"What do a deaf woman in Los Angeles, a first-century Jewish sandal maker and a red-cockaded woodpecker have in common?"
Politicians would do well to remember a basic principle of Economics, "the law of unintended consequences."
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again
"What do a deaf woman in Los Angeles, a first-century Jewish sandal maker and a red-cockaded woodpecker have in common?"
Politicians would do well to remember a basic principle of Economics, "the law of unintended consequences."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
i think that these laws which have unintended consequences are very interesting. Usually there will be flaws in the system but it is the governments job to try their best to fix these flaws with more specific better laws when they realize that their is a problem. I really think the topic of doctors paying for disabled persons' translations are not fair at all because they can eventually lose money!(doctors)
This article is quite interesting. I would have never imagined the certain 'helping' laws would eventually hurt us. It's a shame that animals are even being punished by these laws. I also think it's totally ubserd that doctors should have to pay for disabled people's problems, however I don't think that the disabled people should have to pay for it either. I would like to revise taht law and have insurance cover translators.
Nothing is ever perfect, obviously. It is interesting how politicians do not see these consequences, or do not think about them, or perhaps ignore them (create another problem, be the savior?). You would think that loopholes this big would be apparent.
However, there is rarely anything anyone can do to solve a problem in order to benefit one group without creating some new problem for another group. ha.
I agree with what Alex said. When the government is trying to help the greater good of a nation, there are always some cracks that people fall into and they aren't helped. But still the doctors and the unjust punishments should be compensated in some way.
Of course there will be unintended consequences for laws/actions by the government. A lot of these problems "slip through the cracks" because the government has bigger issues to deal with. What are they going to worry about first: the war in Iraq or an endangered bird? Sometimes people expect our government to be able to take care of everything--but in reality, they can't. Rather than creating laws that are seen as economically antagonistic, why don't we create open dialogue about these issues? Why wait around for the government to "fix" things? As concerned citizens, we hold a lot of power. Maybe we should raise our voices a little louder when we see these things happening. Certainly in some cases it is the government's responsibility to provide oversight and follow up on the effects of the laws they enact. But we don't always have to wait around for them to act.
yo
Uninteded consequece is horible but also unstopable. These three examples looks at one thing but what about everyday american Humanbeings. For instance: the building of Fort Bend Toll road or lowering street speed limits. Basically All laws have a consequence; or Theres no such ting as a free lunch or You cant have your cake and eat it to. All these sayings can be applied to any discusion to realize that everything has a consequence.
I beleive Alex somehow stole my argument. I was pretty much going to say the same thing. But its true that for every problem you fix another will arise; sometimes even two in that ones place.
Every choice has its own set of consequence's.
The ADA situation is easily fixed: it just needs a few amendments; the unintended consequences of which we'll just have to keep dealing with, but the point is that things can be made better once unintended consequences like these are discovered. The Jewish laws I would get rid of. Really. Those are just too economically burdensome for me to even want to deal with. The woodpeckers situation is just sad, but is the best demonstration of them all. I can't think of an immediate remedy to situations such as this.
all of these laws/ practices seem to be absurd to me, i mean everything was able to function before these laws, so they should be able to function after. for one, disabled people were actually better off before the ADA came into act. everyone should just let things take their course and stop trying to fix what doesnt need fixing
thats a pretty interesting article. i mean you must realize that this emphasizes that there is no such thing as free lunch. the disabled were getting free aid, while the doctors treating thhem were getting billed. the helpful program providing assistance could not have stayed underground forever, eventually, many of the doctors will know of it. but yeah, pretty cool article.
I understand that such a notion can be disconcerting, but allowing this immobilize an entire populace is more crime that could ever be conceived. Though it may seem heartless to deem base utilitarianism, or merely looking to the greatest good for the greatest number, when determining any societal action, if we choose inaction as our modus operandi, society will cease to be any sort of arbiter of grand scale justice. Losses are inherent with any compromise, and though some losses may seem too dire, a simple reevaluation of any course of action may optimize the ends to our goals. Moreover, every example examined within the article stem not from some sort of deep-seated problem within the laws, but the way in which the people exploit their situations. Thus, the only differentiation between the harms of the article and an effective law would either be a regulation on these loopholes or simply a more civically virtuous populace willing to compromise for some common good. Then, the law of unintended consequences would still exist, but only in the sense that unintentional benefits would be produced.
Post a Comment