Like the last entry, this one is based on an all-too-common theme among those who push for government intervention: They support ideas that sound good, whether those ideas are likely to produce any positive results (and regardless of the likelihood of negative unintended consequences).
The latest example I?ve seen comes from TIME?s ?Curious Capitalist,? Justin Fox, who supports the Obama administration?s proposal for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency:
My own opinion, after several days spent perusing the legislation ? there’s a 152-page Administration draft and a 229-page bill introduced in the House by Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank ? is that the logic behind it is quite compelling. That doesn’t mean it will actually work as advertised, especially after Congress is through with it. But it’s an idea that deserves a chance.
Why? Unless we?re pretty sure a new government intervention will produce more benefits than costs, why should we give the idea a chance?
