The Wrong Lessons of the Bridge Collapse
How interesting that rather than blame those who are at fault, we are supposed to bemoan our "nation's collapsing infrastructure." The correct message from the bridge collapse which was allowed to happen with full knowledge of the bridge's structural problems, is that government cannot get the job done. The government lacks the incentive to fix problems. And even with the incentive, there is a core calculation problem associated with prioritizing the use of resources. This is where private markets excel. They are not perfect but resources are used efficiently to solve the most urgent demands as revealed in the system of profit and loss. The government lacks this mechanism, so everything becomes arbitrary at best and political at worst. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (62)
One thing that must be understood is that in the free market maintenance is an important marketing tool. If you have a problem with a building or a road or other plant, property, and equipment then it is a direct loss to the business.
With government it is different. When there is a problem such as a bridge collapse there is no loss of revenue. But consider that unlike with a business where maintenance supports the bottom-line of the business, in government maintenance is a cost that directly reduces the amount of money the politician can spend.
It is a direct benefit to the politician to support a sports stadium, which happened in MN, rather than repair a bridge. The politician who repairs a bridge will gain nothing politically. First, few will notice if the bridge does not fall so the politician does not gain. Second, such spending would probably be attacked in a political campaign as less necessary than supporting a sports stadium to "bring in jobs."
Finally, as we are seeing from the MN example, there is no downside if the bridge does fall. No politician will lose his job. On the contrary they will get face time on television and often can gain political points by conducting investigations or hiring experts (constituents) to "fix" the problem.
It is the very nature of government to create these disasters rather than "fix the national infrastructure."
Published: August 6, 2007 7:38 AM
I live within a mile’s radius of 2 of the 5 other Minnesota Bridges that have the same design as the I-95 bridge. (Actually, one of the bridges is down my street about 2 blocks.)
Like just about everyone here, I have family and friends that cross the I-95 daily. Two of my close friends who were driving on the bridge a couple hours before it fell described quite a different scene than the one portrayed by the press and the government. The “cosmetic maintenance” being done involved bobcats and crews equipped with heavy jackhammers fiercely excising huge chunks of concrete while traffic continued. Unsurprisingly, the whole structure shook violently that day.
Perversely, the democrats in Minnesota are passing a gas tax increase to “pay for” reconstruction. This is on the heels of federal legislation to pay for it. So essentially the lesson here is that government has an incentive to see a crumbling infrastructure so that it can merely ask for more resources over and beyond the resources they already waste.
The seriocomedy of socialist transportation continues.
Published: August 6, 2007 9:39 AM
Big News. Many people dead. Libertarians blaming government. Republicans blaming Democrats. Democrats blaming Republicans. It's V-Tech all over again!!
Published: August 6, 2007 10:09 AM
The problem isn't precisely that the infrastructure is crumbling but that it is getting old and needs replacement. So we go back to the age when there was a huge increase in taxes to put the infrastructure up in the first place. Great (not really but its come and gone and there is nothing we can do about it). But then taxes didn't go down. They found another use for the revenue (vote getting) and now real expenditures need to be made to replace the previous generation. And how? By increasing taxes even more. Taken to its logical end, all earnings will eventually be taken (of course on the horizon anyway with "free" healthcare just around the corner).
It is so frustrating that the Governor of Wisconsin where I live is proposing a new tax directly on Oil Companies (that can't be passed on to the consumer, wink wink) to pay for the infrastructure. And yet in WI every gallon of fuel is taxed at 32.9 cents (and 18.4 cents federal) already. Where is that money going? THAT is the money that should be paying for roads and bridges in the first place. And I might be a bit demanding, but if I pay 51.3 cents for each and every gallon of gas I buy, I should be driving on streets of gold.
But anyway, it stands to reason that the infrastructure needs to be replaced, and in a non-market function, the increases to do so will never go away, but calcify and become slush money for thugs, and the next phase of "public service" will require its own increase down the line.
Published: August 6, 2007 10:59 AM
There's a logical problem with the argument you are making here. On the one hand, early in your statements, you seem willing to admit that the occasion of this bridge collapse is rare. And yet on the other hand you state that this is evidence for the poor process by which the government constructs and pays for public goods. I don't think the first premise supports the second. If the way that the government currently goes about investing in infrastructure is so bad, then why aren't there more collapses?
I think you too conveniently overlook the capacity of civil engineers who take their jobs seriously as intelligent men of skill and training who do not have profit as a motivating factor for their generally exceptional work. A private market for infrastructure would be just as vulnerable to the greedy excesses and corner-cutting of the market that the energy market was susceptible to with Enron. There, too, there were auditors who "jealousy guarded their reputations" like Anderson who still utterly failed in their capacity.
There is no economic system for funding large-scale projects that is not vulnerable to individuals who (for one incentive or another) decide not to do their jobs. The real and critical difference between public and private funding is who, in the end, pays for it. Is the cost distributed evenly, or only paid for by those who use it? There's a debate to be had there, but failure is endemic to all human endeavors, not one or another system of funding.
Published: August 6, 2007 11:02 AM
The author of that article (Brad Edmonds) is forgetting one MINOR detail. No one knows WHY the bridge collapsed. There is a lot of speculation, but until all the investigations are done why not wait and see what the results are? Does Brad know something the NTSB, Army Corp of Engineers, US NAVY salvage team, Home Land security, the FBI and 3 other independent investigative bodies do? Please tell me as I would like to know the cause. BTW, Mr. Edmonds is educated with degrees in Industrial Psychology and Music. He worked in Alabama as a Banker. Gee that sounds like a perfect background to enable him to understand all the engineering issues related to this tragedy.
Published: August 6, 2007 12:32 PM
Big News. Many people dead. Libertarians blaming government. Republicans blaming Democrats. Democrats blaming Republicans.
But only one of them is right.
Does Brad know something the NTSB, Army Corp of Engineers, US NAVY salvage team, Home Land security, the FBI and 3 other independent investigative bodies do?
Yes, he knows what the calculation problem is.
Published: August 6, 2007 1:39 PM
The real and critical difference between public and private funding is who, in the end, pays for it.
The real difference is that if a private company made this sort of mistake, it would lose money and customers. When the government makes this kind of mistake, it gets more money. It should be obvious which system is likely to discourage mistakes, and which system will encourage it.
Published: August 6, 2007 2:10 PM
It is my understanding that structural problems were discovered on the bridge as far back as 1992 but that nothing was done to repair it. It is also my understanding that the bridge was being resurfaced. Can anyone confirm this and how many times has the bridge been resurfaced since 1992? Dan McCall do you have any idea?
Published: August 6, 2007 3:50 PM
"Does Brad know something the NTSB, Army Corp of Engineers, US NAVY salvage team, Home Land security, the FBI and 3 other independent investigative bodies do?
Yes, he knows what the calculation problem is. "
George, regardless of what you say, Mr. Edmonds is NOT an Engineer. He does not know more than all the experts on the scene do. I prefer to hear the conclusions or calculations from the people who are trained in emergency investigations more than a socialist musician
Published: August 6, 2007 4:08 PM
"George, regardless of what you say, Mr. Edmonds is NOT an Engineer. He does not know more than all the experts on the scene do. I prefer to hear the conclusions or calculations from the people who are trained in emergency investigations more than a socialist musician"
All you need to know that human beings can make bridges that don't collapse for thousands of years.
If humans are capable of doing this and the bridge still collapsed then someone screwed up I guess.
Published: August 6, 2007 4:24 PM
ktibuk
said"If humans are capable of doing this and the bridge still collapsed then someone screwed up I guess."
So ktibuk, you are a structural engineer, maybe a geologist or maybe you have a specialty in metallurgy? So you know that someone screwed up?
CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT LETTING THE EXPERTS INVESTIGATE? We have all of eternity to place blame, why not just wait until the cause is KNOWN?
Published: August 6, 2007 4:33 PM
Ron,
I'm having a hard time seeing the relevancy. Mr. Edmonds makes no claim to know what should have been done to prevent the failure, nor does he conjecture about what actually caused the failure. He merely states the obvious, that the market would do a better job at bridge safety than the government, because the proper incentives would be in place for the bridge owner.
We have no way of knowing if the flaw was detectable or not, but the calculation problem tells us that the government will make more mistakes and waste more resources than the market in whatever it does. There is an optimal quality of bridge building and inspection that would bring the highest probability of safety. The chances of the government stumbling into that optimum is vanishingly small, but the market finds it easily.
I'll admit that it is a somewhat weak case to build upon if you are not already conversant in the underlying theory.
Published: August 6, 2007 4:55 PM
"We have no way of knowing if the flaw was detectable or not, but the calculation problem tells us that the government will make more mistakes and waste more resources than the market in whatever it does."
I will assume you are not qualified in the one of the specialties needed to conduct the investigation.
IF it turns out it is the government's fault I will be among the first to complain, LOUDLY.
I just don't want to address my complaints to people who may not be at fault. Let's find out what REALLY happened FIRST.
Why is that so hard to accept?
Published: August 6, 2007 5:20 PM
Ron, "So ktibuk, you are a structural engineer, maybe a geologist or maybe you have a specialty in metallurgy? So you know that someone screwed up? "
I thought you implied that the unavoidability is an option for the collapse of the bridge. After the investigation one of the results may be that the collapse was unavoidable for human beings. An act of god maybe.
My common sense and knowledge tells me that it is not inevitable or unavoidable at least for a brdige not that old, since I live in a country where there are bridges literally hundreds of years and still in use.
This means if you build it well enough and maintain it it will stand. And it also means that if a relatively young bridge collapses either it wasnt built right or wasn't maintained well enough.
Really you dont need to be an engineer to know this do you?
Published: August 6, 2007 5:53 PM
I expect the folks who examine the wreckage will be working for the same outfit that reported WMDs in Iraq. I'm looking forward to their report with bated breath. What are the 9/11 Commission people doing these days, anyway.
We're not going to be able to pay for infrastructure replacement what with all the taxes we will have on such activities that we didn't in 1967, such as a carbon tax, workplace-safety regulations, affirmative action, prevailing wage legislation (actually, we DID have that in 1967, I believe), and on and on and on.
The bright side is that, with mobility and general prosperity so severely crimped, we aren't going to need NEARLY as many bridges for whatever sparse (mostly governmental) vehicular movement there will be, anyway.
Published: August 6, 2007 6:03 PM
ktibuk
So, you know the cause? WHY can't you wait until the experts determine the cause? I feel it is far better to WAIT until the cause is known than to get the recipe for barbecuing crow later.
Published: August 6, 2007 6:26 PM
"A private market for infrastructure would be just as vulnerable to the greedy excesses and corner-cutting of the market that the energy market was susceptible to with Enron."
No, not "just as vulnerable". To be sure it would be susceptible to such problems, but the market penalizes short-ranged, inefficient firms, such as those that choose to cut around corners.
Published: August 6, 2007 6:57 PM
Consider the effect of the outcry for safer bridges on the politically motivated interventionists and magnify that by an election year frenzy factor. What we have is the preliminary ingredients for hyperinflation!
What else but the precursors of hyperinflation can sustain the expenses for military operations all over the world, for the unending piling on of more and more government control of all things domestic, and now answering the cry for new infrastructure?
The collapse of the bridge in Minnesota may actually be a metaphor, symbolizing the impending collapse of the fiat currency.
Published: August 6, 2007 9:56 PM
Ron,
Are you qualified in the one of the specialties needed to conduct the investigation? If so perhaps you could enlighten us as to what caused the problem? If not how could you ever hope to understand the conclusions of the experts?
BTW, are you an economist? If not how can you hope to understand these posts?
(Tongue firmly planted in cheek.)
Published: August 7, 2007 9:34 AM
George, regardless of what you say, Mr. Edmonds is NOT an Engineer. He does not know more than all the experts on the scene do. I prefer to hear the conclusions or calculations from the people who are trained in emergency investigations more than a socialist musician.
You don't know what the calculation problem is, do you?
Or a socialist, apparently.
What matters is that the bridge was not built and/or maintained in such a way that it would continue standing.
The particular manner in which those engineering failures occurred are considerably less important than the economic failures that engendered them.
Published: August 7, 2007 1:18 PM
Follow the incentives.
The state steals money, then uses it for whatever it wants. When the state fails, it justifies stealing more money. Thanks to pervasive propaganda, it does get more money.
Businesses earn money. If businesses fail, they go bankrupt and stop recieving any money whatsoever.
Now which of these 2 is economically and morally sound? Which is anti-human? Which encourages innovation? Which would have an INCENTIVE to prevent the bridge from collapsing?
Published: August 7, 2007 1:41 PM
Ron said:
IF it turns out it is the government's fault I will be among the first to complain, LOUDLY.
-------
The fact that the bridge was reported to have had difficencies seems to show that the goverment was negligent. There are strong reasons to suspect that the government would try and exculpate itself.
Consider the pet food scare. Despite all the assurances of AAFCO and the supposed vigilance of the FDA, our pets got poisoned. In the case of AAFCO, the certification is worthless. The point here is that government inspection(s) did *nothing* to detect the poisoning of dogs and many more cats. As Ron points out in in his article, the government has a penchant to cut corners and dodge resopnsibility.
I would also like to point out to readers that I worked for the FDA as a chemical bench technician. I told my lab supervisors that the testing of pharmaceuticals was being done improperly. Their reply was:
"We are the FDA we don't have to follow the rules"
In anther instance a fellow worker complained that a reagent was hopelessly beyond expiration date and could not be used for assay. The reply that person got was:
"You're old and we hired you"
So the idea that these wonderful governemnet regulators are going to incriminate themselves is just silly. Of course they won't be at fault.
BTW - if this had been a toll bridge it would have made the owners lots of money and they would have had the incentive (and the wherewithal) to get it properly maintained. I believe the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Bridge (a toll bridge) paid for itself in 5 years. As a non car driver and a man of modest means, I am sick to death of subsdizing other peoples fuelish and wasteful habits.
Published: August 7, 2007 11:12 PM
John said:"The fact that the bridge was reported to have had deficiencies seems to show that the government was negligent."
Yes the key word is REPORTED. The reporters do NOT know what happened. The reporters do not know if there was a structural failure, a ground anomaly or who knows what. If any of you experts KNOW for a fact what the cause is please inform us. Then I see people like Joseph making blanket statements like:"The state steals money, then uses it for whatever it wants. When the state fails, it justifies stealing more money. Thanks to pervasive propaganda, it does get more money."
Joseph , do you have any facts to back up your flame throwing? Have you ever been to a state or federal transportation appropriations hearing? Do you know how funds are allocated? Since you do please be specific about who THEY are that are stealing money. Are THEY related to THEM? I always wanted to meet them.
There are several independent investigations being held to determine the cause. Unless one of you experts already know more than those conducting the investigations I suggest it is more responsible to wait for the report and see what is learned from the report and then apply the lessons learned to existing structures. There will be plenty of time for crying and finger pointing at THEM.
Published: August 8, 2007 12:20 PM
Since you do please be specific about who THEY are that are stealing money.
Ron, he's referring to any organization that collects a tax. Taxation is theft.
In addition, an organization whose revenue is based on theft and/or taxation does not make decisions in the same way as an organization whose income is based on providing a valuable good or service. A taxing entity has NO CONNECTION between its income and its expenditures. It therefore has no way of knowing whether any of its expenditures are actually contributing toward some economically-productive goal.
This has nothing to do with the good or bad intentions of the taxers or the spenders. The result of collecting money via taxation is that those who spend it have no ability to distinguish economically-sound decisions from wasteful ones. Every decision becomes, at best, a guess, with no means of testing the quality of the decision after the fact.
Decisions end up being made on some basis other than economic viability. Usually the basis for decision-making becomes things like: (1) the administrative convenience of the money-spenders, or (2) the PR wishes of the tax-imposers. In that kind of environment, waste and fraud tend to increase.
Published: August 8, 2007 1:43 PM
George
No one has answered my question. WHAT IS WRONG WITH WAITING UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER
?
Published: August 8, 2007 3:55 PM
WHAT IS WRONG WITH WAITING UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER?
Nothing's "wrong" with waiting, of course. But the investigation into the specific engineering causes -- which bolt and beam failed first, which inspection report went unheeded, etc. -- will tell us little or nothing about the larger economic forces that led to this government-sponsored disaster.
Could you at least humor us, and acknowledge that you have read and understood the comments regarding the calculation problem, and the lack of connection between revenue and expenditures? No one is saying that you have to agree with any of it, or that you even have to draw any conclusions about this particular bridge collapse. But will you give us an inkling that you read it and will give it some thought?
Published: August 8, 2007 9:01 PM
Perhaps another way of putting this particular application of the "calculation problem" is the connection between the users/customers and businesses/service providers.
Businesses make expenditures make to provide services to their (potential) customers. This requires some initial investment of capital.
(Potential) Customers may or may not choose to use this service. If they choose yes then Rev>Exp => Profit => more service from business. If customers say no then the business ceases operations (in this case, stops operating bridges).
With the government, Revenue is taken by force so the potential service users have no choice but to pay for the service. Hence, the success or failure of the bridge is not determine by the people who actually use it, but politicians.
Published: August 8, 2007 10:24 PM
George said:"Nothing's "wrong" with waiting, of course. But the investigation into the specific engineering causes -- which bolt and beam failed first, which inspection report went unheeded, etc. -- will tell us little or nothing about the larger economic forces that led to this government-sponsored disaster."
I guess you must have much better ESP than I do.
I don't know what the the report will show. Yes, there are all kinds of theories making the rounds, but until we actually know what went wrong it is useless to speculate.
There will be ample time for finger pointing, if that is what is needed. Until then, I will let God remain the supreme being and I refuse to act like I am God and say I know what the cause was.
Published: August 8, 2007 10:43 PM
Good post, Brad.
I ran across this post that had a little more interesting background, indicating that the collapse might be linked to failures relating to high temperatures and low Mississippi water levels.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/6/164642/0801
Published: August 8, 2007 11:00 PM
Ron,
The answer to your question lies within itself. According to the NTSB, it's going to take about 18 months to investigate. This is almost as long as it took the 9/11 commission to conduct their investigation of the terrorist attacks. For crying out loud, The Pentagon in Washington DC was built faster. The fact that we must wait 18 months in order to get a probable cause for either of these issues should be sufficient support as to the point of this article. The government cannot run an operation efficiently, regardless of the situation.
If a private firm was responsible for the construction, maintenance, and investigation of such issues, and money was at stake, there's no way it's going to take 18 months to investigate such a collapse. And, as an added bonus, the quicker we find the cause, the quicker we can blame, and the faster you'll be able to confidently complain to the powers at hand.
Published: August 9, 2007 6:29 AM
Sorry, the NTSB said it COULD take 18 months. It doesn't matter what building was constructed faster, that is irrelevant.
I am confident you will find something to complain about in the interim.
Published: August 9, 2007 8:14 AM
Ron: go kiss the state, and leave mises.org behind. Obviously you're close minded and prone to logical fallacies. It is not our job to disprove your statements, it is your job to prove them. I wouldn't be surprised if you were propaganda-filled at your local government school.
By the way, take logic 101 at your local communist college.
Do you think the state has an incentive to investigate the collapse properly? Do the parasites get paid more if they finish earlier and arrive at what really happened? Saying the state validly judges itself is saying there is no real law, since the state will obviously judge itself to be innocent. Surely the non-investigation will find no blame in the state.
Published: August 9, 2007 12:21 PM
Joesph
So, are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your thought is not welcome on this site?
Published: August 9, 2007 1:33 PM
I don't think that's what anyone is saying, Ron. It's just that this is a site about free market economics, and you seem reluctant to address any of that.
As several people have said repeatedly, the specific engineering problems that this NTSB investigation is supposed to uncover do not speak to the issue of the relationship between economics and government. The engineering failures may be interesting to engineers, but don't mean much in terms of the economics of government management and oversight.
If you are absolutely committed to avoiding the topic of this particular bridge failure, then perhaps you have something substantive to say about some other aspect of government control of engineering projects? You suggest that you have experience in that area. Have you ever seen or thought about systemic problems of blind decision-making or misallocaiton of resources by governments?
Published: August 9, 2007 2:57 PM
George
Yes, I have had experience in this process, I was budget director of a state's DOT in the 80's. I can assure you that the allocation and appropriation process is far from arbitrary.
Can the allocation system ever improve? Of course it can. Everything people do can be improved.
Believe it or not, the government DOES want to know what went wrong so that problem can be corrected. People that work in government also use the bridges and highways and they don't want to be injured driving home.
I understand you folks are itching to place blame on somebody. I understand that folks on this site think private companies can do a better job of allocation resources to build and repair roads, bridges or whatever. Regardless of what went wrong I feel it is far more responsible to find the actual cause and address whatever that cause may be.
Published: August 9, 2007 3:58 PM
Joseph
You said at 12;21 today:"
Ron: go kiss the state, and leave mises.org behind. Obviously you're close minded and prone to logical fallacies. It is not our job to disprove your statements, it is your job to prove them. I wouldn't be surprised if you were propaganda-filled at your local government school.
By the way, take logic 101 at your local communist college."
Joseph, I have not been nasty to you. The only reason I am on this site is because a person from this site posted a reference from here while being critical of Minnesota state government. If not for that person's nasty remarks I would not have ever visited this site. I was a budget director of a state's DOT and now am a history and political science teacher in both high school and college. I would even allow a nasty person like you to take my class.
Published: August 9, 2007 4:13 PM
From my experience in the military, I've learned that there's no more incentive to avoid mistakes than the the loss of one's job, and given government job security, that isn't much.
Also, employees of government (the decision makers) basically believe that if you're working, then you're being efficient.
Ron, the actual cause (or root) of the problem has been addressed. The problems of the bridge began with corrosion - the corrosion of property rights.
Published: August 9, 2007 4:19 PM
nothing is sadder than a closed mind
Published: August 9, 2007 4:24 PM
you're funny, ron.
Published: August 9, 2007 4:30 PM
"I can assure you that the allocation and appropriation process is far from arbitrary."
What enters into it?
Also, I'd suggest before posting on a site about economics that you inform yourself of the basics.
Published: August 9, 2007 5:16 PM
Anthony
I would suggest you police members of your holier than thou blog. I would never have posted to this site if a member from here had not posted a link with some nasty comments in a forum I usually visit.
If my opinions are so threatening to you, maybe you should reconsider your ideas. I am really radical for saying things like, lets see what the facts are first before proceeding. Wow, how awful.
Published: August 9, 2007 6:30 PM
Ron,
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the government employees might say caused the collapse?
Here's a thought that might never have crossed your mind: Was their anyone who willfully accepted responsibility for the bridge and who will also be held personally liable for damages?
Published: August 9, 2007 6:44 PM
@Ron
I am curious. What does the process of firing the state DOT director involve? If the state DOT director does a bad job, as is evident from crumbling roads and collapsing bridges, how does this person "feel the heat"?
Disney World can go through a hurricane with guests not even noticing much of an interruption in services, while the outside world has to deal with power outages, etc. I am sure with guests money on the line, someone will be "feeling the heat" to get things running again.
So I ask, how is customer service connected to the State DOT? Does the customer have to elect a politician and cross their fingers that the politician will actually put heat on the DOT? This is the problem people on the blog are addressing.
Published: August 9, 2007 7:17 PM
Kevin
Thanks for the civil question. I have no idea what govenment employees think caused the collapse. I have not worked for government since I moved to Minnesota. The people I know that work for the government use that bridge and are anxious to find out what went wrong.
Published: August 9, 2007 7:22 PM
Banker
The way to change the Commissioner of MNDOT is vote her out of office. She is also the Lieutenant Governor. BTW she also used that bridge a lot.
Published: August 9, 2007 7:30 PM
Yet, if someone else likes her then I still have to pay for the bridge I refuse to trust my life to. See, the problem has not gone away.
Tax => guaranteed income.
Revenue for business => income only if people are satisfied
Democracy != Private Enterpise
Published: August 9, 2007 7:55 PM
I can assure you that the allocation and appropriation process is far from arbitrary.
The government's allocation and appropriation process may be lengthy, tedious, burdensome and even contentious, but it is still arbitrary in terms of economics.
This is absolutely and invariably true in all government spending, because governments CANNOT engage in economic calculation. They could not do so even if they wanted to.
Even if we assume that DOT officials in charge of allocation and appropriation were to have the best, purest of intentions, they simply have no MEANS of making a sound economic choice. Nothing they do can later be measured as having increased or decreased revenue. As such, nothing they do can later be measured as having been profitable or unprofitable. They have no means of comparing alternatives, to see if Option A is better than Option B. As a result, every single decision, starting with whether to build or not build, to build here or build there, to how much to spend on it, is always, in the end, a guess.
By resorting to taxation, governments are blind to the economic signals and information that are needed to distinguish between economically sound and unsound activity.
Published: August 10, 2007 2:26 PM
George
What really scares me is I think you really believe what you just wrote.
Have a nice day.
Published: August 10, 2007 3:27 PM
Ron,
I get the sense that your arguments and those of the bloggers on this site are sliding past one another without quite meeting. That would also account for most of the hostility you've seen. I invite you to read the following:
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap26sec1.asp
This is THE argument for why socialism will never, ever work to improve people's lives, and it applies to anything government tries to produce, including bridges.
Published: August 10, 2007 4:50 PM
"By resorting to taxation, governments are blind to the economic signals and information that are needed to distinguish between economically sound and unsound activity."
why does this seem so unbelievable?
Published: August 10, 2007 5:06 PM
Ron said he worked for the DOT for a while. Perhaps, should he be forced to see reality (or at least the blog's point of view) he might be inclined to jump off a bridge. Who would want their whole reality destroyed in a paragraph.
Anonymous (usually posts under other moniker)
Published: August 10, 2007 5:43 PM
"George
What really scares me is I think you really believe what you just wrote.
Have a nice day."
Can you not even grasp the most basic of arguments? Have you done a stitch of studying in economics in your entire life? I, and others, have asked what enters into the calculations you referred to, and got no answer but semi-condescending evasions.
Published: August 10, 2007 6:29 PM
Dear Anonymous
Since you made a rude post under the anonmyous banner, my reply is ..have a nice day.
Published: August 10, 2007 7:05 PM
George
I have tried to explain the budgeting process when it comes to a DOT. Just because my economic and political views differ with your economic philosophy does not mean I am condescending. It is ok though that anonymous members of this blog have told me to go jump off a bridge. That sure is a wholesome debate tactic. I have been told I am not welcome on this blog.
I disagree strongly with the economic theory I have seen on this site. I do not remember your exact philosophy. Kevin recently posted politely to me and I thanked him. So, I don't think my actions have been condescending.
George you said in your last post:" Can you not even grasp the most basic of arguments? Have you done a stitch of studying in economics in your entire life? I, and others, have asked what enters into the calculations you referred to, and got no answer but semi-condescending evasions."
I am being condescending? Treat me with a stitch of civility and you will receive a civil reply.
I will not be responding to anything this weekend and early next week. I wish you all a pleasant weekend.
Published: August 10, 2007 7:37 PM
Scott
Thank you for the civil response, I will get back with you on the link you posted for me.
Published: August 10, 2007 7:43 PM
George you said in your last post:" Can you not even grasp the most basic of arguments? Have you done a stitch of studying in economics in your entire life?
I did not.
I have tried to explain the budgeting process when it comes to a DOT.
I do not believe that you have tried to explain it. You have asserted that it is not arbitrary, but provided no reasoning in support of this assertion. You have stated your position, but have offered no argument in support of it.
I will invite you to do so. I am sure that we are all interested in a discussion of the calculation problem from the perspective of someone who has experience in the government-spending process.
In the absence of profit and loss, how are costs and benefits accounted for in a governmental allocation process, and how are these costs and benefits compared to all other possible courses of action?
Published: August 10, 2007 8:58 PM
The name's Anthony, not George, Ron. Other than that, George's last post was right on track.
Now you've repeatedly said you only came here because of someone linking you to the site. Fine. This site is an economics site though, for the discussion of economic theory and data - so please begin to familiarize yourself with this if you want any meaningful debate.
Published: August 10, 2007 9:50 PM
The name's Anthony, not George, Ron. Other than that, George's last post was right on track.
Published: August 11, 2007 6:05 AM
月饼, why are you copying what I say? :)
Published: August 11, 2007 7:01 AM
"CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT LETTING THE EXPERTS INVESTIGATE? We have all of eternity to place blame, why not just wait until the cause is KNOWN?"
If this is a case of the government screwing up, do you actually think that we will ever find out what really happened?
Published: August 12, 2007 12:10 PM
"If this is a case of the government screwing up, do you actually think that we will ever find out what really happened? "
lol.. you said it.. We not even have to think about it.. we never will find out.. even if its government screwing up, will there be any action? NO..
Its so surprising that even "intelligent" people buy all the crap governments feed us.. I mean, i come from one of the best technical schools in Bangalore,India and people here still believe in santa claus, i mean, governments..
btw, was a very good article by the author.. really good one..
Published: August 12, 2007 11:15 PM