Party’s Over….
John Tierney has, as always, smart things to say about the ongoing disaster in New Orleans: “Ben Franklin Had the Right Idea for New Orleans.” (Requires simple New York Times registration.)
Party’s Over….
John Tierney has, as always, smart things to say about the ongoing disaster in New Orleans: “Ben Franklin Had the Right Idea for New Orleans.” (Requires simple New York Times registration.)
Tierney has written an interesting article that makes several good points. However, I wouldn’t call the analysis and proposal “excellent”. Was it really necessary to say that “the federal government should repair the damage and pay for a new flood-control system.” That’s probably how it will work out but I would hope that it wouldn’t be the starting point for the discussion. Do we really want to see the government encourage people to live in such locations in the future? If one really thinks the federal government owes the residents of New Orleans (tax-funded) compensation, wouldn’t it be better if it were to provide cash handouts to them and let them decide where they will live?
Mark Brady has written an interesting comment that makes several good points, but I wouldn’t call the analysis and proposal “excellent.” Was it really necessary to say that the federal government should “provide cash handouts to them [‘the residents of New Orleans’]and let them decide where they will live”? Does Mr. Brady really think that the government should steal from some people to give to others?
I’m truly shocked that Mark Brady would so thoroughly and brazenly reject libertarianism by suggesting that money should be stolen from people in other areas to give to people who lived in New Orleans.
Tom Palmer writes:
Mark Brady has written an interesting comment that makes several good points, but I wouldn’t call the analysis and proposal “excellent.”
Well, Tom, that’s how you headlined your post: “Another Excellent Analysis and Proposal by John Tierney”.
Tom continues:
Was it really necessary to say that the federal government should “provide cash handouts to them [‘the residents of New Orleans’]and let them decide where they will live”? Does Mr. Brady really think that the government should steal from some people to give to others?
No, Tom, I don’t, and I didn’t say that. Readers can check for themselves. I wrote: “If one really thinks the federal government owes the residents of New Orleans (tax-funded) compensation, wouldn’t it be better if it were to provide cash handouts to them and let them decide where they will live?” Better, that is, from Tierney’s perspective. If Tierney is sympathetic to leaving decisions to individuals, as he claims to be, why would he wish to see the government subsidize the redevelopment of New Orleans regardless of people’s wishes? Of course, he’s not prepared to leave other people with their earnings but that’s another (and more important) question.
Tom concludes, I guess, sarcastically:
I’m truly shocked that Mark Brady would so thoroughly and brazenly reject libertarianism by suggesting that money should be stolen from people in other areas to give to people who lived in New Orleans.
Of course, that’s not what I said. Given that you described Tierney’s article as an “excellent analysis and proposal” (see above), readers must assume you thoroughly and brazenly reject libertarianism by endorsing Tierney’s suggestion that money should be stolen from people in other areas for the redevelopment of New Orleans.
I was pointing out what an utterly silly critique you had offered, utterly silly because it was itself liable to precisely the same critique.
Let’s say that John Tierney had inserted the following little phrase to give him wriggle room with the Mark Bradys of the world: “If one really thinks that the federal government owes the residents of New Orleans (tax-funded) compensation for having failed to fulfill their promises, … Here’s the bargain I’d offer New Orleans: the feds will spend the billions for your new levees, but then you’re on your own.” What would have been gained by the first phrase (the second is a quote from his essay), other than to keep Mark Brady from issuing a smug “Gotcha!” What’s the point? John Tierney educates millions of readers about the role of insurance and proposes that the people of New Orleans be told that “then you’re on your own,” but Mark Brady is going to take him to task for not putting in the phrase that allows Mark Brady to cover his backside and avoid criticism from other sectarians? As another effective major media educator would put it, “Give me a break!”
Tom Palmer may have missed the point of my original post. Even accepting a role for the federal government to compensate the people of New Orleans (and that’s not what I sought to debate here), why is it necessary for John Tierney to propose that the feds rebuild the levees rather than making cash payments that maximize recipients’ choices? Why should we assume that the former residents of New Orleans want to return to that city? It’s certainly not what they’re telling reporters. Rebuilding the levees could turn out to be more a subsidy for the New Orleans tourist industry and other business interests than it is assistance to former residents, including the poor, to get on with their lives wherever they choose to live.
As Mark Brady himself notes, Brady’s proposal is highly unlikely to be implemented. So why start there if the point is that after a transfer, they should shift to a different system of disaster prevention, rather than relying on an institution (government) whose decision-makers face few incentives to act efficiently? Tierney’s point was to say that we should shift from making decisions without bearing the costs to an insurance-based (or at least influenced) system that would cause people to change their behavior, either by relocating or by investing in ongoing efforts to prevent disasters, such as fires or floods. (I pay a lower insurance premium for my property because I am quite near a fire station, for example, and my property is more valuable because of that proximity.) That was the point that Tierney was making and he made it quite well. The analysis was excellent, as was the proposal. But to someone who sees his role in life as giving quizzes to others and correcting them for minor “mistakes,” an intelligent analysis that was read by millions is not an occasion for congratulations, but for sniping.
“Tierney’s point was to say that we should shift from making decisions without bearing the costs to an insurance-based (or at least influenced) system that would cause people to change their behavior, either by relocating or by investing in ongoing efforts to prevent disasters, such as fires or floods. . . . That was the point that Tierney was making and he made it quite well.”
I agree, and I thought so when I first read his article. It’s just that I don’t think the government should be in the business of subsidizing individuals’ choices of location.
Actually, that’s precisely what Mr. Brady is in favor of subsidizing, by favoring the state giving each resident of New Orleans a pile of money with which they could choose where to live. But let’s set that aside as an uninteresting error.
John Tierney in one column has reached more people with a straighforward, clear, and compelling lesson than most of us may reach in our lifetimes. He does it on a regular basis. I admire him for it. And I hope that I will always be able to resist the temptation to pick nits off of those who are good at what they do, especially when there are no nits to be picked.
“Actually, that’s precisely what Mr. Brady is in favor of subsidizing, by favoring the state giving each resident of New Orleans a pile of money with which they could choose where to live. But let’s set that aside as an uninteresting error.”
If it’s an uninteresting error, why even mention it except to pick nits?
When I wrote about the government subsidizing individuals’ choices of location, this was a reference to the government subsidizing particular locations where some individuals might chose to live. This contrasts with the government subsidizing individuals and letting them choose where they wish to live. I favor neither, although the first option would seem to lead to more bad consequences. Perhaps it doesn’t. What do other readers think?
It seems that you are often more interested in scoring points than in having a serious discussion of the issues your correspondents raise. Too bad. That said, I’m an optimist and look forward to a serious discussion one day.
“If it’s an uninteresting error, why even mention it except to pick nits?” To give you a small taste of your own unpalatable medicine. You seem almost completely immune to the temptation to self-awareness.
So let’s leave it at this: I admire John Tierney and his writings; I think his analysis is excellent and his suggestion would institute a tremendous improvement in the incentives people face and would be a step toward more limited government, less coercion, more liberty, and more personal responsibility.