Antybiotyki
Friedman chce rozwiązać problem poprzez faszyzm ale mówi, że to rynek:
There is, however, a market solution to this problem, provided that two conditions hold. The first is that the effect is specific to a particular antibiotic—use of antibiotic A does not increase resistance to antibiotic B. The second is that the antibiotic is patented.
If both conditions hold, the apparent externality is internalized by the patent holder. The more doses of the antibiotic he sells the less effective it becomes, hence the lower the price he can get people to pay for additional doses. So it is in his interest to charge more and sell less than it would be if there were no externality. As in other cases of monopoly (absent perfect price discrimination), the result is not perfectly efficient, economically speaking. But it does convert the externality into a cost of production. [1]
Tabarrok mówi, że faszyzm spoko:
Denmark progressively regulated and reduced antibiotics for sub-therapeutic use in pigs, poultry and other livestock beginning around 1995. After some experimentation, pig production was not adversely affected and resistance in the wild declined. [2]
Reynolds nadmienia, że lepiej regulować antybiotyki niż heroinę:
I think you can make a better case for regulating antibiotics than heroin: Misusing antibiotics can endanger countless others, while misusing heroin mostly endangers oneself. [3]