Charlie Munger once said that “it’s not the bad ideas that do you in, but the good ones.” While some have taken this quote to mean that people get stuck too easily on their good ideas, even if they don’t work. But you can also consider this to mean that poorly implemented “good” ideas can have dangerous consequences for these ideas, perhaps even more so than people never taking your ideas seriously in the first place.
At least as currently implemented, I’m afraid that this is where the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is. But first, I’d like to give DOGE some credit. They are at least bringing about a conversation, or a “vibe shift” in the necessity of a seemingly never-ending increase in government spending. This is at least a start to the conversation of how much government should be spending. For example, federal government spending is still nearly $1 trillion over pre-pandemic levels, totaling $6.75 trillion in 2024.
Many in the classical liberal tradition share similar values to DOGE and its supporters: government spending is out of control. However, the process in doing so is just as important. Thus far, DOGE actions have been sporadic and “transparent” but incredibly misleading. There have been many instances of numerous generous accounting practices and just plain mistakes that make their cost savings seem higher than it actually is.
There are now court cases questioning the legitimacy of DOGE’s actions. In large part, this deals with Congress having the constitutional authority over the “power of the purse.” It is not clear if the President can retroactivity not spend money that Congress allocated via spending bills. If this is deemed kosher, what is to stop future Presidents from adding to government spending without congressional approval.
Even Ayn Rand, who is by no means a pro-government ally, argued that the process of cutting government matters, not just reducing the scope of government. She warned about the dangers of repealing controls and spending overnight arbitrarily would have tremendous consequences. She suggested, and I agree, that there should be “sufficient notice to readjust and reorganize.” This allows markets to better allocate scarce resources under this new institutional environment.
Continue reading at Econlib.
Justin Callais, PhD, is the Chief Economist at the Archbridge Institute. He leads the institute’s “Social Mobility in the 50 States” project and conducts original research on economic mobility, economic freedom, economic development, and institutional analysis. Follow his work @JustinTCallais and subscribe to his newsletter, Debunking Degrowth.
Economics of Flourishing
Charlie Munger once said that “it’s not the bad ideas that do you in, but the good ones.” While some have taken this quote to mean that people get stuck too easily on their good ideas, even if they don’t work. But you can also consider this to mean that poorly implemented “good” ideas can have dangerous consequences for these ideas, perhaps even more so than people never taking your ideas seriously in the first place.
At least as currently implemented, I’m afraid that this is where the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is. But first, I’d like to give DOGE some credit. They are at least bringing about a conversation, or a “vibe shift” in the necessity of a seemingly never-ending increase in government spending. This is at least a start to the conversation of how much government should be spending. For example, federal government spending is still nearly $1 trillion over pre-pandemic levels, totaling $6.75 trillion in 2024.
Many in the classical liberal tradition share similar values to DOGE and its supporters: government spending is out of control. However, the process in doing so is just as important. Thus far, DOGE actions have been sporadic and “transparent” but incredibly misleading. There have been many instances of numerous generous accounting practices and just plain mistakes that make their cost savings seem higher than it actually is.
There are now court cases questioning the legitimacy of DOGE’s actions. In large part, this deals with Congress having the constitutional authority over the “power of the purse.” It is not clear if the President can retroactivity not spend money that Congress allocated via spending bills. If this is deemed kosher, what is to stop future Presidents from adding to government spending without congressional approval.
Even Ayn Rand, who is by no means a pro-government ally, argued that the process of cutting government matters, not just reducing the scope of government. She warned about the dangers of repealing controls and spending overnight arbitrarily would have tremendous consequences. She suggested, and I agree, that there should be “sufficient notice to readjust and reorganize.” This allows markets to better allocate scarce resources under this new institutional environment.
Continue reading at Econlib.
Justin T. Callais
Justin Callais, PhD, is the Chief Economist at the Archbridge Institute. He leads the institute’s “Social Mobility in the 50 States” project and conducts original research on economic mobility, economic freedom, economic development, and institutional analysis. Follow his work @JustinTCallais and subscribe to his newsletter, Debunking Degrowth.
Share:
Related Posts
Hope for Some Sanity on Licensing Reform
Early Americans Recognized Occupational Licensing Was a Racket
A Mountain to Climb: How to Improve Social Mobility in West Virginia