Mar
9
2024

Unintended Consequences, Past and Future

Another must-watch from the Reason kids: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences: (Vol. 15).

One Canadian example, two American. But they also dabble in unforeseen outcomes in Japan, as discussed by Matthew Neidell in a 2020 interview with James Pethokoukis. Neidell wrote a paper on The unintended effects from halting nuclear power production: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi accident, published in the Journal of Health Economics. Abstract:

This paper provides novel evidence of the unintended health effects stemming from the halt in nuclear power production after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. After the accident, nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, causing an increase in electricity prices. We find that this increase led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures, given the protective role that climate control plays against the elements. Our results contribute to the debate surrounding the use of nuclear as a source of energy by documenting a yet unexplored health benefit from using nuclear power, and more broadly to regulatory policy approaches implemented during periods of scientific uncertainty about potential adverse effects.

Short version: the Japanese government killed far more of its citizens by its panicked response to Fukushima than did the accident itself.

Which brings us to the likely future, as evidenced by this Granite Geek article from Concord Monitor reporter David Brooks: NH lawmakers take on AI before we understand it, which is fine by me.

My immediate thought on reading that: Dude, do you even listen to yourself?

Brooks can be sensible on occasion. And at times he goes wildly off the rails. You can guess from the headline which description applies here; this is the language of the Precautionary principle run wild. The Politician's syllogism is mindlessly applied.

Here’s a statement I used to firmly believe but now realize is often wrong: “Government should not pick technology winners and losers.”

It can be true, of course, but there are times when the representatives of “we the people” need to take the lead away from representatives of “they the venture capitalists.” The eruption of artificial intelligence is one of those times and, happily, it seems that a lot of New Hampshire’s lawmakers agree.

Brooks favors some things ("excellent goals that any sensible person would applaud") and disfavors others ("idiotic"). In addition to the two links above, also see the Wikipedia entry for Thought-terminating cliché. His bottom line:

Whatever the cause, it’s nice to see society acting like adults and trying to grapple with a problem before it becomes insurmountable. That doesn’t happen often enough.

On the contrary, it happens way too often: hasty, panicked, and poorly-considered legislation whose flaws and costs may only become evident after the damage is done. (Or may not: stifled innovation is an example of Bastiat's "unseen" effects.)

But (good news) unlike Japan, New Hampshire probably won't kill very many people by legislating things its legislators don't understand, but want to be seen as "doing something" about.

Also of note:

  • Leftover SOTU commentary. Did I mention one of Biden's big lies? If not, Brian Reidl has it covered:

    Prefer words to pictures? To his prescient credit, Chris Edwards actually did a pre-SOTU factcheck:

    In his State of the Union address, President Biden is expected to discuss raising taxes on the rich. As he often does, Biden may claim that the rich pay lower tax rates than firefighters or school teachers or that the rich pay a tax rate of just 8 percent.

    A Reuters story on the State of the Union address parrots the White House theme without any independent fact‐checking: “The average American worker paid about a 25% tax rate in 2022, the OECD reported. White House research found the wealthiest individuals paid about 8% from 2010 to 2018.”

    White House “research”? The 8 percent is a concoction by Biden political appointees at odds with data from the US Treasury, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Internal Revenue Service, and Joint Committee on Taxation. All these official sources find that tax rates on high earners are much higher than tax rates on lower‐ and middle‐income folks.

    President Dotard is a shameless lying demagogue. (Who, it appears, will be running against a different shameless lying demagogue come November.)

  • And Edwards looks at another bad idea. He's on a roll: Biden Proposal to Raise the Corporate Tax Rate.

    President Biden is expected in his State of the Union address to propose raising the federal corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. The administration says it wants to make “big corporations pay their fair share” and reverse the “massive tax giveaway to big corporations that Republicans enacted in 2017.”

    A few thoughts.

    Corporations pay income taxes, but the burden is passed on to workers, savers, and consumers. These individuals would pay the higher “share” that the administration is proposing. Corporations are just a politically convenient vehicle for collecting taxes on people.

    In 2017, Republicans cut the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, but they also broadened the corporate tax base in various ways. Also, corporations respond to tax rate cuts by investing more and avoiding and evading taxes less. Thus, the statutory rate cut was not a “massive tax giveaway.” Indeed, federal corporate tax revenues have soared since the GOP reform from $297 billion in 2017 to an expected $569 billion in 2024. The latter figure is inflated for temporary reasons, and revenues are expected to fall to $494 billion in 2025, but that is still up from 2017—not a giveaway.

    See comment on demagoguery above.


Last Modified 2024-03-09 9:54 AM EDT