Titles of no real value
NPR had a recent story on the National Transportation Safety Board, profiling two of its investigators. The story provides a clear window into the inner workings of our federal government. Certainly, some will listen in pride as the investigators allude to the value they and government provide. Yet, the free market ear will reveal a whole lot of nothing.
The first segment of the report focused on just one of the many NTSB employees investigating the collapse of the I-35 bridge. The gentleman -- identified as a "senior highway accident investigator for human performance" -- will spend well over a year conducting witness interviews -- and who knows what else -- in order to understand the reactions of drivers during the collapse. (Note to investigator: They panicked. That's what people do in such circumstances.)
Reams of interviews and analysis, backed by hundreds of appendices packed with data, charts, etc., will be printed and stored somewhere -- probably in the mushroom mines just north of Butler, PA. Those mines, along with gigabytes of e-storage, will house the accident reports for the eons. But, for what purpose?
No value is being created by NTSB employees. Sure, their titles are fancy, and they produce mines (er, mountains) of stuff, but it's all just an extravagant waste. Pull back the curtain on such government programs and the wizard looks oh so average. He's not an omniscient oracle. No, he's simply an average Joe pushing paper in a government office; wasting his time and my money.
Comments (23)
Reminds me of the British comedy series Yes Minister and the later Yes Prime Minister. In one episode there's a hospital without patients but there is a lot of activity! They even say that government needs a way to measure success and without profits and losses the only way government can measure success is by employing more people. The more successful a department the larger it is, even if it doesn't create anything of value. You can find torrents for it on google.
Published: October 6, 2007 6:06 PM
They not only panicked, they fell into the river.
And it will take more than a day or two to discover this?
Published: October 7, 2007 10:59 AM
The NTSB has a budget of about 77 million, or about $0.25/person. In exchange for this, we get safer civil aviation and highways. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. And yet you claim "No value is being created by NTSB employees." I don't suppose you have any evidence for this utterly moronic assertion, other than ideology. Here's their side of it. But they are obviously biased, so why don't you take a poll of airline passengers and ask them if they think it's worth a .25/person tax to have government supervision of airline safety.
There is plenty of wasteful government programs you can attack if that's how you like to spend your time. You might start with the Iraq war, currently costing well over $100billon/year. That's over ONE THOUSAND TIMES AS MUCH as the NTSB costs, and it is not just wasteful, but actively harmful to American interests.
Published: October 7, 2007 8:57 PM
MTraven:
But I thought the FAA handled airline safety...
So an airplance crashes. The NTSB investigates, the FAA investigates.
The NTSB comes up with "lessons learned" and a bunch of trending information and reports based on the relationship between this incident and other incidents. Lot of reports... all of which go to the FAA (plus many other folks)
The FAA investigators do their own look over. Then they call upon the industry experts - the engineers at the company that made the plane, or the parts on the plane that failed, or the pilots who knew the pilot that crashed. In many ways, they duplicate the NTSB's research
The difference is that at the end, the FAA makes a rules change that is intended to prevent the problem from occuring again.
If you follow the link you referenced, then look through the pdf file off that, pages 15-16 of the document talk about the wonders of the NTSB's work on wing-ice... and you'll see the phrases "in conjunction with NASA" or "with the FAA" over and over again.
If you read through the chapter on "NTSB Most Wanted List" , you'll see a bunch of very high level statements. "The FAA should" or "The industry should"...
These boil down to, "Yeah, your airplane blew up because of a bad wire in the fuel tank... Ya'll really shouldn't do that. I'm not going to re-engineer that fuel tank for you, or tell you how to phrase the regulations on fuel tanks, but I will tell you a bunch of folks died when that airplane blew up, just in case you didn't notice"
Curiously enough, back when I worked for the airlines, there generally was a change in company SOP _before_ the FAA mandated a change.... because having a major indicent occur is bad for business, and the airline really doesn't want them to happen either.
Published: October 7, 2007 9:13 PM
Well, mtraven, here's the thing: all government programs are wasteful, from the bloodiest warfare to the vilest welfare. There appears to be a net negative benefit to society from the 77 million per year that the NTSB spends.
No ideology. No morons. Just truth in the face of tiresome fallacy.
Published: October 7, 2007 9:13 PM
mtraven,
Let me try to understand your reasoning ... The political class argues that $.25 buys safe air flights. You accepts this message; no, you support and promote it. The political class also argues that $250 buys homeland security, yet you do not accept their message this time around.
Does the political class only engage in sporadic fits of dishonesty, mainly when the bill is high? Or, does it always engage in dishonest, no matter the price tag?
Either government works or it doesn't. To delight in specific programs while attacking others simply means that you love government when it is on your side, and despise it when it isn't
Isn't that the logic that has created the current mess?
Now we have individuals using the hammer of government to obtain a profit - a psychic profit for you in this instance due to your belief in government safety programs.
Given this, how can you possibly deny the psychic profit of false "homeland security" sought by many, many Americans? They truly believe that their $250, plus the $250 of everyone else, is money well spent. Sounds similar to your logic, doesn't it?
Published: October 7, 2007 9:39 PM
Jeff: perhaps it's wasteful to have safety responsibilities split between NTSB and FAA. I don't know enough about it to say. But the thrust of this post was not about a specific agency, but about government supervision of safety in general.
Vanmind: can you do anything but repeat robotic slogans from your ideology (while claiming not to have one), or are you capable of mustering actual arguments?
Jim: the "political class" does not have a single voice. Obviously, there are differences of opinion on many issues, that's what we have elections and debate for. "Either government works or it doesn't." What an amazingly obtuse thing to say. How about this: some governments work and some don't. Some parts of government work, others don't. Some times the government works better than others. And sometimes the government does what I want, sometimes not. Duh.
Nobody has answered this basic question: let's assume you are a robotic libertarian and believe that all government is bad, and you want to shrink it and minimize its harmful effects. That being the case, shouldn't you be putting your effort into reducing the vast US military/imperialist infrastructure, rather than bitching that some NTSB study might not make sense to you?
It's been my observation that libertarians actually are pretty OK with government spending as long as its for war, agression, and torture, and not on things that actually help people. Prove me wrong.
Published: October 7, 2007 10:21 PM
Hi there robotic liberal Mtraven.
If you haven't noticed, the LVMI spends a lot of time denouncing the war, as did Rothbard, and as does Lew Rockwell. So no need for the strawmen.
Published: October 7, 2007 10:31 PM
Mtraven,
When you say that government works sometimes, you are really saying that government is capable of working all the time given the right mix of leadership, direction, and resources.
Regarding war, torture, etc. ... That's a silly thing to be stating on this blog.
Published: October 7, 2007 10:53 PM
Mtraven, here is the thing. As Jeff Pointed out the NTSB is redundant to the FAA, the FAA meanwhile is redundant to the airlines own investigations and it goes on like that. Hence there really is no need for either.
Also there are no more vocal opponents to the war in Iraq or on “terrorism”, the “war on poverty”, the “war on drugs”, etc., than libertarians. Check out www.antiwar.com, it is an anti war site started by libertarians and paleo-conservatives. For an idea of our stance on the war from a political perspective, look up Ron Paul.
Published: October 7, 2007 10:57 PM
Jim: When you say that government works sometimes, you are really saying that government is capable of working all the time given the right mix of leadership, direction, and resources. If the only way you can win this argument is by putting words in my mouth that are quite obviously different from what I actually said, then I'll just declare myself the winner and stop wasting my time.
severin: "the NTSB is redundant to the FAA" is a very different proposition than "the FAA meanwhile is redundant to the airlines own investigations". Duh.
BUT, you are all right about one thing, it is true that some libertarians are principled opponents of the war as well as the NTSB, food inspections, and child-labor laws. Ron Paul is one, and maybe some of the denziens of this blog. However, there are also a number of high-profile libertarians or quasi-libertarians who are also cheerful war supporters (ie Glenn Reynolds) and torture advocates (Robin Hanson and others at Overcoming Bias). I find this curious to say the least, and have mused about it on my blog a couple of times. But I can't accuse anybody in this discussion of that, except that given the enormous issues at hand in the world obsessing about minor government programs seems like drastically misplaced priorities.
Published: October 7, 2007 11:27 PM
mtraven,
"And yet you claim "No value is being created by NTSB employees." I don't suppose you have any evidence for this utterly moronic assertion, other than ideology."
Why is it 'moronic' to assume that a private owner, who must satisfy customers to maximize profits (or even just stay in business) in the face of constant competition, is less competent in ensuring safety than a government bureaucrat, who has zero incentive to provide consumer safety, whose only incentive is to justify the budget of his agency, and is never held personally accountable for his failures?
On the contrary, that would seem to be a rather commonsensical assertion, and the opposite (your assertion, guided by your ideology,) to be the 'moronic' one.
Published: October 7, 2007 11:48 PM
Mtraven,
You are correct: I should have written, "When you say that government works sometimes, you are really implying that government is capable of working all the time given the right mix of leadership, direction, and resources.
But, you did state, "The NTSB has a budget of about 77 million, or about $0.25/person. In exchange for this, we get safer civil aviation and highways. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me."
If NTSB is efficient and beneficial, why is the Bush administration's current foreign policy neither? Is it a matter of leadership, direction, or resources?
Keep in mind that our ills are the result of a mindset. Your explicit message is that government provides safety. People read such comments and hear "government" and "safety." They take your message to mean that government provides safety, whether in the air or overseas.
You obviously do not like the war, though you make no principled statement as to why it is wrong. Sure, you complain about the cost, but costs are relative. I pay much, much more for various types of insurance than my share of the cost of the war in Iraq, as do many Americans. And, not a few of them also believe that the war in Iraq is insurance for their future. You disagree, but, again, without a principled set of beliefs.
I believe that the war in Iraq is evil. Why? At the very least, the war violates property rights at home and abroad. The same holds for NTSB. It also violates property rights.
Sure, there is a matter of degree. Yet, I do not believe that you think government is evil (you have actually said the opposite when you stated that government can "actually help people."). You only appear to disagree with the war, and "some wasteful programs."
In addition, you stated, "It's been my observation that libertarians actually are pretty OK with government spending as long as its for war, aggression, and torture, and not on things that actually help people." Obviously, you do not hold libertarian views, or, by your statement, you would favor war, aggression, and torture.
Please clarify your views. What do you stand for? What are your principles?
Published: October 8, 2007 12:11 AM
Mtraven, I am not sure, then, why you jumped to accusing libertarians of being pro-war whilst against "soft" statism - those who frequent this blog and those who run it do take a principled stance indeed. Statism comes in many forms though, and it'd be pointless to devote all of one's time just to war, especially with other sites being based off just that goal.
Published: October 8, 2007 12:59 AM
If NTSB is efficient and beneficial, why is the Bush administration's current foreign policy neither? Is it a matter of leadership, direction, or resources?
You seem to expect there to be a simple answer to that. The real answer is that the government is a huge network of different sub-organizations, with different purposes and structures, and it is completely unsurprising that different parts of it will be more or less beneficial or more or less well-run. Keep in mind that even a single individual person can perform good acts in the morning and evil acts in the afternoon, so why should it be a surprise if the government is the same way?
You obviously do not like the war, though you make no principled statement as to why it is wrong. Sure, you complain about the cost
Cost is the least of it, but I thought the price might make an impact on libertarians.
There are dozens of good reasons to oppose the Iraq war, none of which require a concommitant opposition to the NTSB. Let's start with, unprovoked invasion of foreign countries is wrong,
What do you stand for? What are your principles?
Goodness, truth, and beauty.
Published: October 8, 2007 1:28 AM
"Keep in mind that even a single individual person can perform good acts in the morning and evil acts in the afternoon, so why should it be a surprise if the government is the same way?"
If I live my entire life without killing anyone, except for that one time, am I a murderer?
Now, focus that power into a national and international level, and take away accountability, and you have a good reason to fear government. Taking performance arguments away (governments arent incentivized to perform), concentrated power, which it has been said to corrupt absolutely, is far too dangerous.
As for goodness, truth and beauty, while your pithiness is commendable, you really havent outlined much in the way of a values structure. The point being made is that it is only in the absence of coherent principles could one be disgruntled with the war but not with wasteful bureaucracy.
Published: October 8, 2007 5:35 AM
"the NTSB is redundant to the FAA" is a very different proposition than "the FAA meanwhile is redundant to the airlines own investigations". Duh.
Why? When an airline crashes, it costs the airline millions of dollars, both in immediate costs and a loss of future revenue. The Airline wants to determine the cause and prevent future accidents. This is the same thing the FAA does, investigate crashes find the cause and attempt to prevent future accidents.
Published: October 8, 2007 10:13 AM
Severin is correct. The recent airplane crash of Helios in Greece utterly buried the company.
Published: October 8, 2007 10:47 AM
Guys, maybe mtraven is on to something. The war in Iraq is the ONLY thing anyone should pay any attention to and we should ignore all other grievances.
I think the police could really learn something from mtraven. If I might paraphrase: "given the enormous issues at hand in the world obsessing about [some harmless triviality] seems like drastically misplaced priorities."
I agree. We should suspend enforcement of all the laws agains harmless and trivial things, such as arriving at your destination too quickly, and breathing burning plants, and arranging certain bit patterns on a hard drive, things like that.
You are very right mtraven, all of us here on this site would be happy to stop complaining about these benign government programs - as soon as they cancel all their programs for addressing benign non-problems, and focus on the real job.
Your insights are very wise mtraven.
Published: October 8, 2007 11:40 AM
And let not be lost in the discussion the fact that these 'investigators' do precisely nothing. This was the original point to which mtraven objected, yet has not addressed (apart from labeling the assertion 'moronic,' with nothing in support of his objection).
Published: October 8, 2007 2:18 PM
mtraven,
1) No one here is "robotic." If you want a serious debate, drop the childish insult.
2) The Iraq war is evil and should end within the next 10 seconds, preferably sooner. Perhaps some of us think that's said so often by those affiliated with the MI that it need not be pointed out every time we criticize the government. But perhaps not. So: The Iraq war is evil and should end within the next 10 seconds, preferably sooner.
3)I have a feeling the NTSB probably is inefficient and wasteful. That is not to say that airline crash investigations are wasteful- I believe that in an unregulated (by the government) world there would be a market for what the NTSB does. After all, who wants to fly an airline that has mysterious crashes of unknown cause? The question is whether it could be done better, more efficiently, and for a lower price in a free market. As long as we assume only the government can do air safety investigations, we'll never know. But just because the government is in charge of airline safety does not mean that only the government can ensure airline safety.
Published: October 8, 2007 4:11 PM
You folks are contradicting yourselves. You are saying that government safety regulations are valueless or even of negative value, and you are also saying that in their absence airlines would perform the same functions themselves. Presumably both of those things can't be true, so make up your minds.
Most government regulatory functions were created in response to industry failure -- not so much in air travel, but certainly the auto industry, the pharma industry, the food industry, the toy industry had disastrous safety records before regulation. Food and imports have gotten signicantly worse in recent years as the regulatory agencies have gotten defunded by E. Coli conservatives.
Published: October 8, 2007 9:59 PM
Underfunded is different from abolished.
Underfunding does not remove the bureaucratic obstacle.
You must compare government to no government - not rich government to poor government.
Published: October 8, 2007 10:45 PM