6 ms·

One other thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of "unintended consequences", and some of them will be good. Some are likely to

by fbags 13y ago

One other thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of "unintended consequences", and some of them will be good. Some are likely to be very good.

CWuestefeld 13y ago
Can you name other government programs -- particularly any of this scope and complexity -- that have had unintended positive consequences?
- fbags 13y ago
  Yes. Any moderately intelligent and informed person could look at a government program and identify both positive and negative impacts. As an example, the entire Silicon Valley ecosystem started from the confluence of government programs, such as one where private investor dollars were matched by government dollars to create the very first valley VCs. I don't think anybody inside or outside of the government, projected the immensity of the impact of those programs. Or y'know... about 90% of the stuff that spun out from NASA. Anyway... I get it: you're a closed-minded ideologue and you weren't REALLY asking a question, you were just being snarky. So I'll stop pretending that I respect you now. And I'll stop pretending that we're having a conversation.
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    I don't think you've answered the question. In your response you cite a program that enjoyed the effects that were intended, but to an even greater degree than had been expected (and aside from the effects being expected, it's also not a large and complex program). Another example of a program that successfully achieved its goal, but surpassed expectations, would be the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system (which is probably the most successful large program I can think of). What's the NASA spinoff you allude to? I expect it's, again, what had been promised. Part of the plan was to bring about technological innovations. The development of velcro, or things like it, was part of the plan. What I actually asked for is any example of what you claimed to be a certainty: a large, complex government program having unintended positive results. I wasn't being snarky, I was trying to demonstrate that the record here is nearly, if not entirely, on the downside. History shows us governmental programs failing in a myriad of ways, but this isn't balanced on the upside. I honestly can't think of a counterexample within my parameters (large size and complexity, and having unintended positive results). EDIT: A better way to state my question occurred to me. What I'm looking for is not quantitatively unexpected results, but qualitatively unexpected results, because I think that's what is implied in the above back-and-forth about these qualitatively unintended bad results versus a certainty of unintended good results.
    - fbags 13y ago
      Give me a break. I guarantee that when NASA was proposed, nobody had a presentation which showed all the companies that would result, nor all the side effects of the engineering talent that would be accreted in industry and universities, nor all the innovations that would occur not just from items listed in the RFPs but from items inspired by those items and so on. You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all intentional and thus there were never any unintended positive impacts of anything, ever. Because government is full of far-sighted individuals who totally grokked that ARPAnet would eventually be used for every conceivable form of communication, entertainment, and commerce. The world is complex. Governmental programs aren't all good or all bad. Reality isn't compatible with your small-minded ideology. Deal with it.
      - CWuestefeld 13y ago
        You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all planned I'll admit that I'm walking a dangerous line with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I stand by my judgment of the examples cited, but agree there is some room for debate. I think the NASA example fails not because I'm being too narrow, but because the initial stated objectives were so fuzzy and broad. More importantly, these stated objectives were probably just secondary, a rationalization to enable the true objective - the nationalistic desire to win the "space race" against the Soviets. JFK, who initially got the whole ball rolling, actually wanted nothing to do with space exploration. His backing of it was really just a political ploy. (of course, in pointing this out, I'm making your point to a certain degree: JFK set out to score political points, and in the end he wound up bringing us velcro and ICBMs - yes, I'm being snarky there) That said, you've also given me the best reply to my question: ARPAnet. While it wasn't large at the time, it was certainly complex (beyond my ability to understand all of its technology, anyway). And since it was developed for defense purposes, the end positive consequences are in a whole different ballpark than what was originally planned. Anyway, what really drives my questioning here is a Megan McArdle post from yesterday [1] about a political science class at John Hopkins about policy failures. She quotes the prof. as talking about opening minds to critical thinking about the endless ways in which the best-laid plans can go awry. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-katrina-and-other-policy-disasters.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-...
- maxerickson 13y ago
  The national highway system had unintended positive economic consequences. I guess it might fail the complexity test. (I'll concede that it depends on what you want to measure, but it's hard to argue that cheap trucking has only been a negative)
  - malyk 13y ago
    It also had plenty of unintended negative consequences. See suburban sprawl, oil dependency, the health impacts of commuting, and a ton of other negative impacts.
- rwissmann 13y ago
  A lot of very large-scale military and space research, which has provided a lot of the technological basis on which modern Silicon Valley is build. Most basic research, whether in natural sciences, mathematics or the humanities. The equation 'large-scale government endeavour = bad' is so simplistic, it is painful to hear otherwise smart people repeat it over and over. The real world is way to complex for this kind of black-and-white armchair economics.
- hga 13y ago
  Ah, yes. All the abject failures have resulted in an increased distrust in big, "unlimited" government, making it harder for that government to do more damage. In this particular case, look at how Obamacare passed by a whisker, and how votes for it have sent so many politicians home to spend more time with their families. Or how the "stimulus" produced a counter-reaction that's got the establishment utterly terrified, and using the full force of the state to repress. Which doesn't tend to end well, per Pareto "history is a graveyard of aristocracies".
- sitkack 13y ago
  I dont really appreciate the way you argue.
cema 13y ago
Let's wait and see. So far it has been below expectations.

by fbags 13y ago

One other thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of "unintended consequences", and some of them will be good. Some are likely to be very good.

CWuestefeld 13y ago

Can you name other government programs -- particularly any of this scope and complexity -- that have had unintended positive consequences?

fbags 13y ago
Yes. Any moderately intelligent and informed person could look at a government program and identify both positive and negative impacts. As an example, the entire Silicon Valley ecosystem started from the confluence of government programs, such as one where private investor dollars were matched by government dollars to create the very first valley VCs. I don't think anybody inside or outside of the government, projected the immensity of the impact of those programs. Or y'know... about 90% of the stuff that spun out from NASA. Anyway... I get it: you're a closed-minded ideologue and you weren't REALLY asking a question, you were just being snarky. So I'll stop pretending that I respect you now. And I'll stop pretending that we're having a conversation.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  I don't think you've answered the question. In your response you cite a program that enjoyed the effects that were intended, but to an even greater degree than had been expected (and aside from the effects being expected, it's also not a large and complex program). Another example of a program that successfully achieved its goal, but surpassed expectations, would be the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system (which is probably the most successful large program I can think of). What's the NASA spinoff you allude to? I expect it's, again, what had been promised. Part of the plan was to bring about technological innovations. The development of velcro, or things like it, was part of the plan. What I actually asked for is any example of what you claimed to be a certainty: a large, complex government program having unintended positive results. I wasn't being snarky, I was trying to demonstrate that the record here is nearly, if not entirely, on the downside. History shows us governmental programs failing in a myriad of ways, but this isn't balanced on the upside. I honestly can't think of a counterexample within my parameters (large size and complexity, and having unintended positive results). EDIT: A better way to state my question occurred to me. What I'm looking for is not quantitatively unexpected results, but qualitatively unexpected results, because I think that's what is implied in the above back-and-forth about these qualitatively unintended bad results versus a certainty of unintended good results.
  - fbags 13y ago
    Give me a break. I guarantee that when NASA was proposed, nobody had a presentation which showed all the companies that would result, nor all the side effects of the engineering talent that would be accreted in industry and universities, nor all the innovations that would occur not just from items listed in the RFPs but from items inspired by those items and so on. You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all intentional and thus there were never any unintended positive impacts of anything, ever. Because government is full of far-sighted individuals who totally grokked that ARPAnet would eventually be used for every conceivable form of communication, entertainment, and commerce. The world is complex. Governmental programs aren't all good or all bad. Reality isn't compatible with your small-minded ideology. Deal with it.
    - CWuestefeld 13y ago
      You're pretending that if something good happens after a government action it was all planned I'll admit that I'm walking a dangerous line with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I stand by my judgment of the examples cited, but agree there is some room for debate. I think the NASA example fails not because I'm being too narrow, but because the initial stated objectives were so fuzzy and broad. More importantly, these stated objectives were probably just secondary, a rationalization to enable the true objective - the nationalistic desire to win the "space race" against the Soviets. JFK, who initially got the whole ball rolling, actually wanted nothing to do with space exploration. His backing of it was really just a political ploy. (of course, in pointing this out, I'm making your point to a certain degree: JFK set out to score political points, and in the end he wound up bringing us velcro and ICBMs - yes, I'm being snarky there) That said, you've also given me the best reply to my question: ARPAnet. While it wasn't large at the time, it was certainly complex (beyond my ability to understand all of its technology, anyway). And since it was developed for defense purposes, the end positive consequences are in a whole different ballpark than what was originally planned. Anyway, what really drives my questioning here is a Megan McArdle post from yesterday [1] about a political science class at John Hopkins about policy failures. She quotes the prof. as talking about opening minds to critical thinking about the endless ways in which the best-laid plans can go awry. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-katrina-and-other-policy-disasters.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/learning-from-iraq-...
maxerickson 13y ago
The national highway system had unintended positive economic consequences. I guess it might fail the complexity test. (I'll concede that it depends on what you want to measure, but it's hard to argue that cheap trucking has only been a negative)
- malyk 13y ago
  It also had plenty of unintended negative consequences. See suburban sprawl, oil dependency, the health impacts of commuting, and a ton of other negative impacts.
rwissmann 13y ago
A lot of very large-scale military and space research, which has provided a lot of the technological basis on which modern Silicon Valley is build. Most basic research, whether in natural sciences, mathematics or the humanities. The equation 'large-scale government endeavour = bad' is so simplistic, it is painful to hear otherwise smart people repeat it over and over. The real world is way to complex for this kind of black-and-white armchair economics.
hga 13y ago
Ah, yes. All the abject failures have resulted in an increased distrust in big, "unlimited" government, making it harder for that government to do more damage. In this particular case, look at how Obamacare passed by a whisker, and how votes for it have sent so many politicians home to spend more time with their families. Or how the "stimulus" produced a counter-reaction that's got the establishment utterly terrified, and using the full force of the state to repress. Which doesn't tend to end well, per Pareto "history is a graveyard of aristocracies".
sitkack 13y ago
I dont really appreciate the way you argue.

cema 13y ago

Let's wait and see. So far it has been below expectations.