Insidious

by Russ Roberts on March 8, 2010

in Environment,Politics

Daniel Kuehn comments on this post about how United States Sugar used environmentalism to exploit the taxpayer:

From a purely environmental perspective, the move does make a lot of sense. The location of the refinery is very damaging for the everglades. And my understanding is it has been talked about and planned since Jeb Bush was governor – so it’s not purely for the sake of U.S. Sugar during a tough time.

But the way that it has unfolded in the last year – particularly with Crist’s connections and the timing – obviously stinks.

That is the beauty (and the ugliness) of  public policy.

The “move does make a lot of sense.” So people who are sympathetic to the environment support the move to restore the Everglades by buying land currently owned privately. The sympathizers include economists who will argue that the Everglades is a public good so there is a justification for owning it publicly.

When the policy unfolds in practice, howerver, it isn’t done the way the economists or the environmentalists recommend. It is done to benefit the special interests. So when you look more closely and how the policy unfolds, it “obviously stinks.” Not only does the policy get shaped to profit the special interest. It sometimes does that in a way that voids the benefit that justified the policy originally.

The problem with intervention is that the special interest pays a lot more attention than the rest of us do when it comes time for the implementation.  That should give all of us pause when recommending a particular intervention.

How many fans of the Everglades knew that this was how it actually panned out? How many fans know now?

But United States Sugar is all over it.

There is always a bootlegger. The only question is how much of the benefit does he siphon away. Is it enough to offset potential benefits to others?

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Why is it that the Market always get's blames but the Government isn't held accountable? When they do hold the government accountable it's always for partisan reasons, like the Jeb Bush line.
  • chatman
    Thought you might find it interesting that the environmentalists/sugar barons Fanjuls were robbed in their hotel while getting ready to attend the Oscars...http://www.page2live.com/2010/03/08/palm-beach-sugar-baron-pepe-fanjul-robbed-at-oscars/
  • johnpapola
    But surely if we had the “right” people in office, none of this would happen. Capture is a personnel problem after all… or… wait...
  • Friedman covered this pretty well in Free to Choose. The special interests co-opt the agenda of the high-minded reformers, and then when it passes, the reformers move on and the special interests have free reign.
  • danielkuehn
    It's a rock and a hard place - I don't want to enrich special interests, but I don't want to be impoverished by them either. This is precisely what I was trying to get across in my comment - I'm concerned people are going to interpret it as me saying that I approve of the buy-out. I don't know all the details, but my instincts on it were the same as yours, Russ.
  • mark
    "my instincts on it were the same as yours, Russ."

    Translation: "Yay!!! I'm a big boy!!!"
  • MnM
    Was that troll necessary?
  • sandre
    Mark,

    Unlike imbecile muirgeo, DK is a welcome addition to this blog. He does make several interesting contrarian points on this blog. That comment was really unnecessary. DK never stoops to such attacks.
  • Methinks1776
    actually, he has. You just probably haven't read every post.
  • sandre
    I, sure, haven't read evey post. I can only speak from the general pattern that I see in his comments. I find his very annoying when he goes on nitpicking, but I haven't seen him get outright obnoxious in his comments. He does make some challenging comments every now and then. That's all I meant to say.
  • johndewey
    Nitpicking is not the most annoying habit of Mr. Kuehn to me. What is really irritating is his slipperiness. Daniel makes a point he knows will irritate, but always qualifies it so that he cannot be held accountable for what he writes. When he inevitably gets called out for some outrageous assertion, he complains and points to his qualification. To me, that's intellectual dishonesty and lack of courage.

    For what it's worth, I disagree on both points you made, sandre: Daniel is tolerated by the blog owners but I do not believe he is a welcome addition to this blog; and Daniel has - on rare occasions - stooped to the level of the attacks for which you criticize Mark.
  • vikingvista
    For my money, if you want counterpoint, you get twice the substance with 1/50th the words, from Gil.
  • Methinks1776
    I wasn't talking about nitpicking, extreme hairsplitting and fence gymnastics. He has absolutely HAS stooped to the level you say he's never stooped to and he's done it often enough and been called out on it. Although, as you can see, he happily embraces the fiction of his spotless history. Just FYI. That's all.
  • danielkuehn
    Thanks you two - and please hold me accountable if I do, sandre.
  • Mommsen1625
    I'd be curious to know what sort of government concessions, etc. that US Sugar got when it first got into business in Florida.
  • Mommsen1625
    "The sympathizers include economists who will argue that the Everglades is a public good so there is a justification for owning it publicly."

    Well, public ownership of land is highly problematic; for example, the National Parks, despite all the romantic language we hear about them, have a very poor management history.
  • For some reason people romanticize Government management. They think that the government has their best interests at heart.

    Until the opposition party comes to power, then all those politicians are evil. I don't understand the disconnect.
  • Mommsen1625
    Why isn't U.S. Sugar paying the state or some environmental group to take the land off their hands instead? Indeed, why not sock it to them for the environmental damage the company has apparently* done?

    *I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about the issue.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: