David Brooks writes an entertaining piece on our choices for health care reform and climate change policy. He contrasts "Bentham," who thinks he knows how to find cost savings in the health insurance industry and which technologies can reduce global warming, with "Hume," who confesses he's not smart enough to reorganize major sectors of the economy and therefore proposes market-based solutions.
On the economics, Brooks is absolutely right. On the politics, ludicrously wrong. His punch line:
I’ve introduced you to my friends Mr. Bentham and Mr. Hume because they represent the choices we face on issue after issue. This country is about to have a big debate on the role of government. The polarizers on cable TV think it’s going to be a debate between socialism and free-market purism. But it’s really going to be a debate about how to promote innovation.
The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved in organizing innovation. (I’ve taken his proposals from the Waxman-Markey energy bill and the Baucus health care bill.)
The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don’t think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation.
So let’s have the debate. But before we do, let’s understand that Mr. Bentham is going to win. The lobbyists love Bentham’s intricacies and his stacks of spending proposals, which they need in order to advance their agendas. If you want to pass anything through Congress, Bentham’s your man.
Notice that Brooks can point to real people with real policy proposals pushing the Benthamite view. By contrast, he can't point to any person or proposal pushing Hume's view. So the practical choice before us is not between Bentham and Hume, it's between Bentham and a character that I'll call Org. Bentham believes that government can step in and fix our problems through sheer intelligence. Org thinks that if he sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts Na-na-na-na loud enough, the problems will miraculously go away.
Pages
Bentham v. Hume
Friday, October 7, 2011
Posted by
follow me
in Economics theme:
climate change,
David Brooks,
economics,
health reform
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Info recommended by:
Economic articles
and Economics online journal |
Sponsored by:
Economics issues,
Online economics
and Economic tips and online posts
Save
Bentham v. Hume
on social network:
Categories
Followers
Popular Posts
-
As USA Today recently pointed out , a new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience shows that the models of CO2 and global warming ...
-
This Forbes article about opposition to the bill moving through the Pennsylvania legislature to private the state liquor stores was reprint...
-
As I have repeatedly pointed out, China is in better shape than the U.S. and many other Western countries, but all is not rosy in China . CN...
-
Matthew Yglesias also notes the bizarre disappearance of a carbon tax from the debate over the debt ceiling. This is another Democratic fai...
-
I'm watching the Senate Finance Committee hearings on the Rockefeller amendment to include a "public option" in the Finance Co...
-
Scott Ritter was right about WMD in Iraq. I suggest that we give him a better hearing now with Iran . While this action is understandably ve...
-
Inquiring minds have been investigating the property bubble down under and are asking the question "How Safe is Australia's Banking...
-
The Washington Post is saying the emperor has no clothes, and calling the Obama administration's bluff that the winter of the financial...
-
In an article entitled "Should USA still be AAA?", CNN writes : According to credit rating agency Moody's, the amount of U.S. ...
-
So now it looks like the Democrats, rather than just telling anti-abortion people that if they want to require that insurance plans people b...
0 comments:
Post a comment on: Bentham v. Hume