On Theater of Theater and Theater of Mega-sites

Economist Thomas Sowell has observed that ninety eight percent of political propositions are notional. That is, rather than the proposition being based upon empirical evidence the proposition is based on the world view of the politico sponsors of such proposition.

Further, Sowell observes that the notional proposition is sold by the sponsoring politicos on its first stage economic consequence whereas the n’th stage economic consequence of such proposition, in the main and upon normal occasion, suffers from cascading negative economic consequences. The first stage economic consequence in many cases is positive. If one spends plenty of resources on notional proposition X, surely something positive in the very short-run will occur. Or in the words of Michael Farr regarding the “stimulus package” of The Great Recession followed by the not so great expansion: “If you throw three trillion dollars at a dead race horse even that horse will get up and do a couple laps around the track for you”.

Going one step further, Sowell observes that when n’th stage cascading negative economic consequences occur, the original sponsoring politicos pay no price for being wrong (other than non-reelection for those few still in office) as most are either dead or retired from politics. The price for being wrong falls on the taxpayers alive at the time the price comes due e.g. Social Security and Medicare which are unfunded entitlements sucking away nearly 99% of federal revenue by 2027. (1) (2) (3) (4)

But you say nay, nay! The sponsors have “economic impact studies” explaining great and wonderful things are just over the horizon if the resources will be allocated to the notional proposition. Maybe not so much. How so? Economic impact studies, where those engaged in econometrics enjoy humoring themselves, are notorious for confirmation bias. Moreover, the economic impact study fails an important test of economics: Compared to what? One would have to prepare an economic impact study regarding every alternate possibility (every opportunity cost) to see if those alternatives created greater or lesser results than the economic impact study cited by the sponsors. (5) (6) (7)

Which brings one to F.A. Hayek and “mal-investment”. Albeit mal-investment is many times associated with central banking authorities and artificial interest rates related to credit, one can argue mal-investment is a political creation as well. As hard as it is for politicos to understand, spontaneous/emergent order is the market place. Hence free people in a free market making decisions based on their particular time and particular circumstance, the summation thereof, creates the market and what one sees being demanded and supplied. Central planning, creating a supply of what the few demand (theaters and mega-sites) does not match what the many demand through the emergent order of the market place. Hence resources are diverted to a supply that creates sub-standard results and hence mal-investment. (8) (9)

If one looks at the economic results of Greensboro and Guilford County 1990 to present, one sees an economic laggard. If one looks at the last twenty five years one might conclude a series of politico lead mal-investment has occurred, the accumulation thereof, creating abysmal economic results.

Maybe, just maybe, political answers to economic questions and the plans of the few vs. the plans of the many really do cause n’th stage negative cascading economic consequences. But why change course? Why not a theater and mega-site? “Government is the only enterprise on earth that when it fails it merely does the same thing over again, just bigger”. -Don Luskin, TrendMacro

Notes:

(1) https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489838089&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=the+vision+of+the+annoited

(2) https://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056/ref=sr_1_sc_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489838089&sr=1-3-spell&keywords=the+vision+of+the+annoited

(3) https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Expanded-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465025226/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489838205&sr=1-1&keywords=intellectuals+and+society

(4) https://economics21.org/html/entitlements-driving-washington-trillion-dollar-deficits-2235.html

(5) https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

(6) https://shift.newco.co/what-do-economists-know-199bf5793ae6?gi=16ef2fa4b16a#.skb2hs99s

(7) https://fee.org/articles/impact-evaluations-are-no-substitute-for-profit-signals/

(8) http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html

(9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment

Political Platitudes

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