Deep Truths
Mike Rappaport
Tom utters a deep truth: "People who get inspired by government don't know a lot about government." Even when government does good, it is not pretty.
What more can you say? I wonder whether anyone would claim otherwise?
Of course, they would.
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
Or anyone with a lot of firsthand experience in/with government?
Posted by: krome | May 13, 2008 at 06:53 AM
Wow, I guess I'll bite. "Even when government does good, it is not pretty." I think that this is fair, but it tempts one towards an absolutist view that all government and regulation is bad. For example, is the SEC pretty? No. Is working as a staff attorney for the SEC particularly glamorous or (immediately)lucrative? No. And indeed securities compliance and shareholder litigation is expensive, like almost anything else having to do with a lawyer. But should we repeal the securities laws because they are expensive? Should we revert to Caveat Emptor for investments and suggest investors seek remedies through breach of fiduciary duty claims? I don't think so. The current financial crisis raises questions about the repeal of Glass-Steagall (Allowing Investment Banks and Commercial Banks to merge), the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (Removing most regulation from derivatives) and the Central Bank/Stoneridge line of cases (Eliminating aiding and abetting liability in securities fraud). My Point? Yes Government is not pretty, in fact it is usually dull, boring, and expensive. But it is tempting to make the leap from "government is not pretty" to "all government is bad," which I think is a leap to far. Maybe a pragmatic, thoughtful approach to regulation and government can be inspring, if only as a refreshing change from knee jerk populism or laissez faire rationalizations. I'm not sure any of the presidential candidates are inspiring in this way, but none of them have put forward a lot of concrete (or innovative) policy positions. (For a argument in favor of increased securities regulation, See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/business/13sorkin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Posted by: USD Law Student | May 13, 2008 at 09:32 PM
This makes me think of that wonderful post by Don Boudreaux, wherein he hopes his son never becomes a successful politician, even president. http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/please-no-polit.html
He gave voice to my secret wish that my kids likewise never sink that low.
Posted by: dgm | May 13, 2008 at 09:47 PM
USD Law Student - No one says some government isn't necessary. It is. Like a strong, competent military is necessary.
The point is that it isn't entirely good, and it has very limited abilities. Trying to use government to acheive things govenrment is poorly suited to is worse than doing nothing in any given area.
The Obamessiah Crowd thinks government is the answer to everything.
Just like war is the answer to very little (e.g. the Nazi problem but not social engineering/nation building), government is similarly the answer to very little (e.g. road building, police services, military) and makes many things worse (e.g. the Great Society welfare programs that devastated the communities it purported to be helping).
Posted by: krome | May 14, 2008 at 06:42 AM
Krome-We're mostly in agreement in principle.
DGM- Funny article, contrast "We emphatically do not want our son to yearn for power, for to do so would inevitably corrode his humanity."
With "You know, the usual: supreme power, undue influence over others, world domination."
-David Harding of Winton Capital Management when asked about what drives him in Traderdaily
(http://longorshortcapital.com/quotes-entirely-relevant-to-investing-05-11-2008-harding-winton-capital.htm)
Posted by: USD Law Student | May 14, 2008 at 11:17 AM