expenditures

Some terminology in these essays could have benefited from clearer definitions. In fairness, the essays are gleaned from a specialized journal geared to a narrow audience. Nonetheless, a glossary to distinguish between risk-risk analysis, health-health analysis, benefit-cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis used to evaluate comparative risks would have been helpful. Even the Lutter/Morrall essay, which distinguished willingness-to-spend and willingness-to-pay, was replete with acronyms. Unexpectedly, the Viscusi/Zeckhauser essay used italicized characters for vectors and matrices rather than bold typeface (contrary to its usual representation in mathematics), but also presented what for me was a novel idea of comparing industries not solely on the fatalities resulting from their operations, but also on the fatalities related to input and output. For example, power generation may be relatively safe, but the coal burned must be provided from the mining industry, which is much more hazardous. The reader may develop an agreeable or skeptical reaction depending on the reasonableness of the data. The numbers, at first glance, do not strain credulity, although a more thorough understanding of sources for data might lend more confidence. However, I remain unconvinced of the economic comparison between injuries and fatalities, not because of the assertion that injuries have a greater aggregate economic effect than fatalities but because the societal concern that death may present a far more severe disruption in a household than a much larger number of recoverable minor injuries to many families. This represents a social decision to establish a higher priority on preventing accidental death than in avoiding morbidity based on acceptable norms established by informal consensus. That this may result in economic inefficiency does not seem sufficient reason to abandon such priorities.

The most rewarding essay for myself was by Keeney on mortality risks. Keeney illustrated the hazards to ordinary people (as opposed to bureaucrats who may benefit from increased regulation) of regulation-induced cost increases that may cause increased unemployment or reduced purchasing power. People must then prioritize purchases with fewer economic resources -- and so decisions such as driving on bald tires may increase risk as a consequence of having less money to purchase new ones. The hypothetical example presented might have been amusing but for the inanity of power seekers: a requirement that all individuals in automobiles wear a motorcycle-style helmet. A few might survive otherwise fatal accidents. Others might suffer collisions due to degraded hearing or vision while driving. The helmet industry would temporarily surge, at the expense of other industries that would suffer eroded customer purchasing power. Keeney pointed out that the consequences of an industry failing from regulatory burden are imposed on a small segment -- those employed in the industry. Thus socialization of risk may be reversed, allegedly benefiting many at the expense of a few: a risk allocation scheme by a tyranny of the majority. This disproportionate effect is further described in Portney/Stavins. In another essay, the claim that wealth and increased longevity being statistically linked may indicate a causal connection was asserted by Chapman/Hariharan.

While the prose seems dense at times, most of the arguments are competently presented. Knee-jerk big-government liberals unlikely to find much appealing in this slim volume, but CATO institute members may be attracted to the rather dry but salient arguments made therein.

Anyone that reads this and comes away sanguine about the rathole of waste and excess in Washington deserves their serfdom.

On another front, do click over to "Transfer" by Jerry Furland. Another honest author toiling in the vineyards for all of us.

Concrete descriptions of duplicate government programs and massive inefficiencies abound in the book, so much so that examples for less than a billion dollars seem inconsequential. Moreover, Gross explains many of the underlying reasons for government waste and offers various pragmatic solutions for reducing and eliminating the waste without materially impacting public services.

Everyone who votes needs to read this book and then march on Washington, 60's style, and demand massive reforms. And when better than during this, a presidential election year.

Although Niskanen's analysis is insightful and thought-provoking on all of the various topics covered, the whole volume seems to have less value than the sum of its parts. The collection will make some of these papers easier to locate, if potential readers are aware that they have been reprinted here, but the chapters do not complement and support one another as did the chapters in Niskanen's earlier collection on bureaucracy, Bureaucracy and Public Economics (Aldershot, Eng.: Edward Elgar, 1994). If one is interested in any of the topics Niskanen discusses, his analysis is sure to shed light on the subject. The topics are so varied, however, and the methods of analysis so different, that the volume will have greatest value as a reference to be consulted on various topics, rather than as a book to be read from cover to cover.

And this enforcement mechanism is government. Weak governments (such as those of the current Russia) cannot guarantee property rights or any other rights for their citizens. Anyone who feels they can establish their rights without government should visit Somalia and see how easy or difficult it is in the absence of government.

How would you establish right to a plot of land, for instance, without a title, some means of enforcing property laws ?

The Founding Fathers most certainly recognized the value of government -- thats why they wrote the Constitution, because the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate. They also provided the government with the means to fund itself -- through tarrifs, which are just another form of taxes. This is something the authors do indeed support, and at least two of the 1-star reviews lead me to conclude the authors never got beyond the title.

Finally, the Constition does indeed provide powers to the States. But is unclear why this should necessarily please someone who claims that governments take away all rights, since the states are also run by governments. In fact, historically, the states have had practically all the powers (public schools, eminent domain, property taxes) etc. etc. that libertarian types find distasteful.

This book is NOT a call for higher taxes, and it recognizes the tax-and-spend problems as well.

Even more maddening is that Mr. Lloyd has included a fair amount of material that seems to confuse self delusion and incompetence with strategic and tactical deception. In Chapter 1 he devotes several pages to the American revolution and the Zulu and Boer wars in Africa. Nothing in that chapter has anything to do with the principles and techniques of deception in warfare.

A better investment is to hunt down a used copy of Colonel Dewar's book. It is a far, far better resource if you are interested in the principles, means, and techniques of strategic and tactical military deception.

The book costs about [$$$]. 400 something pages, which looks like someone photocopied it and slapped it together with a glossy cover (mainly--cutting corners with cost). Its custom published by Pearson.

If this book is required, I would recommend getting your hands on anything else you can find--probably Schaum's Outline of Engineering Economics, ISBN: 0070238340