I see a sizeable implicit assumption in his analysis. He is assuming that government institutions don't have self-interest when they have lots of power, fees, and jobs at stake in being the monopoly that can say NO. The government regulatory bodies are often captured by activist groups and utilize "junk science", not real science, to make their policy and then hire consultants to give them the results they want (won't get another contract if you give them a result that says "this is not a problem" -- same game tobacco science). The private companies want more profits to have more power and money, while the government institutions want bigger budgets, larger staff, and more power. Neither wants real science to interfere, so they won't listen. The damage created by our regulators can be seen in the development of aquaculture in the last half a century in the US. Notice that almost all the salmon, catfish, cobia, etc., and shrimp you eat are produced in aquaculture facilities and they are all outside the USA. Often just over the border in Mexico and Canada in common water bodies. Four decades ago the US was on the leading edge of aquaculture technology and aquaculture development, but then the activists and regulators effectively shut down innovation, progress, and industry growth. We have been zero growth rate while the rest of the world increased production by over 12 times in 40 years. Global Aquaculture is now a larger producer than global ocean fisheries at providing seafood and also larger than global beef production at putting meat on the table. Per unit of meat on the table, aquaculture with cold-blooded animals that don't have to fight gravity is 2 to 3 times more efficient at converting soy, corn, etc. proteins to food than cattle, pigs, and chickens. That means 1/3 less land, water, and CO2 per unit of meat on the plate and that is a big deal with 3 billion more people on the way (mainly people living longer). The government always was claiming it was helping and funding the research you recommended. In my aquaculture business, I was competing in technology generation with government-supported institutions (non-profits) with 5 times my annual sales in just grants. Over 30 years they had larger systems and better equipment but never got ahead of my technology and innovation. I would start with a new idea and focus on proving the idea nonsense and killing it early and only following up on what got through my filters. My government competitors would take an idea and do a complete research plan then get a grant with every step pre-specified and after 2 to 4 years try another idea if some outside wiseass proves the results they obtained were a result of their experimental design with nothing that is generalizable to different situations.
Romer keeps talking about what we should allow and not allow which means the force of government. He is another statist who wants to control too much of the economy.
Romer proposes splitting up companies like Facebook and Instagram. Why doesn’t he propose splitting up Washington DC in the small components scattered across the country? The reason not is that he is beloved by the statists and globalist and would never seriously challenge their monopoly power. So many of his proposals are suggesting greater government interference in the marketplace.
Now he says that profit is a harmful to society. Nuts! He needs to read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises to learn that all humans are motivated by their desire to profit.
Hayek talks about the arrogance of people like Romer and government bureaucrats who claim to know better for mankind what the rest of us know. Imagine a pseudo intellectual like him telling the rest of us what to shut down and what not to shut down.
