The problem with planning is that it is limited by the cognitive capacity of the planner. The free society instead takes advantage of evolutionary forces, which through trial and error produce results that generally could not have been anticipated a priori.

Or as Catherine Rampell observed, “Just goes to show that with imperfect information it’s hard for markets to be terribly efficient.”

Over time, technology revolutionized farming, resulting in the same trends we observe today in manufacturing: huge increases in farm worker productivity, reduced farm employment, significantly lower and more affordable prices leading to a reduced share of food in both household income and national income (GDP). And yet, when have you heard anybody claim that “U.S. farming is dead,” or talk about the “decline or demise of America’s agriculture industry?” Probably never. But a lot of people talk about the “decline of U.S. manufacturing” even though it’s going through the same long-term trend as farming - jobs and output are declining as a share of GDP, but manufacturing output and productivity are increasing. And we’re much better off because of it.

Those who advocate comprehensive national service programs err in terms of either means or ends. A program whose purpose is to inculcate the nation’s youth into service of the collective is inimical to liberty and unbecoming to a free society. If their aim is to render assistance to those in need, their purpose is better served in removing the political barriers that discourage people from serving others voluntarily.

As I’ve said before, it is ludicrous for the administration to complain about “subsidies” to the oil companies when ExxonMobil pays more in taxes than it earns in profits, and when the “green” energies favored by the Obama administration actually are subsidized, and in fact would not exist without government favoritism.

There were numerous “persuasive warnings” and “convincing arguments” prior to the most recent disasters. They were mostly ignored for a variety of cognitive reasons. It was not that they were not understood, it is that most people selectively refused to believe what was against their own interests. When the potential damages of what might occur is too ugly to contemplate, the silly humans find ways to ignore the truth; we seem to prefer comfortable fictions to painful reality. And while many “smart people” may not have seen the crisis coming, many did. (Perhaps we need to rethink who we call “smart people” in the future).

Currently the two major political parties are debating budget considerations. Fortunately for them, most Americans can’t decipher a budget proposal. Let me characterize the proposals this way: the Republican approach offers a slow and painful slide into oblivion; the Democratic approach is more of an assisted fiscal suicide. Neither plan is good, but the Republican plan is slightly less bad.