Ah,
spring. The time of year when a young man’s fancy turns to thoughts of
love . . . and rational ignorance.
Granted,
it is actually summer and, having recently attained 32 years, I’m not
exactly a lad anymore. But back in May I met a winsome lady and things
between us have been progressing in a most pleasant fashion ever since.
So
much for the love part, you say, but what are you talking about, rational
ignorance?
Well,
it transpires that my lady friend (whom we will call Babette to protect the
innocent) admitted to not knowing, until relatively recently, who Dick Cheney
was.
Shocking!
But it wasn’t Babette’s admission that surprised me so much as
her attitude toward her knowledge deficit. She didn’t see any reason
why she should have known who Dick Cheney was. Sure, he’s the
vice president of the United States, she said, but why should she care about that?
This
exchange put me in mind of the economic concept of "rational
ignorance." Simply stated, this concept tells us that an
individual’s decision to become informed about something is influenced
by the cost – measured in terms of time and effort, not just dollars
– of becoming informed. It is an especially useful concept when one is
discussing politics and, particularly, elections.
Rational
ignorance explains why various special interests wield so much influence over
government officials. Economist Walter Williams uses the example of the sugar
industry, where Congress maintains high tariffs on imported sugar so that
domestic producers can sell their product to Americans at higher prices.
It’s worth it to the relatively few producers to spend their time,
money, and energy lobbying Congress for the tariffs because it means millions
of dollars in artificially increased profits and wages for them. For the much
greater mass of American sugar consumers, however, the tariffs mean around $2
billion more a year in sugar costs, which translates into a couple bucks more
for the average person – hardly worth bothering about on an individual
level.
In
other words, it makes sense for the ordinary American to remain rationally
ignorant about the issue of sugar tariffs because it’s far less of a
hassle to pay $5 more a year for sugar than it is brush up on the relevant
legislation and jump a plane to Washington to personally lobby Congress for
lower (or no) sugar tariffs.
For
various reasons, it’s not even worth writing a letter or making a phone
call about it. Your Congressman is only one of 435 (535 when you add the
Senate) and is most likely not in any position to do much about the tariffs
by himself. And, as Williams points out, who is he going to listen to, you or
the organized sugar lobby, which is ready, willing, and able to use various
carrot-and-stick pressure tactics, including campaign donations or the
withdrawal thereof, should it become displeased with Rep. Rapscallion’s
voting behavior? The answer is obvious.
(Of
course, the cost of sugar tariffs can be measured in more than just those few
extra dollars out of your wallet. For example, I still mourn the loss of the
Coca-Cola I used to enjoy as a boy, when it was sweetened with real sugar
instead of the cheaper but awful-tasting corn syrup used today. For a more
dramatic example, hundreds of employees at a Michigan plant that makes
LifeSavers candies are losing their jobs this summer as production moves to
Canada, which imports sugar at the much lower, freely traded world price.)
Rational
ignorance lies at the heart of the government racket. Politicians exploit it
to curry favor with a whole host of special interest groups by voting to give
them concentrated financial benefits – while distributing the costs of
those benefits widely over the general population. Thus is the average American
nickel and dimed out of nearly half of his paycheck by the parasites
posturing as our worthy and true public servants.
Whether
she realized it or not, my lady friend Babette was displaying the profound
wisdom born of common sense and centuries of human experience when she
defended her ignorance of Dick Cheney’s identity. She has probably
never heard the term "rational ignorance" before. But 19th-century
author Ambrose Bierce probably didn’t either when he wrote that
"an election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen
goods."
As for
me, since I can’t stand to drink Coke anymore, I’ll pour myself a
beer – and talk with the charming Babette about matters more
interesting than politics.
David
Bardallis
|