In the World of January 26, Dennis Dater responds to the dismal forecasts for growth in Coos County and calls for action. It is time, he announces, “to select one goal for our future and get everyone behind it to make it happen.” But, he wonders: ”. . . who or what group will step forward and do it?”
Perhaps I can answer his questions by asking bigger ones.
Why was the Soviet economy so dismally bad, and why did it collapse, after seventy years of economic planning? For economic planning is what Dennis advocates. The USSR set goals, drew up five-year-plans, and appointed planners to achieve them. Then they had to appoint new planners because they had a lot of the old ones shot in some KGB cellar, which was not fair because their jobs were impossible anyway. But like Dennis, the Soviet officials had what the economist Hayek called “The Fatal Conceit”: the illusion that government planning can create growth.
To maintain that same illusion, our own local planners go by elaborate titles: Coos Bay City Manager of Economic Revitalization – Executive Director of the South Coast Development Council – Chief Executive Officer of the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay – etcetera.
Which one would you like to appoint economic dictator, Dennis? They all sound impressive.
Back in the seventies the Port was appointed to create growth. The Port begat the Urban Renewal District, the Enterprise Zone, the Free Trade Zone, the Regional Strategies Program, plus a herd of while elephants starting with the $100,000 Crosline Ferry and culminating with the $100 million railroad. Oblivious to this record, the people begat FONSI, while FONSI begat the SCDC. And more groups yet were begotten.
So, which one would you appoint to plan for growth?
Instead of dying with the late, unlamented USSR, Economic Planning has left its destructive shadow behind, as the Cheshire cat left its grin.
And the barriers erected by our planners, the ones we appointed, have made us shrink instead of grow. “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” So please, don’t call for new plans or planners. For example, some people now advocate planning for different industries, like wind or solar energy. It sounds good, but once you’ve lost your home betting on the horses, why go bet on the dogs? Our plan must be to get rid of the planners. And then trust the people – but that’s not the planners’ way.
Wim, the man chose one wrong word, goal. It was if he spat upon the hallowed ground of Scheveningen, not responded to Captain Slangwhanger Benton. You clobbered him. The thrust of his message is that we of the county must get our act together. He is correct. Business wanting to be here are not welcome elsewhere. The business with a choice will run far and fast. There are a dozen reasons why business should not locate here. And, not a single head of any of the dozen jobs promising organizations is lead by a person who has CREATED industry of jobs.
Over the top? I think not.
Thank you Wim.
A bit over the top Wim, I read something different in the intent of Mr. Dater. And, the answer to your question, none are qualified to lead the people of Coos County.
With all due respect, Susan — I don’t think it’s over the top. True, the Soviet economy was ENTIRELY run by the state, which is not yet the case in America, so there’s a difference. But the urge to plan and to run the economy is alive and well in Coos County, it’s been practiced for decades, and with equally dismal results. As Jefferson said, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Foolish human impulses can equally well run rampant in the USSR as in America or in Coos County.
And I’m concerned that your answer that “none are qualified to lead the people of Coos County” may leave the door open to yet others, perhaps undiscovered geniuses, to “lead” the Coos economy. I hope you don’t think that, because the main point of my little article was that nobody is up to the job; it’s beyond human capabilities, and counterproductive when they try. The only thing our economic planners ought to be doing is remove the obstacles to real development, most of which THEY have erected. But that is not their nature, which is why we need to get rid of the lot.
There is a tendency in all of us to assume that when we just get rid of a government office, all sorts of dire consequences will follow. Undoubtedly that is true of some government functions, but not of so many of the others that have accreted in the last fifty years or so. But the tendency is there. For instance, the implosion of the USSR left a lot of people bewildered who’d gotten used to being told what job to take and where. What do I do now? But they got used to it.
Let’s take one American example, an easy one because it’s unconstitutional in the first place, and quite adequately covered by state and local arrangements. Since the time of Jimmy Carter we’ve had a federal Department of Education. No doubt some education insiders will defend its existence, for the self-serving reason that it doles out money — but what has it accomplished? The most impressive school papers I’ve ever seen were done by people who attended school a hundred years ago, well before the feds got involved.