deduct newborn expenses! Block all food imports! Maybe a child tax credit! Cut the corporate tax rate! Tax breaks for oil and coal producers! Reduce taxes on manufacturing!

And here's everything else, equally random:

Deport 20 million immigrants! Freedom cities! New nonwoke universities! Fire the bureaucrats! Let Putin win the Ukraine war! Bring back incandescent light bulbs! Kill new air pollution limits! Government funded IVF! Cut off funding to schools that require vaccines! Eliminate the Department of Education! Let teachers carry concealed weapons! Build tent cities for the homeless! Send in the National Guard to Chicago! Shoot shoplifters! The death penalty for drug smugglers! Make Taiwan pay for US protection! More school vouchers! Build the wall! Work requirements for welfare bums! Higher military spending! Keep TikTok! Death to Facebook! No more climate change funding! Build an Iron Dome for America! Slash corporate regulation!

Exciting times, no?

Donald Trump just announced that he plans to institute a temporary cap of 10% on credit card interest rates "while working Americans catch up."

Sigh. It just doesn't matter what he says, does it? Most likely nobody will bother reporting this. Banks won't bother protesting it. Wonky bloggers like me won't bother explaining why Trump can't do it. Conservatives will mostly ignore the fact that this really is socialism, far worse than Kamala Harris's trivial price gouging proposal. In fact, just the opposite: His enablers will suddenly produce a spate of explanations for why it's a brilliant, far-reaching, and conservative proposal.

Stuff like this is a product of intersectionality: Trump is both mentally declining and willing to say any weird thing that pops into his fevered brain. Everyone knows it, so nobody takes anything he says seriously. He's treated like a five-year-old running for president.

And yet the five-year-old might win because Kamala Harris hasn't outlined her economic policies in enough detail. Crikey.

BY THE WAY: Credit card debt isn't even an especially big issue right now.

Big news tomorrow! Donald Trump will finally be able to sell stock in his social media company—as long as the shares stay above $12. It's a close call, but it looks like he'll make it:

DJT is now selling below its January price, so everybody who bought in after the Iowa primary surge is already a loser. Trump's fans—who are the ones propping up the price—seem to be losing faith daily in his chances of winning the election, and at their current rate of dejection the stock should be down to $3 by next month.

In any case, Trump's holdings in DJT are now worth only $1.8 billion and falling fast. He says he doesn't plan to sell, and it's certainly true that the stock price would plummet even faster if he did. On the other hand, if he waits he could end up with nothing. It's a tough decision. No wonder he seems like a nervous wreck these days.

I almost forgot that today is YouGov poll day:

Since July 15, Harris has gained eight points compared to where Joe Biden was. Trump has gained two points. Harris's net favorability is +1% and Tim Walz's is even. Trump's is -13% and J.D. Vance's is -14%.

"Who do you think will win" currently favors Harris 42-32%. Trump voters seem to be giving up.

Harris won her debate with Trump by 56-27%.

In the generic congressional poll, Democrats are leading 47-43%.