THE PLANK AUGUST 5, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
At the end of a long post about obesity--part of an ongoing debate she has been having with a number of other bloggers--Megan McArdle considers the possibility of government action and writes:
Ultimately, the answer to "what could it hurt"? is that all actions have costs, which you cannot assume away on the grounds that those costs don't interest you. But they should interest you, because not least among those costs is the simple fact that the government cannot do everything well. Making all sorts of changes in the name of obesity means not making others that might be more important, because we have limited political and bureaucratic bandwith. Do you want obesity intervention, cap and trade, or health care reform? You may not be able to have any of them. But you probably can't have all three. And if you did, you'd make it more likely that the government would screw all of them up. [Italics Hers]
You might think that, as a self-described "pessimistic libertarian", McArdle would be arguing that an expanded government mandate would translate into a bigger federal government. But no: Instead she argues that our limitied bureaucratic space will be forced to take on another task. The major problem with this excerpt, however, is that there are so many large claims in such a short paragraph. I see six relatively strong statements here, and none of them are backed up with the least bit of evidence. Do all actions have costs (or at least costs worth noticing)? Does enacting changes in obesity policy mean not enacting other more important policy changes? Is there limited bandwith? Can we really not have a cap-and-trade bill, health reform, and obesity intervention? And, most importantly, does enacting all three sets of policies make it more likely that government will screw them up? Is that generally true of goverment actions? The reason I am asking these questions--rather than answering them--is that I genuinely do not have the answers. It is very tempting to speculate, but even speculation should at least have some evidence marshalled in its favor.
--Isaac Chotiner
10 comments
You never read Megan before this post? Obviously not, for her faithful readers are all too familiar with her broad (and mostly unconnected and untrue) statements, made with the level of confidence that could only be observed in newly-minted grad from one of America's elite universities. Watch the expression on your colleague Noam Scheiber's face when she says something only Megan could say (a Meganism?) during one of their bloggingshead debates. I've been waiting for Noam to give himself a head-slap. It isn't that Megan has no talent. She does. But it is as someone who reflects the narrow views of affluent twenty to thirty something grads of elite universities, not as an expert in economics. Taking a few MBA courses in economics and reading Atlas Shrugged doesn't make an expert in economics.
- raylward
August 5, 2009 at 7:46am
The budget is a zero-sum game, to a degree. Part of the reason that DoD is making the cuts that they are is that they realized programs like the F-22 meant doing less of another more-needed capability. So in the example of obesity policy, presumably administered by Health and Human Services, where would the money come from? The FDA, possibly further undermining their ability to regulate what we consume (and thus maybe even helping to undermine obesity policy)? The NIH? You get the idea. We may decide that obesity policy is a priority, but it likely means doing less of something else.
- theferrarigirl
August 5, 2009 at 9:09am
Let me answer one question: Can we really not have a cap-and-trade bill, health reform, and obesity intervention? Yes, of course, stupid question. It only takes political will among Democrats. And the question "can government do it all" is also idiotic. For one, these are already functions of government. And two, obesity prevention can be part of health care reform.
ferrarigirl, where will the money for obesity come from? Try a penny tax for sugered drinks, etc. The budget is NOT a zero sum game as long as we have targeted tax increases.
- blackton
August 5, 2009 at 9:44am
Not only are Megan's speculation odd, they are also dangerous: she assumes the only way for the government to get things right is to focus on less to do more. This is not reality; we are constantly under pressure to fix new problems that arise daily, and it is a function of effective government to balance these complex sometimes-related, sometimes-unrelated issues. You would think someone steeped in business journalism would understand this, especially after this little fiscal crisis in which we are currently severely embroiled.
- dylanposer
August 5, 2009 at 10:43am
Here's a simple obesity bill: Goodbye corn & wheat subsidies. Oh, and as an added bonus, this would likely have a very positive effect on our illegal immigration problem. We would no longer be destroying agricultural employment in Mexico by dumping our excess production on them, so there would be more incentives to stay.
Twofer!
- Nari224
August 5, 2009 at 11:27am
Time to play another edition of ... Evil or Stupid? We ask the audience whether conservative pundits' seemingly irrational and/or false commentary is intentionally misleading and spurious -- i.e., evil -- or whether the pundit is simply a total moron -- i.e., stupid. Survey says .... (Same as last week and every other week) ... BOTH!!
- jhildner
August 5, 2009 at 11:35am
"I see six relatively strong statements here, and none of them are backed up with the least bit of evidence."
A typical Megan McArdle post, in other words.
- WoodyBombay
August 5, 2009 at 12:18pm
You are correct raylward, my impression of Megan is that she is sitting atop daddy's pile of money, waving certain fingers and saying I've got mine bleep off.
- jemerk
August 5, 2009 at 12:37pm
Pretty much every column Megan McArdle writes demonstrates that if you cross uncritical libertarianism with the hard-right economic ideology of the University of Chicago you too can be a heartless bastard. She reminds me of one who discovers an intellectual principal and believes it applicable to the entire universe. There is neither an issue nor a post in which McArdle does not trumpet the rights of American corporations over the American people. Any attempt by the latter to control the former is an attack on the core of our existence.
The following is actually pretty typical of her hieratic style of argumentation:
-- I was interviewing public health experts about obesity back when [Ezra Klein] was, by my count, finishing up Freshman comp.
And presumably she was since she provides a link. But what is far more important is how they developed in the interim. From her writing it appears that McArdle has continued to analyze the world through a filter of narrow-minded libertarianism that priviliges corporations over people. She may be the worlds tallest "econo-"blogger but, more importantly, she is the high priestess of libertarianism.
- ndmackenzie
August 5, 2009 at 4:39pm
raylward, I can assure you that the Megan McArdle does not reflect the "the narrow views of affluent twenty to thirty something grads of elite universities." That group as a whole is quite liberal.
As to what she's saying, she seems to be conflating the political process (where it's true that major pieces of legislation proceed through one at a time), with the actual implementation of the legislation that passes. This is sort of like saying "we can only have so many laws, otherwise we couldn't enforce all of them," The fact that you can't pass everything at the same time doesn't mean that you can't run everything at the same time after various proposals become law.
- AlanSP
August 5, 2009 at 5:37pm