Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Grant's avatar

Something I've been thinking about recently is medical licensing. The US restricts who can call themselves a medical doctor via licensing. This undoubtedly restricts the supply of doctors, even when compared to other countries which also have medical licensing.

To which most people would reply "sure, but licensing improves the quality of doctors and weeds out the quacks". In many cases it surely does, but look at the quantity (and quality) of legal alternative medicine. In effect we have a system which restricts the supply of legitimate doctors while allowing fraudsters and con-artists to run rampant. Does this seem completely insane to anyone else?

The more I think about it, the more I believe a general prosecution of fraud would improve the performance of many markets. I'm surprised this isn't something more libertarians talk about, as a dislike of fraud (as a form of coercion) is at the core of their beliefs.

Expand full comment
Stephen Diamond's avatar

Why aren't they the most influential?

In sports, merit determines success, but sports aren't "meritocratic," which means "government or the holding of power by those with the greatest ability."

In academia, power flows from merit. For example, top scholars edit journals. Top researchers blindly review journal submissions and get jobs for their students.

And academia has wildly varying levels of meritocracy.

I don't know how "wildly" varying they are at the top institutions. But insofar as levels of meritocracy vary within academia, so does influence.

Expand full comment
41 more comments...

No posts