Showing posts with label
bureaucrats as an extension of the politico.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
bureaucrats as an extension of the politico.
Show all posts
Many politicos maintain that the private-public enterprise model aka private-public partnership (PPP) is a grand solution to particular undertakings. The idea sounds great as proposed by politicos: Private enterprise expertise coupled with taxpayer funds administered by bureaucrats, equals success. Further, the private-public enterprise model is framed by politicos as a rather new concept that should be given a try. Sounds pretty good, huh? (1)
First of all the private-public enterprise model dates back to Prussian State Socialism of the late nineteenth century. Nothing new here. Further, private-public enterprise models have less than a stellar record. Yet the private-public enterprise models do have a better record than pure public enterprise models. But both models are far exceeded by the success of the private enterprise model.
Why does the private-public enterprise model have lukewarm success? One component of “why” was observed in 1922 by Ludwig von Mises. Von Mises observed that the entrepreneur, in a private enterprise model, has free rein. Dealing with risk and uncertainty, and the success or failure thereof, lies directly with the entrepreneur. When state (government) enters the picture as a partner, so does the hindrances of bureaucrats and bureaucracy. Further, the bureaucrat model is a model of no failure (nothing can fail). Hence the bureaucrat deals with risk and uncertainty diametrically opposite to that of the entrepreneur. (2) (3)
In the end, the entrepreneur as well as the bureaucrat are fish-out-of-water in the private-public enterprise model. The entrepreneur is stymied by the bureaucrat model and the bureaucrat is scared to death of the entrepreneur model as failure is not an option.
(1) Public-Private Partnerships, Investopedia
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-private-partnerships.asp
(2) Socialism, an economic and sociological analysis, 1922, Ludwig von Mises, pgs. 256-257
(3) Ibid, pages 214-215.
Platitude: Noun . 1. a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound. 2. the quality or state of being flat, dull, or trite: the platitude of most political oratory. (1)
When listening to rhetoric of politicos of all stripes and their ilk, bureaucrats, and special interest groups one needs to be aware of and identify platitudes within the rhetoric. Platitudes are the tools of the political class and its associates.
“A good way to test if someone is speaking in platitudes is to ask yourself if you can imagine a normal human adult believing the opposite.
Suppose someone informs you that he favors policies that promote human happiness. Can you imagine, say, your neighbor responding, “I disagree. I favor policies that promote human misery”? Probably not.
If you cannot imagine any normal person disagreeing with some proclamation, then that proclamation is a platitude. It tells you nothing of substance.
Consider today's fashionable calls for “sustainability.” The academy, media, cyberspace are full of people proclaiming support for policies that promote economic and environmental “sustainability.” So whenever you hear such proclamations, ask if you can envision a sane adult sincerely disagreeing.
You'll discover, of course, that you can't imagine anyone seriously supporting “unsustainability.” Therefore, you should conclude that mere expressions of support for “sustainability” are empty. And they can be downright harmful if they mislead people into supporting counterproductive government policies.” (2)
Some oft used platitudes favored by politicos and there associates are: favoring the creation of jobs, favoring a strong middle class, favoring less crime, favoring more education, add your favorite political platitude here à
_________ .
Moreover, the deployment of political platitudes is not without stratagem. One might identify the stratagem as political slight of hand. How so?
The politico begins with the political platitude knowing the audience is in agreement with such platitude as disagreement is nearly impossible. Hence the politico has one’s agreement e.g. more jobs. Now comes “how”.
Yes, now comes the particular notional proposition of creating “more jobs”. As poorly thought out as the notional proposition might be, how can one be against such proposition as one agrees with “more jobs” i.e. the platitude.
Therefore, if one disagrees with the “how” (particular notional proposition) then one is attacked based on the platitude: “So you are against more jobs.”
The politico, bureaucrat, and special interest group will deflect opposition to the platitude, rather than an examination of the “how”.
Which then brings us to the public choice theory observation: platitudes are a poor basis for public policy.
Notes:
(1) dictionary.com
(2) Unsustainable platitudes, D.J. Boudreaux, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 08/12/2014
http://triblive.com/opinion/donaldboudreaux/6556379-74/petroleum-sustainability-policies#axzz39n9x2J8b
