Cost–Benefit Analysis - 3 Quarks Daily

by Jerry Cayford

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

“If I Had My Way” is one of the great protest songs (aka “Samson and Delilah”). The biblical story of Samson expresses the theme that a primitive and chaotic force beneath protest can escape all restraint. Samson is a destroyer: “He lifted up that jawbone and he swung it over his head / And when he got to moving ten thousand was dead.” No specification of who exactly died is necessary, for it doesn’t much matter with Samson.

We might think the story is a warning, but what makes “If I Had My Way” so electrifying is the chorus celebrating Samson’s destructive spirit:

If I had my way
If I had my way in this wicked world
If I had my way I would tear this building down

The listener singing along revels vicariously in a rage so deep it has become nihilism: things are so bad I no longer care and just want to tear it all down. The revolutionary intent is clear in the anecdote about Samson in which he kills a lion with his bare hands: “And the bees made honey in the lion’s head.” The symbolism is obvious: lions always represent rulers; the bees are workers; and honey is the sweet life. Samson is the working class’s spirit of vengeance against a condescending and abusive ruling class. It is a spirit that has started to move again in our own wicked world.

Let us start with the song of an angry strongman. In the second section, we’ll consider how the nihilistic spirit of Samson has been awakened by a political betrayal of democratic promises. In the final section, we’ll look at philosophical ideas about what we imagine should keep that spirit from waking. First, though, the song.

Most people know “If I Had My Way” either from Peter, Paul and Mary’s 1962 version (from which I quote) or The Grateful Dead’s 1977 “Samson and Delilah.” But the song is a traditional African-American spiritual dating back at least to the early 20^th century (three versions recorded in 1927), and maybe all the way to slavery. (The folk music magazine Sing Out! explores the song’s history in a four-part 2019 article: 1, 2, 3, 4.) Rev. Gary Davis brought it into the folk revival of the civil rights era in 1960, and then Peter, Paul and Mary brought it to mainstream audiences on their first album, which was so popular that royalties from it kept Rev. Davis (given copyright credit) financially secure for life (Sing Out!). I take Peter, Paul and Mary’s as the definitive version, in part because it is substantially rearranged to make the protest elements explicit. Read more »

by Jerry Cayford

The rigged rules that govern our economy are being rewritten right now. And the fight is fierce. “The most powerful agency you’ve never heard of” (as the media calls the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) is revising its main guidance telling federal agencies how to structure regulations. That is, OIRA is rewriting the rules that federal agencies must follow in writing their own rules that govern the industries they regulate.

What makes this rulemaking earthshaking is that the people doing it are trying to unrig decades of rigged rules, and getting pushback from powerful players. The magnitude of the stakes can be seen in the public comments on OIRA’s revision of its guidance, Circular A-4. It’s complicated, obviously, but there is one point on which everything else turns—OIRA’s most controversial and consequential proposal. I am going to explain that central point.

Here is a thumbnail. Agencies are required to use Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) to justify their regulations as increasing overall social welfare. A huge contributor to the rigged rules in our society is that this formally mandated Cost–Benefit Analysis has a logical fallacy at its core that systematically favors the wealthy: it defines social welfare as increased by more total wealth (productivity), regardless of who gets the money. This definition of welfare forces federal agencies to design their regulations to maximize wealth, which inevitably favors those who already have it, for many reasons that I throw together under the adage “It takes money to make money.” Think of wealth production as an industry with economies of scale and barriers to entry.

The new proposal changes the rules. It tweaks CBA to weight the dollars a policy generates according to who gets them (and who pays them), instead of just counting the total. It is not a new idea, but it is a radical one, and the hornets’ nest is buzzing. Read more »

Tag: Cost–Benefit Analysis

Monday, August 7, 2023

Let the Unrigging Begin