<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/stylesheets/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Eikonoklastes by Michael Hartl: Three hurdles</title>
    <link>http://eikonoklastes.org/articles/2006/02/26/three-hurdles</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>where nothing is sacred</description>
    <item>
      <title>Three hurdles</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;There are problems in the world.  Hard problems.  Who should solve them? 
Government should.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Well, maybe not.  Most advocates of government action to fix Problem A with
Policy X make three key assumptions:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
    &lt;ol&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Policy X will fix Problem A.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The government, if empowered to do X, will in fact do X, and will keep
    doing X (only) as long as Problem A remains a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The benefit due to fixing Problem A is worth the cost of Policy X.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In my view, many government policies fail #1, and those that don&amp;#8217;t almost
invariably fail #2.  The few policies that seem both well-conceived &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;
well-executed either fail #3 outright or provide insufficient evidence of
passing a cost-benefit analysis.  The set of policies that unambiguously clear
all three hurdles is minuscule.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The space of Policy Xs that people propose to fix all the Problem As is vast,
and rarely contains a plausible solution.  Indeed, potential solutions to
Problem A are often so counter-intuitive that the straightforward Policy X,
rather than helping, or even merely being orthogonal to Problem A, may
actively make it worse.  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Of course, simply because you&amp;#8217;ve found an effective solution to Problem A
doesn&amp;#8217;t mean that the government will do it and do it right.  Government has
its own internal incentives, which aren&amp;#8217;t necessarily aligned with the goals
of those who would use it to implement Policy X.  Oftentimes regulated
industries capture their regulators with strategic campaign donations and
high-priced lobbyists.  And &amp;#8220;temporary&amp;#8221; policies often become effectively permanent (for
example, the 3% excise tax on telephone calls &lt;a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/19/ap/business/mainD8FSB61O5.shtml"&gt;recently in the
news&lt;/a&gt;
was passed in
1898 to help fund the Spanish-American War).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Finally, even should a particular Policy X be effective, and be implemented,
there is a cost that comes with any new law.  Is the benefit worth the cost? 
It&amp;#8217;s often difficult to say; government doesn&amp;#8217;t really provide a framework for
answering the question.  And many, especially those who most passionately
support government intervention, completely ignore an important intangible cost: the
inevitable loss of freedom due to Policy X.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:09:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:e04e5bdc-fbc2-44b8-b76d-0b1d53b04ea4</guid>
      <author>Michael Hartl</author>
      <link>http://eikonoklastes.org/articles/2006/02/26/three-hurdles</link>
      <category>Economics</category>
      <category>Politics</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
