George Will has a short piece on the consequences of a Supreme Court decision “intended” to strengthen the 1964 Civil Rights act. What the decision (and subsequent actions of Congress) actually did was to make it more difficult for those without college diplomas to get certain jobs. Thus, a legal action designed to help minorities ends up harming them (and other Americans for whom a college education simply isn’t feasible). Here’s how the article ends:
Griggs and its consequences are timely reminders of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is increasingly pertinent as America’s regulatory state becomes increasingly determined to fine-tune our complex society. That law holds that the consequences of government actions often are different than, and even contrary to, the intended consequences.
Soon the Obama administration will arrive, bristling like a very progressive porcupine with sharp plans — plans for restoring economic health by “demand management,” for altering the distribution of income by using tax changes and supporting more muscular labor unions, for cooling the planet by such measures as burning more food as fuel, and for many additional improvements. At least, those will be the administration’s intended consequences.
(HT: Bench Memos)
And since we’re on the subject of economics, this post at RedState helpfully contrasts two very different ways of approaching economics. One views economies as big machines, technical challenges to be tweaked and modified (like a computer). The other acknowledges the moral dimension of all human existence, particularly the depravity and (at times) irrationality of man. Failure to view economics rightly is one of the chief reasons for all those bad unintended consequences out there.
