…again.  This time it’s over the US’ decision to implement all of the Helms-Burton Act, to stop waiving Title III of the Act.  Helms-Burton, you’ll recall, is a law passed in 1996 that pressured Cuba and its trading partners to not traffic in Cuban government-appropriated -stolen private property, property that was seized by that government over the course its power-grabbing in the days following Fidel Castro’s successful rebellion.

Title III created a private cause of action, allowing private citizens whose property had been confiscated by the Cuban government to sue those trafficking in that property for monetary compensation for the loss, plus court and attorney costs associated with the suit.  The Title also contained within it authority for the President to waive the Title for six-month periods.

The EU is up in arms over this.

The EU considers the US move to be “contrary to international law” and “will draw on all appropriate measures to address the effects of the Helms-Burton Act, including in relation to its WTO rights,” according to a statement from the EU’s top diplomat, Federica Mogherini.

Because it’s contrary to international law and a violation of WTO rights for persons whose property has been stolen to go into court in order to be compensated for the loss ensuing from the theft.  No, the EU and a few member nations simply are worried about the inconvenience of protecting justice:

[A]ctivation of the Title III provision could bring about dozens, if not hundreds, of lawsuits and also generate trade conflicts between the US and European countries such as Spain, France and Britain. It is also likely to negatively affect the already lagging levels of foreign investment in Cuba.

That last is especially risible.  The point of Helms-Burton is to pressure the Cuban government to cut it out and make its victims whole.  Negatively pressuring Cuba’s reception of foreign investment is a valuable tool in gaining the compensation.  Beyond that, if European companies lose money as a result of the suits, that’s on them for trafficking in stolen goods in the first place, and their beef is between them and the Cuban government, not between them and the victims of the crimes.

And there’s the matter of perspective.

The US State Department has certified some 6,000 claims worth some $8 billion (€7.14 billion) in current values. Another 200,000 claims have yet to be certified, but could have a value amounting to tens of billions of dollars.

Tens of billions.  The level of trade between the US and the EU (because Spain and France, and Great Britain so far, cannot conclude trade agreements apart from the EU), even in the present parlous trade environment, is $1.1 trillion (€1.23 trillion).  The Europeans are raising their misguided tempest deep inside a teacup.

The Helms-Burton Act is summarized here, and the Act itself can be read by following the first link in that cite.

Amazingly, there’s an actual debate going on over whether consumers should be allowed to see drug prices in drug advertising.

Stacie Dusetzina, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine’s Associate Professor of Health Policy and the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research, argued—in all seriousness—in a recent Wall Street Journal example of the debate (see the link) in favor of the following points:

• disclosure of list prices may deter some people from seeking treatment
• disclosing prices could backfire by creating an artificial sense of “value” due to a high price tag
• the idea behind the proposal is to shame manufacturers into lowering list prices or limiting price increases by requiring them to disclose just how high their prices are

Wow.  In reverse order….

No, the idea behind the proposal is not to shame or to limit price increases by requiring manufacturers to disclose just how high their prices are. The idea is competition.  The idea is to limit price increases or to lower prices by forcing manufacturers to compete in an open, free market environment.  This, just incidentally, also will force intermediaries and pharmacies as end-sellers to compete on pricing in a similarly open, free market environment.

No, disclosing prices won’t create an artificial sense of “value” from a high price.  Dusetzina must really think Americans are stupid to pay artificially inflated prices simply because the prices are high.  That may be the case for luxury cars or fancy purses or other objects of ego-driven conspicuous consumption, but it’s most assuredly not the case for the working man or woman—which is to say the vast majority of us—buying necessities or even the merely nice-to-haves.  If we were stupid enough to buy the higher priced good or service just because it was more expensive, grocery store prices would be much higher than they are now.

No, disclosure of list prices won’t deter many of us from seeking treatment at all.  What it will do is let us see the lowering prices make getting treatment more affordable.  Besides, even for those few of us who do defer or avoid treatment because of those prices; that’s our choice, not Government’s to make for us, not even indirectly by manipulating our accesses.

Price information—especially price information available before any decision to buy or not to buy—is critical to competition.  And it’s that competition that will drive drug prices to their natural levels—the cost of producing and marketing them—and not a penny more.  Even the profit margin that competitive companies legitimately can collect will be eaten into by that competition.  Look at those grocery stores, again.

Hiding price information is absolutely antithetical to free markets and low prices.

Call me Luddite.  A short time ago, Samsung decided to delay the rollout of its foldable cell phone for a month.  I won’t miss it.

My beef isn’t the growing pains associated with the device; all of those are just Samsung’s hurried and botched release before the thing was ready for prime time.  My beef is with the price and capability of the thing, stipulating that Samsung will solve those rollout problems.

Samsung’s Galaxy Fold will set you back two grand for a midget tablet’s display that’s part of a pocket calculator of limited calculational capability that also runs an app for making telephone calls.  Huawei is planning a fall rollout of a slightly larger and much more expensive foldable cell—theirs will run $2,600.

Jeez.

For that kind of money, I can get a desktop or a laptop, a real computer that can do actual computing.  That real computer includes a display that’s large enough that I can see actual image details, that makes reading material much easier on the eye, and that can hold a usefully-sized spreadsheet or document that I’m reading or writing.  I had an Osborne II, back in those early days, on which I had to scroll around left-to-right and up-and-down in order to see the rest of the spreadsheet or document.  I don’t need to repeat that today.  PCs and laptops also can do the calculations associated with those sheets and docs, and do them rapidly—neither of which an expensive pocket calculator can do.

After all, my work depends on actual interaction with my computer; I’m not just consuming what passes for entertainment, or games, or…news…these days.

Feel like scrolling your social media accounts or flipping through the day’s doings while sitting on the subway or in your car?  You don’t need to drop a couple of stacks to do that; an “ordinary” cell phone will handle that just fine.  But don’t do any of that if you’re the driver in your car.