but what can you do when they’re both wrong?

Bastiat said any argument focused on the “public interest”—for example, the airfares and deficit spending—deserves serious examination from an economical point of view…although it appeared he was quite frustrated in this effort:

“For instance, I want to agree with a drainer to make a trench in my field for a hundred sous. Just as we have concluded our arrangement, the tax-gatherer comes, takes my hundred sous, and sends them to the Minister of the Interior; my bargain is at end, but the Minister will have another dish added to his table. Upon what ground will you dare to affirm that this official expense helps the national industry? Do you not see, that in this there is only a reversing of satisfaction and labour? A Minister has his table better covered, it is true, but it is just as true that an agriculturist has his field worse drained. A Parisian tavern-keeper has gained a hundred sous,I grant you; but then you must grant me that a drainer has been prevented from gaining five francs. It all comes to this, - that the official and the tavern-keeper being satisfied, is that which is seen; the field undrained, and the drainer deprived of his job, is that which is not seen. Dear me! how much trouble there is in proving that two and two make four; and if you succeed in proving it, it is said, “the thing is so plain it is quite tiresome,” and they vote as if you had proved nothing at all.”

Mises suggested offering them sound alternatives:

“Whoever wants lastingly to establish good government must start by trying to persuade his fellow citizens and offering them sound ideologies.”

A lot of people honestly have no idea an alternative exists…they’re taught in high school the ways of Keynes and only a few progress beyond that into the realms of Neoclassical and Post Keynesian at university. They listen to the puppets, the “economists” on TV and believe what they say. Questioning government involvement, or whatever government party they’re vehemently loyal to, never even occurs to them.

As the Upton Sinclair theorem says, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ideological worldview depends on it not being true.”

It is an uphill battle, but not an impossibility. Critically examining government projects and intervention on their utility and addressing the fallacies behind their “justification” is probably a good start. Unfortunately, while the politicians can simply state a project will “create jobs” and use Treasury modelling to support it (a partial truth—jobs are diverted, but still technically “created”), highlighting the fallacies, the negatives, the “unseen”, is a far more time consuming activity.

That’s what makes it hard—and of course that when you do disprove something, they “vote as if you had proved nothing at all”!

I like this quote though,

“The ammunition we need to expose the poor performance of government is out there. Ironically, the lust for federal aid guarantees this. The competition to get one’s snout in the federal trough is intense. Consequently, the federal government requires applicants for aid to prepare a raft of data outlining their cases for why they should be favored for the disbursement of funds.” (Source)

So while it’s difficult to attack something such as the budget, individual projects and government ventures can and should be dismissed with sound economics whenever possible (and maybe open some eyes and minds in the process). Competition for the trough should ensure you get at least some support!

Done… I’m in.  Any word from Steve?

Sent you a PM.