It's Salar Day.

I sent the link to his latest column to a completely wasted and sleepy Praglib at 2:30 last night. Praglib was still able to find several factual errors and major Economic fallacies. We agreed to divvy up the debunking duties: I'd criticize Salar's style, Dave would criticize content. But I'm gonna take on his Economics again as well.

A mere 148 words in, we get to his topic sentence.

President Bush decided to send an even stronger message out to the younger generation. Last year, he signed a bill enforcing the Drug-Free Provision of the Higher Education Act, saying that those who are caught smoking up will be denied federal aid for school.

Quelle stylistic nightmare! Bush did not sign a bill 'enforcing' the Act, he signed a bill 'legalizing' the Act or 'approving' the Act. He couldn't 'enforce' the Act because the Act was not an Act before he signed it.

Econ Stuff:

See, the government uses tax dollars to provide services for society. One of these services is to help educate those who cannot afford to educate themselves. Another service is to fight the war against drugs. If the government were to tackle these problems individually, it would need more resources (pronounced "charge higher taxes").

By bundling its responsibilities, the government can attempt to kill two birds with one stone. It can provide education to the poor while simultaneously stopping kids from using drugs.

Leaving aside the amazing level of condescension towards his fellow Berkeley students, this argument doesn't work. Why should combining services lead to gains in efficiency? It may be possible that in this instance that's true, but I can think of many instances where combining services led to a dropoff in efficiency and an increase in needed resources.

It's also a faulty theoretical argument. Contemporary thought is that addressing a social problem should be tackled head on, not by side-methods, because those lead to unforeseen consequences. The classic example is using Tarriffs to protect domestic industry. It might have some effect, but it would be far better to be direct and subsidize those industries. Using an indirect method like tarriffs leads to unexpected outcomes like corruption. In this instance, using FAFSA to fight the Drug War will lead to a corruption of FAFSA's mission: to provide scholarships. Far better to take on drugs directly rather then spoiling scholarships.

The Drug-Free Provision also provides one last benefit I have failed to mention. College has become almost a given after high school. With many students not even considering forgoing college, there will soon be a lack of low-paid, high labor workers.

This could spell trouble for our economy. Who will do the more menial jobs in society? Might as well be the druggies.

What? The problem in the USA is a GLUT of menial laborers, not a lack of them. We have this thing in America called 'high levels of immigration' that ensure a steady flow of low-skill workers, along with a far lower college entrance rate that Mr. Jahedi seems to see. Most economists bemoan the lack of college graduates, or at least those trained in useful skills like Science and Math. They also worry that the glut of low-skill workers is what's been That's why the US is so happy to import high-skill workers from other countries, and why Economists worry that the surplus of menial labor is keeping their wages too low.

Hmph!


Email This Post!