Prof. Antony Davies: What You Need to Know About Public Choice

Why bad laws get passed.
Public choice is a field of economics that takes what we understand about human behavior and applies that knowledge to humans who work in the public sector, politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and voters. Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University and Erika Davies of George Mason University explain the true cost of voting, and why laws that are not good for society often get passed. Learn more: hayekandchill.com/economics/
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/1HVAtKP
FOLLOW US:
- Website: www.learnliberty.org/
- Facebook: / learnliberty
- Twitter: / learnliberty
- Google +: bit.ly/1hi66Zz
LEARN MORE:
Behavioral Economics (playlist): Heuristics, cognitive biases, public choice-- oh my! Watch the entire series to learn more about behavioral economics at hayekandchill.com/economics/
Econ Chronicles (playlist): Join professor Bryan Caplan as he explains rational ignorance & the most common forms of cognitive biases that voters hold. • Playlist
Public Choice (article): A primer on Public Choice theory, its foundational principles, and its implications for institutions. www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Pu...
Democracy and Political Ignorance (book): Professor Ilya Somin explores the causes and effects of political ignorance, and the challenges it presents to our democracy. www.amazon.com/Democracy-Poli...
Economics Made Easy (playlist): Want to learn more about how the economy works? Check out our playlist for videos on immigration, the minimum wage, and much more! • Economics Made Easy
LEARN LIBERTY
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at bit.ly/1UleLbP

[@hillaryplace9726]

Learned more in 4 minutes than I did in a semester.

[@qwikvr6gti]

So who sends thier sons to die then. If the popular sentiment is not to go to war why do we keep going to war. We have neen at war since 1990. Whobvoted for that? This theory is bullshit.

[@B1gHagar]

So I just watched all five of these videos and, if you were so inclined, could do a ton more of these video and I will watch every one. Good stuff.

[@LearnLiberty]

Thanks for the feedback! We're glad to hear you liked them.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

@@LearnLiberty can't wait for new videos.

[@walterdennisclark]

I would like another example. The production quality is so compelling (involving of the viewer), the time flies by. I think 8 minutes would be OK on these.

[@garrikcook5940]

These types of videos I respect. To me context is everything, so by understanding why we have something in place (like a law, policy, or social norm), whether good or bad, it is still just as important to have a better understanding of that something when putting up a topic for discussion or debate.

[@StateExempt]

Okay, just had an epiphany after watching this series... What was covered in the vid is probably why things like Uber tend to have a big impact on taxi cartels for example. There is actually *something to gain* from starting up a rideshare company for those that do so, and people can see *by example* that alternatives are possible. In other words, 1) there is a greater ratio of benefit that goes to the people that challenge a bad policy and 2) the costs of the bad policy become more obvious to people paying the "dispersed cost" of inflated taxi prices... A similar approach to social security reform might be convincing more people to start IRAs so *they benefit directly* from supporting alternatives to what we pay into now. Voting on those issues is more of an uphill battle because *most of the benefit* goes to people who *didn't campaign* against the bad policies. Seems like political reform has to be tied to something more than just filling out a ballot to overcome the rational ignorance/irrationality problem... Do that and Wagner's law could become less of an obstacle for us o.0

[@StateExempt]

Shoot, I'm off to the drawing board now.

[@fredroberts8275]

While I know they didn't mean it, this is the best argument for mandatory voting I have ever heard.

[@lights473]

Or the best argument for why government sucks

[@YashArya01]

Not at all! This is an argument in favor of NOT voting if you're uninformed.

[@w.a.l.6037]

At about 0:38 Professor D. contends that individuals in the public sector and the private sector are not different and economic principles can be used to predict how these individuals will behave. That's like saying that a CEO of a company that he/she owns will make similar business decisions as a CEO of a company that has no ownership claim in the enterprise. Both parties have different risks at stake. The same holds true for public officials and private sector business types. Ultimately, you shouldn't use one group to predict how the other will behave because the two groups are very different. They should not be seen as apples to apples.

[@mitchellbrown5846]

Great series! Will there be more of them?

[@ManintheArmor]

Essentially, what you have is a scenario where many people relinquish the power of their vote and give it to the fewer hands that are more willing or able to invest. Curious, wouldn't this lead to a slippery slope where a few guys can vote for laws that make voting increasingly more inconvenient for people, so that they may maintain their power? So say, what if we were to make it to where voting was cheaper? More accessible? Where all the relevant information you needed was provided and the nearest voting both was closer to home?

[@pepipepic26]

Doesn't matter how easy voting is, most people don't care. They're not taxpayers, they don't take the cost

[@myrmaad]

@@pepipepic26 people who buy things are paying taxes. One way or another, all pay taxes. As inevitable as death.

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@myrmaad not everyone pays equal taxes

[@lankysapien3032]

more please! :)

[@silveravnt]

I'm the type of person who would pay $15 to not have $10 taken from me against my will.

[@42metalhead]

lol you and me both

[@EmperorFishFinger]

Precedent utilitarianism - it would make rational sense to lose $5 in order to prevent similar laws in the future. This is just an illustrative example that doesn't take future contexts into account for the sake of simplicity, though.

[@AntonyDavies]

You might do it once or twice. But imagine that we held a vote like this every day for years. Very quickly, you'd resign yourself to simply putting up with the $10.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

@@AntonyDavies Professor, please, make a video explaining why Perfectly good Nuclear power Plants are being shutdown in the USA. I think it’s because of government interventions on the electric sector forcing utilities to buy unreliable electricity from wind turbines and solar panels. Some people says that it’s because of the extremely cheap natural gas from Fracking. What do you think about that? Please study it and make a video about it. Nuclear plants are a reliable source of clean electricity. We need them!

[@poisonedbanana]

Then you are irrational

[@maysagonoyalba5363]

Of all the videos about Public Choice Theory, this one makes my brain function 🤣🥰

[@HellsMascot]

Does Erika have red irises

[@timothygallagher4663]

Awesome

[@pbfrank13]

What's the reasoning behind keeping these unlisted? Do a video on that, as i would imagine you could get more exposure with general people searching key words. Though I suppose a trade off is getting everyone on the internet trolling comments and down voting instead instead of the people who genuinely want to absorb the information.

[@TateVanPatten]

why did you stop? there's so much more you could cover!

[@dsugimoto313]

This is at the heart of student debt forgiveness and why PAC's exist.

[@congressionalresearchinsti3897]

Logrolling (the central tenet of Public Choice) doesn't just allow for trading of votes it allows for buying and intimidating votes, thus increasing the power of the most powerful. Since 1970 when the Legislative Reorganization Act opened all the committee votes of Congress, this is precisely what has happened. Massive rise in inequality, chaos, mistrust of government, spending, debt, capture, etc.

[@ChristopherKing288]

technically, the government burning money would be a good thing in the US

[@bestpseudonym1693]

*arguably

[@FurryMurry7]

Burning it would definitely be better than what they're using the money for now, with less inflation to boot! :)

[@chrisknorr1326]

Watch the Onion piece about the money hole...

[@rishisolanki9135]

Where were you all my life ?

[@johnathanvale8634]

Tariffs in a nutshell

[@Inaf1987]

Is Anthony her Dad??

[@AntonyDavies]

Yes.

[@Apocalypz]

Why would you assume 0% of the 90 would not vote for issues which affect them directly? What an horrific "fact" you attempt to share in this video. I'm not saying the law would pass, but we also shouldn't assume 0% of those who have to pay.

[@AntonyDavies]

Because, although the issues affect them directly, the benefit from resolving those issues in their favor is less than the cost of casting a vote. Out of principle, some of the people may vote, but we can also expect that number to dwindle over time if votes like this keep being presented.

[@tonechavi2760]

@@AntonyDavies Thanks for the explaination.

[@mikelewis495]

This is why voter ID laws are bad. Yeah, most people already have ID for other reasons, but for those who don't, the ID requirement simply adds to their cost to vote.

[@pepipepic26]

Voter fraud is a thing, moron

[@nirajpaneru9694]

@@pepipepic26 of course there is possibility of fraud in most system but is a big enough issues to require voter ID. does the policy increase the cost of casting a vote so much that it unable some group to not cast a vote?

[@JonathanSchattke]

even a 0 cost model fails, because a law disributing to >50% of the voters is imposed on all.

[@bongodave13]

What a load of nonsense.