Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Assuming that this anecdotal evidence is statistically significant (which I think it likely is), then it's apparent that there's an unintended consequence with the well-intended supporters of disability pay.
What's interesting about central planning and the adherents of such policies, is that they mean well. They want to help people because the story of some guy with a bad back deserves help (derived from involuntary means, e.g. taxation). However, when unintended consequences come to play, these adherents tend to ignore this, or assume that reforms would actually be implemented. The hope of reform may be cute, but it doesn't pan out because many politicians gain from essentially paying off their voting market through such means as disability pay. You ever tried running on a platform which would reduce disability pay? It's suicidal!
What makes you think [all of] us commie basterds some how all miss the unintended consequences?
I see the inefficiencies, I see the distorted and broken incentives, I understand all that; but I have made a evaluation based on my social consciousness that the unintended consequences of the policy is preferable the intended consequence of the counterfactual.
To be clear, there's commie bastards like you in the central planning divisions of private firms, which essentially are pockets of socialism operating within a market. So, it's not the commie bastards themselves which are the problem. The problem lies in the difference between operating within a market and basing one's services/goods on voluntary transactions versus operating within the government/bureaucracies and their particular institutions. To answer your question, I don't think most of the technical guys overlook the problems because they tend to be smart people. It's their bosses, the politicians, and the rules of the game for government which can get in the way.
(re: underlined, a great point. To be blunt, what sucks about the counterfactual is that one can speculate that without public policy X things would get worse, and the other can speculate that things would get better. Then if the latter is the case, the short-run costs might be too (politically) prohibitive even though the long-run benefits would be totes better.
Then, these debates boil down to comparative analysis, if that's even available. For example, social security in Chile is privatized and has a different regulatory structure from the United States. IIRC, it's working better than ours. However, a rebuttal could be, "yeah, well, how would such a program be implemented in the US? And which institutions within the US would worsen such a plan, and which ones would have to be improved?" Then, if the problem areas could be identified, then comes the (politically) prohibitive argument.
For example, the FDA and the price of medicine. If we want cheaper medicine of similar quality with a very slightly higher yet tolerable increase in risk, we'd have to let the FDA compete with other certification agencies. Patents and their term limits would have to be totally restructured, and for good measure, the AMA and the human medicine certification agencies (one monopoly per State) would be forced to compete with others test-makers and schools.
Another one, political transparency regarding politicians and their trading behavior on the stock market. Some have been clued into IPOs and have first dibs on the stocks before they're sold to everyone. Throw Them All Out names names and provides evidence. That author is not allowed on any reform meetings regarding this issue because as he says, "he's political poison" even though his claims were true.
So, try implementing policy when the politicians find that such policies go against their self-interests. I think the main problem between guys of my ideas and you "commie bastards" is not so much the data, arguments, etc. between us. It's usually the special interest groups, the politicians, and the entrenched, self-serving big shots of the bureaucracies.
(damn, son. I hammered that out in about 3-5 minutes, so beware of mistakes.)
