Some people will call me a cynic. But I’m not cynical; I’m realistic.
The Dirtiest of Dirty Jobs
Previous post: A Dearth of Taxes?
Next post: Bufoonery
where orders emerge
EconTalk Podcast
Recent Episodes-
where orders emerge
Previous post: A Dearth of Taxes?
Next post: Bufoonery
Recent Episodes
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 13 comments }
Don,
A masterpiece.
One of the ways I think I was a successful parent is that I killed my son's political ambitions. Around his middle school years, he began thinking that being president might be cool, and asked me who I supported in the presidential election. I convinced him that it hardly mattered since a successful politician is necessarily a liar and a thief. (South Park did me one better in their Douchebag vs. Turd Sandwich episode.) He is now at a top university studying biomedical engineering–something that will lead to profoundly useful results for humanity.
Don, I will keep this piece for my grandkids. This is a classic.
I agree this was very funny and that the professor is indeed a cynic.
Seriously, if you believe in a libertarian society/eeconomy how DO you get there politically? Either you have to enforce strict conflict of interest laws basically outlawing lobbying and relying on publicly financed elections or you have to admit that a libertarian society is impossible.
The big problem I have is how the professor on one hand can hold up in disdain the political/lobbyist system as corrupt but then on the other hand hold up the results of our economy as some shining example of how libertarianism or free markets work. A two handed economist indeed.
A job is only "dirty" because we lack the right tools. The horse inseminater's job will become less dirty when we invent tiny inseminating robots to do the job. The politician's job will become less dirty when we implement proposals such as Hayek's "demarchy" to do away with the inherent dirtiness of the system itself, which practically leaves no other choice for the person doing the job other than to dirty himself.
Muirgeo,
Don (and myself) do not hold up the economy as a "shining example." What this blog is about is the decentralization of power. It doesn't lead to utopia, just a better world. We don't want publicly funded elections, that reduces competition and makes politicians more powerful. We want government to have less power—that reduces pandering and lobbying. It will not lead to a perfect world.
Please keep the cheap shots to yourself.
Don,
Hate to be "that guy" but Mike Rowe has done 150 different dirty jobs. The 150th job episode was on last night.
I agree with what you said…but it's hard to take someone seriously when they cant get a very easy to check fact correct, no?
(I'll strike my remark if this was written a year ago)
I apologize if my remark was offensive. I was trying to be funny in agreeing with what I thought was a half tongue in cheek article on politicians having the dirtiest jobs.
Anyway of these two claims, "What this blog is about is the decentralization of power. It doesn't lead to utopia, just a better world. We don't want publicly funded elections, that reduces competition and makes politicians more powerful." I have to say I see NO real world evidence to support them. And I still don't understand the contradiction of wanting less power but calling the political as Don describes it as "competitive" just leaves me totally baffled.
Fabio suggest a possible explanation that I am looking for in Demarchy….I know nothing of it but will look into it.
Probably on this issue more then any I want to understand how libertarianism works politically and would appreciate any suggestions on the best reads to explain it.
Either you have to enforce strict conflict of interest laws basically outlawing lobbying and relying on publicly financed elections or you have to admit that a libertarian society is impossible.
It that called the false dichotomy of two choices?
Probably on this issue more then any I want to understand how libertarianism works politically and would appreciate any suggestions on the best reads to explain it.
I don't know. I have been getting the strong impression that your are least likely to get it.
Do you understand the difference between a regulator and a limiter?
Libertarians prefer government as a limiter rather than a regulator.
In the first case, it does nothing unless some limit is exceeded.
In the second case, it is constantly intervening in affairs, leading many economic and social actors to invest their interest and resources (in the end, other people's resources) in the afairs of government. This is the arena of corruption you are so worried about.
I saw a political system that made a lot of sense on 60 Minutes last week.
The ruler of Dubai has a financial interest in just about everything going on there- and there is a lot going on. Everybody makes money together and the inherent conflicts of interest found in our system are minimized.
Maybe democracy is way overrated?
I don't know — putting politicians and oil roughnecks in the same category is derogatory to the roughnecks.
Representatives should be selected by lot. That would depoliticize the legislature.
Don't forget term limits – spread the graft and provide less time for the grafters to learn the ropes.
If Mike Rowe's unavailable, I'll do it. As a poor and hungry undergrad there's next to nothing I won't do for "endless lunches and dinner" even if it is "rubber chicken."