Asking Them to Calculate: and watching them squirm
It's a lazy September afternoon and your doorbell rings. You open the door to a nervous, yet cocky, smartly dressed man wearing an American flag on his lapel. One look and you realize it's that time of year in Ohio: It's the beginning of the local election cycle.
The beauty of this season is that the candidate at your door is begging for your vote. And because of that, he will attempt to answer any question you pose -- with a smile, nonetheless.
My favorite question for the wanna-be township trustee is this: When the fire chief comes to your meeting with a study purporting to show that the correct number of firefighters per 1000 residents is x, and the current staffing level is y per 1000 residents (with y being necessarily less than x), what are you going to do? [1]
Ask the question and watch him squirm. Of course, you have to keep the wanna-be from spinning off subject, so be prepared to ask follow up questions in order to get to the answer.
But you already knew the answer. You are simply trying to get him to recognize and accept that which is anathema to him: Calculation is impossible for government. [2]
Oh, sure, the wanna-be will insist that, based on his experience, he will ask harder, more probing questions than his opponent. But he will never be able to give you a bottom line to evaluate against.
He cannot calculate. And he now knows it.
Notes:
1. Here is a truism of local politics that you will need to know: Bureaucrats build the strawman proposal that becomes the starting point for all discussions and debates. Anything less than the strawman proposal is a reduction in service, anything greater is a benefit to the taxpayer.
2. The same holds for the candidate looking to be a school board member or county commissioner. Despite what they claim, they cannot calculate and cannot provide a solution to the problem that is government.
Comments (13)
Eric
The subtlety escapes me. What's stopping the politician from saying, "I'll increase it to x"? Maybe there's something about y that I'm missing. Would someone fill me in? Thanks
Published: September 7, 2009 12:50 PM
Andy von Guerard
I noticed the same problem as Eric, why wouldn't the politician just say they'd make Y=X. Would it be because of budgetary restraints? I sometimes forget that not all governments have the power of the printing press and actually have to have budgets that make some sense.
Published: September 7, 2009 12:57 PM
Jim Fedako
Eric and Andy,
The proposition begs the question: Why is x correct?
You are assuming that the studies can provide a valid x. And that some entity can perform governmental calculation. But that simply presumes that government itself can calculate -- albeit with the assistance of some third party.
In reality, x is usually the product of some research carried out by (say) the national association of fire chiefs. Keep in mind that these folks are not footing the cost, and they cannot run a profit/loss calculation.
Even when the study is the product of (say) the national association of insurance companies, there is again no profit/loss calculation.
If the trustee can answer the question exactly, then your school board can run government schools efficiently. And we are halfway to a centrally-controlled utopia.
Published: September 7, 2009 1:11 PM
Jim Fedako
Also, it is true that the candidate can say x. But then you have to follow up with questions such as, "Why is x correct? How do you know?"
These questions cannot be answered based on a market calculation. They are answered based on a political calculation (ie. The candidate asks himself, "What does the voter want to hear.").
Published: September 7, 2009 1:24 PM
Andrew Peace
I love this idea. Truly great. Although, I disagree that Y needs necessarily to be less than X ;)
Published: September 7, 2009 2:22 PM
jc butte
I reside in one of the smallish communities that use the police to raise booty by abusing petty traffic infractions. A few years ago a city councilman, running for state rep. showed up on my porch. I told him that I understood what they (the city council) were up to and that I'd never sanction it by elevating one of their members unless he voted to abolish the municipal police dept. and contract law enforcement to the county.
He was pretty indignant, and claimed the new police chief had stopped issuing ticket quotas for patrolmen but was at least honest enough to admit that he'd heard similar complaints from others.
Of course I wouldnt have voted for him regardless but just wanted to see his reaction.
Published: September 7, 2009 3:05 PM
Josh Hanson
Andrew, I don't think Jim was arguing that Y is always necessarily less than X. The argument is merely that only the market process can accurately determine the optimal levels.
Published: September 7, 2009 3:16 PM
Jim Fedako
Andrew,
It has to be true unless you propose the situation where the fire chief presents a study that shows he is overstaffed. (note: The chief is presenting the study.)
Certainly, it is possible. But I have never seen it occur in my experience.
Published: September 7, 2009 3:16 PM
AJ Witoslawski
You could say that both the police and fire departments want to increase their staff, but the city only has enough money to increase the staff of one of the departments. Then you could ask the wannabe how they would know which is more important: police or fire? They can't know for sure, of course.
Published: September 7, 2009 8:41 PM
Gil
Of course it has to be asked: why should any place catch fire in this day and age? Certainly no place should catch fire by accident. But then is there a conspiracy here about the banning of asbestos?
Published: September 7, 2009 9:34 PM
Magnus
These questions cannot be answered based on a market calculation. They are answered based on a political calculation (ie. The candidate asks himself, "What does the voter want to hear.").
Exactly.
I think this is where the interview with the politician would break down -- I doubt our hypothetical politician would understand the point of the question.
Politicians simply don't understand the idea of economic calculation. It's impossible, so it's irrelevant to them. For them, it's all political calculation, all the time, and they're fine with that. Political consequences are their only concern. They are only concerned with economic consequences if and to the extent that economic disasters become so undeniably huge that they constitute a political liability.
One correction: Politicians don't care what "the voter" wants to hear. They care about what their campaign contributors want to hear.
Published: September 7, 2009 10:45 PM
jcfolsom
The correct answer is:
"What kind of thing is that to say to someone with a maniacal desire to exert dictatorial control over the lives of others?
If I knew how to calculate I would be running a business, not running for office!"
Published: September 7, 2009 11:56 PM
Brad Warbiany
jc butte,
"He was pretty indignant, and claimed the new police chief had stopped issuing ticket quotas for patrolmen but was at least honest enough to admit that he'd heard similar complaints from others."
The amazing thing is that you got him to admit that they'd been using actual quotas at all! Usually they dismiss that idea out of hand. I'd bet, in fact, that before "the new chief stopped issuing quotas", that they'd have denied it if asked...
Published: September 8, 2009 11:41 AM