> --- Michael Giesbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can economics provide any answers the the question, "what should be done
> > about the problem of deadly bacteria developing resistence to
> > antibiotics?"
>
> Yes. There is a saying, "the dosage makes the poison." According to
> biologists, per my understanding, the main problem is the overuse of
> antibiotics where they are not really needed.
This should accelerate the evolution of resistant bacteria, but how much
faster? How much time would government tinkering with antibiotic use
actually buy us? I have not seen any estimates, and I think such questions
need to be addressed before "we" (meaning, of course, "they," since I will
have nothing to say about such schemes) introduce more government
bureaucracy and additional taxes and regulation into my life. And *which*
bacteria will experience most of the acceleration in antibiotic resistance?
The mostly harmless bacteria that we encounter everday, or the relatively
few kinds that can cause serious disease? It may be that the dangerous kinds
for which antibiotics are the treatment of choice are already experiencing
selection for antibiotic resistance at near the fastest possible rate. But
if Fred's suggestion ever catches on among our politicians, I doubt they
will seriously consider such questions before taking action, and I must
confess my doubts that the average voter can think that logically. All some
politician has to do is say it's "for the children" and flash some photo of
a disease ravaged child on the boob tube and the general public will melt.
>
> Economic cost-benefit analysis suggests raising the cost of bad behavior,
> hence there could be a stiff tax on the purchase antibiotics.
> This tax would be rebated if the user provides evidence for necessary use.
> There would also have to be a large penalty for fraud.
> There would be a cost in implementing this, but probably not as large as
> the social cost of resistant bacteria.
This brings up the larger question of whether the economy experiences a net
gain or a net loss from constant government tinkering, taxes, regulation,
bureaucracy, paperwork, and general added complexity. Of course, some of
this nanny state tinkering will provide a net benefit, even if only a slim
one in many cases, but other cases will provide a net loss to society, and
it is usually impossible to know which clever government program will result
in net gains and which in net losses beforehand. It is even either
impossible or difficult and expensive to discover which clever government
programs are worthwhile after the fact. Furthermore, once these clever
government programs outlive their raison d'etre, they, like NATO (a
particularly expensive example) seem to linger on forever. Even while they
serve their purpose, many of them will no doubt be a net drain on public
welfare, yet even if a net drain is conclusively demonstrated (a question
which governments are reluctant even to investigate), they are unlikely to
be dismantled. I once read a story about a watchman who was hired by the
British government to watch the sea from the cliffs of Dover in case
Napoleon tried to launch an invasion. With the Napoleonic threat finally
ended, this particular public service was finally abolished--after World War
2! Just how many invasions do you think were prevented by this particular
"public service" during the century and a half before the British public was
"deprived" of it? Of course, since some role for the state is indispensable,
such excesses cannot be entirely avoided, but I do think we need to ask
whether, on balance, government micromanagement of the *private* sector is a
net gain or a net loss or simply too close to call. Of these three
possibilites, only one justifies the type of government program suggested by
Fred Folvary. Evaluating proposed government schemes for further "managing"
the free sector of the economy on a case by case basis is a well
demonstrated failure.
~Alypius Skinner
PS--When I started to open Gil Guillory's post on this thread, I got a
message saying it had been "tampered with in transit." Is it still safe to
open?
>
> > The reason I ask is it seems to be a prisoner's delimma. If
> > everybody would forego the use of antibiotics, except in extreme
> > circumstances, bacteria would not be able to evolve so quickly into
> > antibiotic resistant strains. But I'm not everybody, I'm only me.
>
> The dilemma goes away if there is a third party making the users pay the
> social cost.
>
> Fred Foldvary
>
> =====
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
