3 ms·

You're making my point for me :-) It is vital to consider higher-order effects and unintended consequences if you want to make good public policy. And not jus

by readams 11y ago

You're making my point for me :-) It is vital to consider higher-order effects and unintended consequences if you want to make good public policy. And not just "prove there are negative consequences:" it is incumbent on policy makers to understand these effects before enacting policy. Consider price controls, such as rent control. Problem: prices are too high. Solution: legislate lower prices. First-order effect: prices go down. Hooray! Second-order effect: shortages. Third-order effect: decline in investment and maintenance. End result after many years can be disastrous. You get Venezuela.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
In a scope of logic alone, yes, you are absolutely correct. An example I like to raise regularly is the farm subsidies put in place by the Roosevelt Administration to prevent overproduction. Was there a better way for farms to stay in business and for food to be affordable to consumers? Maybe. But this way worked to solve problems created by the Great Depression. Now I'm sure as you know, farm subsidies now are sweeter than high fructose corn syrup. There is even sitting republican senator who makes millions from the federal government paying him to not plant cotton. Few can argue this policy still works as intended, but it so politically locked-in that it's almost impossible to shake out. Same with the tons of unnecessary military hardware and property sitting around solely because representatives in those districts want to be re-elected by their core constituencies. To me the problem isn't about getting it right the first time, it's about changing something that has outlived its usefulness when powerful beneficiaries fight to keep the wasteful status quo. A metaphor: bandages are useful for flesh wounds, but after the wound has healed the bandage must be removed and the skin must be cleaned or it will rot.
- readams 11y ago
  It seems we are in violent agreement :-)

by readams 11y ago

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

In a scope of logic alone, yes, you are absolutely correct. An example I like to raise regularly is the farm subsidies put in place by the Roosevelt Administration to prevent overproduction. Was there a better way for farms to stay in business and for food to be affordable to consumers? Maybe. But this way worked to solve problems created by the Great Depression. Now I'm sure as you know, farm subsidies now are sweeter than high fructose corn syrup. There is even sitting republican senator who makes millions from the federal government paying him to not plant cotton. Few can argue this policy still works as intended, but it so politically locked-in that it's almost impossible to shake out. Same with the tons of unnecessary military hardware and property sitting around solely because representatives in those districts want to be re-elected by their core constituencies. To me the problem isn't about getting it right the first time, it's about changing something that has outlived its usefulness when powerful beneficiaries fight to keep the wasteful status quo. A metaphor: bandages are useful for flesh wounds, but after the wound has healed the bandage must be removed and the skin must be cleaned or it will rot.

readams 11y ago
It seems we are in violent agreement :-)