Merry Christmas everyone.
Almost every problem in psychology can be traced to “producer capture” the phenomenon where an enterprise, or profession, is operated solely on the basis of the benefit of the members of the favored group, the producers. This creates a situation in which lip service is paid to effectiveness and the art of window-dressing reaches a new level of expertise and hypocrisy.
Here’s an example from political economy.
The Big-Spending, High-Taxing, Lousy-Services Paradigm California taxpayers don’t get much bang for their bucks.
Some quotes:
“In 1956, the economist Charles Tiebout provided the framework that best explains why people vote with their feet. The “consumer-voter,” as Tiebout called him, challenges government officials to “ascertain his wants for public goods and tax him accordingly.” Each jurisdiction offers its own package of public goods, along with a particular tax burden needed to pay for those goods. As a result, “the consumer-voter moves to that community whose local government best satisfies his set of preferences.” In selecting a jurisdiction, the mobile consumer-voter is, in effect, choosing a club to join based on the benefits that it offers and the dues that it charges.
It’s not surprising, then, that an intense debate rages over which model is more satisfactory and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit, low-tax alternative succeeds not only on its own terms but also according to the criteria used by defenders of high benefits and high taxes. Whatever theoretical claims are made for imposing high taxes to provide generous government benefits, the practical reality is that these public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good: their beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves, and their quality is poor (emphasis added). For evidence, look to the two largest states in the nation, which are fine representatives of the liberal and conservative alternatives.”
The report goes on to compare California and Texas, states on diverging paths. Although not stated in the article, the implication is that jurisdictions with higher “social benefits” and high taxes will attract the kind of person who enjoys free money and repel the kind of person who dislikes providing it—too many hammocks, not enough plows. This may get to critical mass, as in California and New York, accelerating their death spiral as productive places. My jurisdiction Ontario, is going that way.
On a more positive note, the majority of people are hard-working and productive, continue to produce and don’t trade carbon-offset credits or the rights to name leprechauns.
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
