House of Eratosthenes

The first one sees no problem whatsoever about one more thing being run by the government. Nationalize Starbucks. Put price controls on milk and cereal. It doesn’t even matter if we can’t outlaw gravity, we should pass the laws anyway because if we don’t then it says we want to be heavier.

The second says government can’t run a damn thing. Anything it touches turns into a committee project, and committee projects all turn to crap. It is King Midas in reverse.

The third attitude is sensibly moderate. It says there are some things that need to be run by government because they cannot be run by anyone else. Government will certainly screw things up here and there, but with the things that are properly under its control, if the political will is there then the job will get done.

I used to have the last of these three attitudes. I am gradually swiveling around to the second.

Morgan, please remember that a government can also distort markets by their threats and by their promises, not simply through what they do. Without actually running an industry, instituting legislation or doling out someone else’s money, the mere hint of possible action can freeze decision-makers into waiting to see what happens. Worse than that, it can prompt decision-makers to take money (otherwise available for R&D, capital imporvements, or wages) and divert it toward lobbying expenses – to protect turf now under attack. This is by far the most unheralded and worst trait that Obama has displayed. Obamacare is a prime example: since no one in the next two to four years will be able to know how healthcare (payments, rationing, insurance) rewards doctors, you can bet the smarter kids will not bet their careers (by choosing med school) during that time. By upsetting givens (that doctors are respected and make above-average money), the damage of decreased supply of eligible providers of this (soon-to-be infinitely demanded) good happens BEFORE Obamacare even kicks in. The damage occurs immediately, but its effects are not seen until later, and therefore can’t be used to blame Obama until after the bag man is in the getaway car.
Obama is playing a very old game: declare publicly that certain capitalist truisms may be upended, and then wait for the lobbyist dollars to flow from affected industries. It’s more rent-seeking than bribe, and it depresses the economy something awful. I don’t see many explaining how this style of Community Activism harms average voters directly – but folks like Thomas Sowell try. Obama’s ways of standing in the middle of fair transactions, waiting: to be paid to move out of the way, or to favor one side for advantage over the other, is not easy to explain. What is even harder to do is to identify which companies are playing ball instead of taking a stand. Obama doesn’t purposefully try to tear down these institutions, he just wants to profit from poking them with a stick.

In sum, it’s similar to your second attitude above, but it goes beyond looking at “what does the government run.” It clarifies how intrusive and damaging a governemt can be just by talking about a subject.

P.S. – Those that surf the waves (read: profit) from this ripple effect will not speak up about it either.
- wch | 06/30/2010 @ 10:57
He’s King Midas with a curse
He’s King Midas in reverse!

Yup. Welcome to my worldview 😉

There are certain things, of course, that Government is good for, and those were outlined in the Constitution. And there’s no “Good’n’Plenty” clause in it, either. Defense. Keep us from killing and robbing each other. And enforcement of contracts. Which is pretty much the same as keeping us from robbing each other.

It’s more rent-seeking than bribe, and it depresses the economy something awful. I don’t see many explaining how this style of Community Activism harms average voters directly – but folks like Thomas Sowell try.

This is the brilliance of the strategy. Understanding human nature and how to work with it, cause and effect, and tradeoffs requires the ability to comprehend compound concepts. It requires an attention span of more than 5 seconds.

I’m most of the way through Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”. It’s long, but devastatingly and relentlessly effective at exposing the bait-and-switch that’s been pulled here by progressives.

They seek to re-create our country by replacing it brick by brick. They hold up one brick and say “What’s wrong with this brick? How can you object to this little ole brick?” And we let them install it. They grab another one. “What’s wrong with this brick?”

“I think you’re trying to replace this wall.”

“Don’t be ridiculous! It’s just this one brick! You’re against progress! Stick in the mud!”

“Ok, well I suppose that one brick is cool by me.”

[installs it and grabs another brick] “What’s wrong with this brick?”
- philmon | 07/01/2010 @ 07:35
I am gradually swiveling around to the second.

I’m older and therefore got there quicker.

Government’s ability to do anything right? I’m reminded of what someone once said about Terry Bradshaw’s lack of intelligence: “He couldn’t spell cat if you spotted him the C and the A.” That’s very close to my opinion of government competence about anything. Well, government has proven quite skillful at screwing things up, so I guess we’ve got that goin’ for us.
- Physics Geek | 07/01/2010 @ 08:03

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“King Midas in Reverse”Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

“King Midas in Reverse”
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010