Why do liberals confuse inputs with outputs? Matthew Yglesias raves about how wonderful Los Angeles is for building more rail transit, even though the city’s last burst of rail construction resulted in a 17 percent decline in transit ridership.
A Los Angeles attorney named Robert Garcie provides an antidote to Yglesias’ rantings. He notes that LA’s transit agency “spends almost twice as much on rail to carry about one fourth as many passengers” as buses. LA transit ridership recovered only when a court order directed the city’s transit agency to restore the bus service it had cut to pay for rail. When that order expired, it started new rail projects, cut bus service, and ridership is again decreasing.
Meanwhile, Cleveland reporter Angie Schmitt thrills to the fact that, even though big cities such as Boston, Chicago, and Washington can’t afford to maintain the rail systems they have, smaller cities such as Grand Rapids, Ft. Collins, and Savannah want to build their own rail systems that they won’t be able to afford to maintain. Schmitt writes for DCStreetsBlog, a popular blog known for its support of “livability,” whatever that is.
Cleveland policy analyst Richey Piiparinen compares “livability” with Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory: “an escape from an unsatisfactory reality, and the promise of limitless sensory and savory experiences.” Yep, that sounds like Portlandia, a television show about Portland that is recorded only in the summer so that it looks sunny–when in fact Portland has the most cloudy days of any major American city.
To get back to my question, I suspect one reason liberals focus on inputs is because they are so worried about jobs. Not their jobs, but the jobs of people who pay dues to the unions that help elect liberal candidates.
The problem is that jobs, too, are an input. Nobody wants a job; they want an income. Jobs that don’t produce income aren’t sustainable (to use a liberal term). Liberals who have faith in government think that if they throw enough money at creating jobs they’ll be able to revive the economy. But if the jobs don’t create income–and almost by definition, jobs that require government subsidies don’t–then they are actually a drag on the economy.
This is also one reason why liberals don’t like privatization. As Dan Akroyd’s character said in Ghostbusters, “I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results.” Privatization would mean an end to a lot of the inputs that liberals like despite the fact that those inputs don’t produce results.
Back in 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which supposedly required all federal agencies to identify the things they were supposed to be producing and write an annual report on how well they performed.
The Antiplanner looked at the Forest Service’s GPRA report: sure enough, all of the “results” it reported on were really inputs. As a result (no pun intended), GPRA has become just another piece of tax-wasting red tape for bureaucrats to process.
Privatization may not be the only way to fix government. But unless elected officials, agency leaders, and liberals who support government learn to distinguish between inputs and outputs and focus on results instead of costs, the nation’s finances will soon reach a point when privatization of many government assets will be the only solution.
But if you made the GPRA so onerous no one in government could do anything, it might help the economy.
Cacoa
Whereas I completely agree with the Antiplanner’s data and conclusions on inputs and outputs his use of the term “liberal” is just name calling and no more meaningful than criticism of a position because it is “conservative”. For example, I thought that a good conservative position was a balanced budget amendment such as that in the Republicans “contract with America” in 1994. I thought this would be good conservative policy and we would get a balanced budget amendment in 2001 with a Republican president and congress. Instead they cut taxes, increased spending and in 2004 comfortably re-nominated and re-elected a Vice President who was publicly saying that “deficits don’t matter”. With a Democratic president in 2009 we suddenly find a conservative position is that we need a balanced budget amendment again.
I now have no idea what the name calling of “liberal” and “conservative” mean and consider these words to be meaningless name calling. To often one side of an argument labels the other “liberal” or “conservative” as though calling something a name has something to do with the validity of the argument. A position has to be justified on the basis facts, not names.
I applaud the Antiplanner’s well reasoned arguments and usually agree with him, but feel the use of the word “liberal” diminishes the quality of his blog and will restrict the acceptance of his arguments.
“Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet. These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value – the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives – and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use.”
-R. A. Heinlein, on inputs and results.
Mostly our politicians are untalented cooks serving out inedible messes.
Why do libertarians misstate the content of the links they provide (presumably because they expect no one to read them)? Is it to suport strawmen like I suspect one reason liberals focus on inputs is because they are so worried about jobs. Not their jobs, but the jobs of people who pay dues to the unions that help elect liberal candidates. We report, you decide.
DS
The politically progressive fascination with long steel things. I have often pondered the issue. They simply like long steel things. It has to be something Freudian, connected with love of government. Something about government, long steel things and sending slow metal cars crashing into tax payers. I dunno, the mental illness alone is enough for any of us to question the politically progressive.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Meanwhile, Cleveland reporter Angie Schmitt thrills to the fact that, even though big cities such as Boston, Chicago, and Washington can’t afford to maintain the rail systems they have, smaller cities such as Grand Rapids, Ft. Collins, and Savannah want to build their own rail systems that they won’t be able to afford to maintain.
The “I want one too” syndrome.”
Schmitt writes for DCStreetsBlog, a popular blog known for its support of “livability,” whatever that is.
“Livability” means opposition to expansion of the highway and street network, and efforts to make using the private automobile as expensive and difficult as possible. Even though the transit systems promoted by advocates of “livability” are usually extremely high-dependent, and would shut-down without the diverted highway tax revenues (and in some states, diverted toll revenues).
Cleveland policy analyst Richey Piiparinen compares “livability” with Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory: “an escape from an unsatisfactory reality, and the promise of limitless sensory and savory experiences.” Yep, that sounds like Portlandia, a television show about Portland that is recorded only in the summer so that it looks sunny–when in fact Portland has the most cloudy days of any major American city.
Many metropolitan areas suffer from severe recurring highway congestion, but the opposition to improvements to the highway network is loud and well-coordinated. So more than a few elected officials think that building “clean electric” and quiet trains will somehow solve congestion, even though the highway traffic congestion relief provided by the trains is usually not to be found. It also provides elected officials with a way to tell their constituents “I am doing something about traffic congestion.”
To get back to my question, I suspect one reason liberals focus on inputs is because they are so worried about jobs. Not their jobs, but the jobs of people who pay dues to the unions that help elect liberal candidates.
The number of jobs that are “created” by transit is tiny in relative terms, but the unions that represent transit workers are good at promoting the interests of their members, and at representing their efforts at representing the “working man.”
The public policy discussion about “jobs created” is one of the greatest fallacies of our time. Most good public investments are designed to reduce jobs, not increase them.
If you build a needed bridge, you reduce the jobs for delivery drivers, gas attendants, auto mechanics, etc.
If you create a needed health/safety zoning requirement, you reduce the jobs of doctors, EMTs, fireman, etc.
If you think creating jobs is breaking glass or digging holes and filling them back in, then you have flunked Econ 101.
“Livability” means opposition to expansion of the highway and street network, and efforts to make using the private automobile as expensive and difficult as possible. Even though the transit systems promoted by advocates of “livability” are usually extremely high-dependent, and would shut-down without the diverted highway tax revenues (and in some states, diverted toll revenues).
No, it doesn’t mean that at all.
DS
Dan wrote:
No, it doesn’t mean that at all.
Well Dan, why don’t you give me your definition in that case?
Well Dan, why don’t you give me your definition in that case?
[CPZ: “Livability” means opposition to expansion of the highway and street network, and efforts to make using the private automobile as expensive and difficult as possible.]
Livability in general means a connected street network for all users, proximate services, amenities, greenspaces, lessened externalities from auto transport, diversity of housing choices, mode choice, sense of place.
I highly doubt you’ll get a Realtor selling a house to someone by describing a neighborhood that is active in doing what you italicized. Rather, a Realtor will describe how easy it is to get from one place to another, shops nearby, lots of things to do, greenery, quiet and clean neighborhood, etc.
DS
DS
opposition to expansion of the highway and street network, and efforts to make using the private automobile as expensive and difficult as possible.