5 ms·

I don't think you've answered the question. In your response you cite a program that enjoyed the effects that were intended, but to an even greater degree than

I don't think you've answered the question. In your response you cite a program that enjoyed the effects that were intended, but to an even greater degree than had been expected (and aside from the effects being expected, it's also not a large and complex program). Another example of a program that successfully achieved its goal, but surpassed expectations, would be the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system (which is probably the most successful large program I can think of). What's the NASA spinoff you allude to? I expect it's, again, what had been promised. Part of the plan was to bring about technological innovations. The development of velcro, or things like it, was part of the plan. What I actually asked for is any example of what you claimed to be a certainty: a large, complex government program having unintended positive results. I wasn't being snarky, I was trying to demonstrate that the record here is nearly, if not entirely, on the downside. History shows us governmental programs failing in a myriad of ways, but this isn't balanced on the upside. I honestly can't think of a counterexample within my parameters (large size and complexity, and having unintended positive results). EDIT: A better way to state my question occurred to me. What I'm looking for is not quantitatively unexpected results, but qualitatively unexpected results, because I think that's what is implied in the above back-and-forth about these qualitatively unintended bad results versus a certainty of unintended good results.

fbags 13y ago
Give me a break. I guarantee that when NASA was proposed, nobody had a presentation which showed all the companies that would result, nor all the side effects of the engineering talent that would be accreted in industry and universities, nor all the innovations that would occur not just from items listed in the RFPs but from items inspired by those items and so on. You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all intentional and thus there were never any unintended positive impacts of anything, ever. Because government is full of far-sighted individuals who totally grokked that ARPAnet would eventually be used for every conceivable form of communication, entertainment, and commerce. The world is complex. Governmental programs aren't all good or all bad. Reality isn't compatible with your small-minded ideology. Deal with it.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all planned I'll admit that I'm walking a dangerous line with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I stand by my judgment of the examples cited, but agree there is some room for debate. I think the NASA example fails not because I'm being too narrow, but because the initial stated objectives were so fuzzy and broad. More importantly, these stated objectives were probably just secondary, a rationalization to enable the true objective - the nationalistic desire to win the "space race" against the Soviets. JFK, who initially got the whole ball rolling, actually wanted nothing to do with space exploration. His backing of it was really just a political ploy. (of course, in pointing this out, I'm making your point to a certain degree: JFK set out to score political points, and in the end he wound up bringing us velcro and ICBMs - yes, I'm being snarky there) That said, you've also given me the best reply to my question: ARPAnet. While it wasn't large at the time, it was certainly complex (beyond my ability to understand all of its technology, anyway). And since it was developed for defense purposes, the end positive consequences are in a whole different ballpark than what was originally planned. Anyway, what really drives my questioning here is a Megan McArdle post from yesterday [1] about a political science class at John Hopkins about policy failures. She quotes the prof. as talking about opening minds to critical thinking about the endless ways in which the best-laid plans can go awry. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-katrina-and-other-policy-disasters.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-...
  - hga 13y ago
    "nationalistic desire" implies an inward looking reason, right? As I read it, it was part of the fight for the hearts and minds of the 3rd world, the "Western" 1st World's approach to things vs. the Communist's 2nd World approach. Eisenhower let the Soviets orbit the first satellite to de facto establish his Open Skies policy, which the Soviets were mightily objecting to (the principle that outer space overflights were beyond territorial claims like those for airspace) ... but that the usual internal infighting led to our being visibly behind the Soviets in the most visible form of high technology. Which severely weakened our sales proposition to the 3rd World.... One explicit objective that developed, especially after LBJ took over, was uplifting the South with high tech. The opportunity of spending an extra billion in Texas is why we didn't build any infrastructure in space....

fbags 13y ago

Give me a break. I guarantee that when NASA was proposed, nobody had a presentation which showed all the companies that would result, nor all the side effects of the engineering talent that would be accreted in industry and universities, nor all the innovations that would occur not just from items listed in the RFPs but from items inspired by those items and so on. You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all intentional and thus there were never any unintended positive impacts of anything, ever. Because government is full of far-sighted individuals who totally grokked that ARPAnet would eventually be used for every conceivable form of communication, entertainment, and commerce. The world is complex. Governmental programs aren't all good or all bad. Reality isn't compatible with your small-minded ideology. Deal with it.

CWuestefeld 13y ago
You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all planned I'll admit that I'm walking a dangerous line with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I stand by my judgment of the examples cited, but agree there is some room for debate. I think the NASA example fails not because I'm being too narrow, but because the initial stated objectives were so fuzzy and broad. More importantly, these stated objectives were probably just secondary, a rationalization to enable the true objective - the nationalistic desire to win the "space race" against the Soviets. JFK, who initially got the whole ball rolling, actually wanted nothing to do with space exploration. His backing of it was really just a political ploy. (of course, in pointing this out, I'm making your point to a certain degree: JFK set out to score political points, and in the end he wound up bringing us velcro and ICBMs - yes, I'm being snarky there) That said, you've also given me the best reply to my question: ARPAnet. While it wasn't large at the time, it was certainly complex (beyond my ability to understand all of its technology, anyway). And since it was developed for defense purposes, the end positive consequences are in a whole different ballpark than what was originally planned. Anyway, what really drives my questioning here is a Megan McArdle post from yesterday [1] about a political science class at John Hopkins about policy failures. She quotes the prof. as talking about opening minds to critical thinking about the endless ways in which the best-laid plans can go awry. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-katrina-and-other-policy-disasters.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-...
- hga 13y ago
  "nationalistic desire" implies an inward looking reason, right? As I read it, it was part of the fight for the hearts and minds of the 3rd world, the "Western" 1st World's approach to things vs. the Communist's 2nd World approach. Eisenhower let the Soviets orbit the first satellite to de facto establish his Open Skies policy, which the Soviets were mightily objecting to (the principle that outer space overflights were beyond territorial claims like those for airspace) ... but that the usual internal infighting led to our being visibly behind the Soviets in the most visible form of high technology. Which severely weakened our sales proposition to the 3rd World.... One explicit objective that developed, especially after LBJ took over, was uplifting the South with high tech. The opportunity of spending an extra billion in Texas is why we didn't build any infrastructure in space....