Our unintended consequence du jour comes from the Shotgun
at the Weekly Standard-dot-ca:
In a press release today from the Alberta government on new royalty programs for high cost oil and gas development, the term “unintended consequences” was thrown around liberally.
The blogger is correct; I count five occurrences in the short release. It's all about how raising taxes last year caused "unintended" slowdowns in oil and gas production in the province. Comments the blogger:So let me get this straight: To generate the oil and gas royalty revenues anticipated in the New Royalty Framework, the government has been forced to lower the royalty tax increases announced last year in the...New Royalty Framework.
I detect sarcasm! Hey, I'm sure they got it right this time.
In the same vein, consider Iain Murray's speculation:
With the FAA grounding flights in the name of safety, few people seem to have appreciated that the action may well kill people.
Why? Because a significant fraction of people will use riskier forms of transportation than American Airlines as a result, killing some. Not as spectacular as an air crash, but in onesies-twosies all over the country. Murray calls this a substitution of "a dispersed risk for a concentrated risk."
Also, probably an "unintended consequence."
If Futurama was real.