- Smoking is harmful to your health
- Alcohol is harmful to your health
- Every K over is a killer.
- Wear your seatbelt or say goodbye to your loved ones.
Let me start by saying that I do believe there is a role for government in helping people understand the long term consequences of their actions - as long as it doesn't become a nanny state.
I would like to start a counter-revolution by suggesting that we need to put a warning label on government policies and projects. These could be put in bold letters at the top of memos and policy documents.
Graphic pictures could be good too. How about a derelict factory overgrown with weeds for every policy that harms business.
Here are some initial ideas.
- For every $10,000 in bonds issued all sitting MPs and their unelected advisors should receive a written warning along the lines of, "Excessive debt is harmful to the future economy of the State".
- For every clean energy scheme we could have, "Diversion of excessive funds into feel-good high-cost schemes may help your popularity polls but is committing the country to years of funding white elephants. Think about your children. Even better, ask your elderly parents if they can afford the increase in electricity price on their pension."
- For every national park created we could have, "Just because our ancestors thought this land was worthless doesn't mean that it won't have value for the future, please allow a reasonable means for the local community, business or agriculture to claim usage in the future"
- For every statement about moving to a sustainable basis we could have, "The consequences of sustainability in practice is the death of hope and the throttling back of ambition. Do you want to live in that future?"
- For every proposed tax increase we could have, "Spending other people's money without asking them first really pisses them off. Think about what you are really trying to do, and think about shrinking the public service a bit first."
- For every new Act or Regulation we could have, "Ignorance is not a defence under the law. Given that it is not possible for any citizen to read let alone memorize the half a million or more pages of legislation in this country, just what are you trying to achieve by enacting hundreds of more pages of legislation?"
I am one of those evil people who quantifies and models everything I can. However, I find it utterly weird that I am the only one in the room who asks about consequences and indirect financial costs.
For example, high prices for public transport penalises precisely those people who can afford it the least - those who live on the margins of the city but commute to the centre.
Toll roads may be a great way to fund infrastructure, but the whole economy benefits from better infrastructure (within reason) - so why focus on user pays. I have this same thought on a lot of issues which now follow the user pays fad. If it is a public good then it should be publicly funded.
Sure we might want to increase the use of bicycles and public transport by deliberately underfunding roads and the traffic light system, but have you thought about the massive cost to society caused by traffic jams. People are late to work, they get high blood pressure sitting in the traffic, deliveries cost more, pollution is worse, more carbon dioxide is released per person kilometre, more time commuting means less time with your families, etc. Bring on the highways I say.
To any government readers I would say that it is time we brought back meaningful cost-benefit analysis for government policy in order to determine and rank the level of public good that will come from policies and then communicate that to the public.
Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.
