In Hypothetical Public Policy Imagination Land, There Is No Simplicity/Precision Tradeoff!

But on Earth, there is

Generally speaking, I’m a fan of articles that blame things on the public. Those articles are rare; it’s always easier to blame things on feckless politicians, greedy corporations, and craven members of the media. To write an article suggesting that some fault might lie with the people who cast the votes, buy the products, and provide the clicks — the people who are your audience — is incredibly risky. But every now and then, someone sticks their head above the parapet and says “maybe — hear me out — you’re part of the problem?” It’s a bold gambit, and I privately salute it, while publicly saying: “How dare you.”

It matters what the public thinks and knows. Of course, we need to be realistic about what people should be expected to know. Those of us who write about politics for a living often forget that this is our entire job; expecting people to know the fine details of policy is exactly as reasonable as expecting me to know how to repair an impacted molar even though I’m not a goddamned…what do you call them? Tooth guy. (I looked it up: dentist.) It might be fair to expect people to know the essential stuff, like that there are three branches of government or that LBJ had a special shower installed in the White House to power-wash his balls, but there are limits to what people can know.

One thing I wish everyone knew is that there’s a tradeoff between precision and simplicity in the design of social programs. That is: You can take steps to funnel money to the people you think should get it, or you can not do that and spare people some paperwork, but it’s very hard to do both. If you already knew that, then whoopdee-fucking-do for you, Professor Think Tank: I give you permission to skip this article and watch this compilation of epic basketball trick shots instead. My singular goal here is to simply establish that there is a tradeoff.

And for what it’s worth: Even think tank-y types sometimes act like there’s not.