posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:03 PM
I am asking about the U.S. here and abroad. It seems that more often than not governmental policies have the reverse effect of what they intend to
have. They end up harming more people as opposed to helping more people. I wrote this a while ago thinking about this... why is it? Is it because
of policy makers, or, the people involved... I personally believe that governmental regulation has the reverse effect of what it intends to... because
policy makers aren't free from corruption, and, interference in the market place causes the market to not work how it should... or perhaps the
program may become corruptible as it often seems to. Take a look at what I wrote, and, I want to see what you have to think about it... and why
benign policies always seem to have the opposite effect they intended to.
I'll try to keep this short. I was wondering why ideas that people would normally think are good lead to unforeseen consequences. For instance,
people who want a world government may have benign intentions but the fact that we cannot trust state politicians or the fact that we cannot trust
mostly everyone except a few who are at higher levels of power in political establishment gets in the way. How would a world government be prevented
from becoming corrupt or from experiencing the social ills of the 20th century? How would we expect to prevent all that conflict with a world
government? That's the thing we couldn't. It would be impossible for us to stop all conflicts that come out at any given situation. That's what
neocons try to do with our foreign policy and it doesn't work that well.
Second, on government programs... there seem to be some government programs that do what they're intended to do. We don't necessarily require the
programs for a functioning society but they do their job. The police, despite all the people who act out in protests and in other areas do their job
for the most part... whether it can be done privately is a question for the future... it's not whether it can... of course it could probably be
outsourced to private enterprises... but as of right now the government has the monopoly over police forces... and that seems to work fine. The
government accountability office seems to do its job.
But wait a second. There's all these fiscal policy programs and these monetary policy programs. Fiscal policy tries to drive demand up with the
government spending more money on goods. It increases government size, and, the scope of government across the economy. The government can spend
money to increase demand. It can also manipulate supply too. These policies may work in the short run but in the end it makes our economy more and
more dependent on government spending as opposed to the private sector. The government (if certain people are in power) may increase in size, and,
the people may have the opposite results that they wanted to have. A boost in the demand side might not mean the people are better off... it just
means the government is buying more. The people themselves aren't doing that great... and with the supply side... businesses are encouraged to
produce more, and it may mean that businesses have produced more than people would want to buy, and they may not anticipate the demand, so there might
not be enough people who want the goods. It forces investors to be more weary of government policy as opposed to actual consumer spending. Knowing
what the federal reserve will do... with its interest rates... and knowing when inflation will come because of a rise in the money supply, prices...
or wages... it becomes harder and harder to anticipate government poilcy.
Welfare programs are intended to help people who live out recessions. Too much welfare spending has a contradictory effect and makes people more
dependant on welfare spending as opposed to getting people off of it. The idea behind welfare spending is that people will eventually get off of it.
But welfare seems to create more of a dependence to it, so, the government policy makers need to if they do it at all keep it to a minimum so people
will still have incentive to get a new job. There's not much incentive to get a job when your welfare check would be more than if you were employed.
These people aren't lazy... but it's all about incentives... perhaps they can be helped to find jobs as they're on these welfare checks so they
won't feel like staying on it for the rest of time or something like that. And with social security, the benefits may end up costing us trillions
and trillions of dollars... something has to be done about that.
As for government spending... politicians and economists seem to justify government spending. They think it's fine just to throw money at things,
that, there will be a multiplier effect and that everything will get better. Yeah, this may be true, but increased government spending puts us more
and more in debt, which means we'll have to either borrow more money in China or we have to print more money which leads to inflation. If China
decides to stop borrowing from us we might experience higher amounts of inflation if the government keeps on spending more and more money.
I guess I don't take the view of Republicans... it's not that these programs don't work... it's that in my mind at least they lead towards
unintended consequences and potential problems that we might face in the future. These policies don't work as planned, and, they always seem to lead
to some less desirable future than intended. I'm talking about America's system here, of course... not what Europe does. Europe has a different
system than we do. They do things a bit differently.
So, I ask, what do you think is the reason for this? Why do government policies always seem to have a perverse effect? Is it because they don't
simply work, bad timing, the reality factor, or what?