[Rhodes22-list] Minneapolis Bridge - Politics - is your bridge next?

[ekroposki]

This is for those who want to understand how the bridge collapsed:

The Wrong Lessons of the Bridge Collapse 
By Brad Edmonds 

"Imagine how safe we'd feel if the people who inspect and approve bridges
could actually lose their jobs and their fortunes if they make a fatal
mistake!"
 
The collapse of a bridge in rush-hour Minneapolis must be well known by
nearly everyone in the United States by now. Whenever anyone dies, it's a
tragedy; when many die, and expensive property (dozens of automobiles) is
lost, that's obviously a tragedy. When all this loss of life and wealth
happens because government bureaucrats did their jobs poorly or correctly,
that's a preventable and costly tragedy - bought at the expense of many
taxpayers who likely would have done other things with their money than pay
those bureaucrats. Remember, those who might have done other things with
their money include the dead victims.

If the bureaucrats did their jobs correctly, following the rules, observing
the bridge, and properly making the decision not to repair it when decision
time came, that of course heaps more tragedy on top of everything else.
There's nobody we can blame, as courts won't hold the government responsible
when it makes decisions that are correct by the rules yet cost innocent
lives.

So there's plenty of tragic news, and we've heard about it so much lately
because there are many impressive photos and movie clips. You tube and other
such websites have Americans running around every day with tiny electronic
gadgets hoping for something newsworthy to record and sell, and this is a
good thing: we can get facts about crimes and accidents, including crimes by
the uniformed thugs our taxes pay to protect us.

And yet - and yet, with the endless coverage, commentary, video clips, and
intrusive, tasteless interviews of grieving family members, nobody in the
mainstream media seems to be getting the right messages from this. Rather,
the messages are all self-serving government propaganda. Here are some of
the correct messages we should be getting:

Part of the reason this bridge collapse is so newsworthy is that it is rare.
That is good news, and a correct message. The next time I cross a concrete
bridge (as they all are in Alabama); I'll feel better than I once did: A
bridge collapsed somewhere, and it was such a startling event that everyone
is covering it endlessly. The incorrect message everyone else is getting is
that the nation's infrastructure is crumbling. 

Imagine if a Wal-Mart fell in on customers, killing them. What would be the
reaction? The CEOs of Wal-Mart would be strung up. Certainly there would not
be any public moaning about how the roofs of our nation's shopping centers
are in disrepair. The blame would be focused and intense, with no excuses
tolerated. 

So why do we vaguely bemoan our "crumbling infrastructure?" My
conspiracy-sniffing guess is that government and the mainstream media love
to frighten the masses. Frightened masses seek information for their
protection, and the mainstream media make money from advertisers when
frightened masses seek information. Government loves a frightened populace
because such a populace is willing to hand over more power and money to the
government, further entrenching government employees in their overpaid,
under worked jobs.

Another wrong message: we need more government to solve this problem.
President Bush is already promising more federal money to repair America's
supposedly crumbling infrastructure. Remember that any federal money that
goes to the states carries with it mandates that states hand over more power
to the federal government. In the 1980s, remember, states were forced to
hand over more police power to the feds in exchange for continued streams of
federal highway money. The usurpation of states' rights came in the specific
form of federally mandated drinking laws, making the legal drinking age 21
in every state, while the federally mandated minimum age at which you could
be thrown into battle by your benevolent leaders remained at 18. 

The correct message from the bridge collapse, which was allowed to happen
with full knowledge of the bridge's structural problems, is that government
cannot get the job done. The government lacks the incentive to fix problems.
And even with the incentive, there is a core calculation problem associated
with prioritizing the use of resources. This is where private markets excel.
They are not perfect but resources are used efficiently to solve the most
urgent demands as revealed in the system of profit and loss. The government
lacks this mechanism, so everything becomes arbitrary at best and political
at worst. 

"Nearly every newsworthy tragedy we see would be less common if those who
could have prevented it were subject to the harsh and impartial oversight of
the free market." 
 
Too much government was the cause of the problem; adding even more
government will inevitably make the problem worse. I guarantee the
additional money will go to the same old government contractors - builders
and engineers - some predictable percentage of whom will offer kickbacks to
inspectors and bureaucrats to get favor over other builders and engineers.
Once a government official is on the illegal gravy train, inspections never
become more intensive.

The correct solution: get government completely out of the business of
building bridges. Private engineers and inspectors, completely independent
of the power of government to insulate them from the consequences of shoddy
work, will inspect with the zeal of (most) private accounting and law firms,
who jealously guard their reputations for excellence. Imagine how safe we'd
feel if the people who inspect and approve bridges could actually lose their
jobs and their fortunes if they make a fatal mistake!

We should all learn this lesson from the bridge collapse: nearly every
newsworthy tragedy we see would be less common if those who could have
prevented it were subject to the harsh and impartial oversight of the free
market. At the same time, nearly every tragedy we see will result in
endlessly broadcast exhortations that we eliminate more of that free market
and replace it with more of the same government that allowed the tragedy to
happen in the first place. The same counterarguments presented above will
apply the next time you see a newsworthy tragedy. If enough of us begin
using them, perhaps someday we'll start learning these correct lessons.

Brad Edmonds, author of There's a Government in Your Soup, writes from
Alabama. See his Mises.org archive. Send him mail.