Many of the wonderful-sounding ideas that have been tried as government policies have failed disastrously. Because so few people bother to study history, often the same ideas and policies have been tried again, either in another country or in the same country at a later time— and with the same disastrous results.
One of the ideas that has proved to be almost impervious to evidence is the idea that wise and far-sighted people need to take control and plan economic and social policies so that there will be a rational and just order, rather than chaos resulting from things being allowed to take their own course. It sounds so logical and plausible that demanding hard evidence would seem almost like nit-picking.
In one form or another, this idea goes back at least as far as the French Revolution in the 18th century. As J.A. Schumpeter later wrote of that era, "general well-being ought to have been the consequence," but "instead we find misery, shame and, at the end of it all, a stream of blood."
The same could be said of the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions of the 20th century.
The idea that the wise and knowledgeable few need to take control of the less wise and less knowledgeable many has taken milder forms— and repeatedly with bad results as well.
One of the most easily documented examples has been economic central planning, which was tried in countries around the world at various times during the 20th century, among people of differing races and cultures, and under government ranging from democracies to dictatorships.
The people who ran central planning agencies usually had more advanced education than the population at large, and probably higher IQs as well.
The central planners also had far more statistics and other facts at their disposal than the average person had. Moreover, there were usually specialized experts such as economists and statisticians on the staffs of the central planners, and outside consultants were available when needed. Finally, the central planners had the power of government behind them, to enforce the plans they created.
It is hardly surprising that conservatives, such as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain and President Ronald Reagan in the United States, opposed this approach.
What is remarkable is that, after a few decades of experience with central planning in some countries, or a few generations in others, even communists and socialists began to repudiate this approach.
As they replaced central planning with more reliance on markets, their countries' economic growth rate almost invariably increased, often dramatically. In the largest and most recent examples— China and India— people by the millions have risen above these countries' official poverty rates, after they freed their economies from many of their suffocating government controls.
China, where famines have repeatedly ravaged the country, now has a problem of obesity— not a good thing in itself, but a big improvement over famines.
This has implications far beyond economics. Think about it: How was it even possible that transferring decisions from elites with more education, intellect, data and power to ordinary people could lead consistently to demonstrably better results?
One implication is that no one is smart enough to carry out social engineering, whether in the economy or in other areas where the results may not always be so easily quantifiable. We learn, not from our initial brilliance, but from trial and error adjustments to events as they unfold.
Science tells us that the human brain reaches its maximum potential in early adulthood. Why then are young adults so seldom capable of doing what people with more years of experience can do?
Because experience trumps brilliance.
Elites may have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for society as a whole cannot possibly have as much experience as the millions of people whose decisions they pre-empt. The education and intellects of the elites may lead them to have more sweeping presumptions, but that just makes them more dangerous to the freedom, as well as the well-being, of the people as a whole.
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
9 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Perhaps this is an unintended consequence of American exceptionalism. Although our American liberals, or progressives as they seem to prefer lately, disavow the notion of American exceptionalism and even apologize for those of us who believe that we are in fact exceptional, they continually behave in a manner that could only be explained by it. Why else would they believe that all of their brilliant schemes for social engineering and economic planning to save us poor fools, and indeed all of the fools in the world, will work when they have failed miserably elsewhere? It has to be because those brilliant schemes were not implemented by American liberals who must be more brilliant, exceptionally so, than say European liberals. To American liberals the fact that the Spanish have realized their subsidized wind power program is an economic disaster and the Germans are pulling the plug on subsidized photovoltaics and wind must be because those programs were implemented by less brilliant Europeans. Once they bring the insolent, and lately noisy, masses to heel in America and implement those subsidized programs here; of course they will be unqualified successes.
Here's how it works in the real world (a scary place that gives liberals nightmares). If you start with a bad idea, no amount of brilliant planning followed by flawless execution will transform a bad idea into a good one.
It seems as though our American liberals have managed to hoist themselves upon their own disavowed American exceptionalism petard. Unfortunately those of us in the insolent and noisy masses can take little satisfaction in their hoisting. We are footing the bill.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Rich Stewart
Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Right on. So simple...so clear. Yet to the current "elites" history seems to be clear as mud.
Thank you, Thomas Sowell, for your tenacity as you continue to shine a strong bright light on our current administration.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Carol
Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite writers. He is clear and always right on the mark. I always pass on his column to all in my address book.
Comment: #3
Posted by: cynthia
Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:21 AM
|
|
|
|
The problem is the elitists don't believe history relates to them....they feel they are above this history foolishness, and they'll forge new paths and it'll just miraculously work. While minimalizing history, they're out to find some new magic formula, forgetting in all their wisdom that two plus two will always equal four, and the basics are unchangeable.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Robert Neville
Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:33 AM
|
|
|
|
There's an unshakable truth to what Mr. Sewell writes, and -- believe it or not -- as a liberal I agree with his points above. And as a liberal arts major in college 25 years ago, how could I disagree that American's don't understand enough about history?
But central planning and nanny-state regulation is *not* the core of liberalism. While there are plenty of nut cases who scream for that kind of economic junk, there are dumb nut cases all across the spectrum. Some of them even end up on cable TV.
The best of liberal ideas are simple, yet may be scary:
* pay attention to long-run costs and benefits to society
* design systems that take into account what economists call "externalities", because there are big costs that don't show up in prices
* markets don't always work
* the invisible hand is, at best, an underachiever (read your Adam Smith! seriously, the invisible hand is barely mentioned)
* corporations are no better behaved than people, and need to be policed for the same reasons
* "the common good" and "civic duty" are concepts that need to be brought back to life
* concentration of wealth is not to be worshiped (read your Gospel! Jesus was the first liberal)
I could go on, but it's time for dinner ;-)
Comment: #5
Posted by: David Taber
Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Sir, you had taken the example of India. This goes to prove that people in the west have wrong opinions about India. Yes British colonisation has helped India in English education and because of that the progress in the IT area and being the backoffice of the world. BUT development wise India continues to be backward. Even after 60+ years of self rule, Indian poverty level has not improved. In fact it has worsened. Now 40% of Indian population live below poverty level (BPL). The main reason is corruption. India is nearly the world's top corrupt country. That shows poor governance even though it prides itself as largest democracy. Democracy model of governance has failed in India. Frustration in the people is now visible through naxal insergency. Yes, a revolution similar to the French Revolution awaits India.
Comment: #6
Posted by: k Stephen Daniel
Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:53 AM
|
|
|
|
What a dumb, lazy writer Sowell is. So any kind of governement planning is akin to the French Revolution, Soviet Union, and Red China?
Central planning also built the pyramids, won WWII, put a man on the moon, built the Hoover Dam, split the atom, etc.
Sowell, a Ph.D in economics, is duly anti-intellectual, anti-elite, as any good conservative pundit must be. If experience -- here defined as trial & error -- was indeed a better teacher then we wouldn't need to send anybody to college; we should just release ignoramuses into the workforce to learn by making lots of mistakes. The best way to become an economist like Sowell would be to start "doing" economics. What ludicrous bunk!
It's hard to believe Creators lets pea-brained dinosaurs write lazy, half-a**ed opinions like this.
Comment: #7
Posted by: J
Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Comment #7
You are so informed and smart that you couldn't even include your name with your boring know it all post.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Rhonda Koechig
Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: J;
The shallowness of your commentary, belies your deeply held biases. If you choose to expound on a man's work, identify yourself, it's only fair. It gives those of us with an open mind, the opportunity to choose when we'll skip reading your future puerile posts. Mr. Sowell clearly identifies himself, as do I. This gives you the opportunity to read something else, if you actually read anything at all. Perhaps a writer that you are more capable of understanding, something with drawings might cheer you up. You seem angry and lonely, a person without friends. Clearly joining a Mensa chapter is not an option for you. The Students for a Democratic Society have been attempting to revitalize themselves. There is always a bunch of like-minded imbecilic liberals looking to destroy something important to Americans, so you have options. Even though your post was short and demonstrated some very strained logic, I'm certain those fools will be glad to take you in as one of their own. You may even choose to join a union, thereby giving you the chance to get a check for what you don't know.
Humbly Submitted, Rick Schaler
Comment: #9
Posted by: Rick Schaler
Thu Aug 5, 2010 8:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|