Seeing What's Foreseeable But Not Seen Is Easy If We Watch For It

Frederic Bastiat describes a bad economist as one who sees only what is visible.

He says a good economist is one who also sees the longer range consequences which often are not foreseen immediately. In other words, a good economist also foresees the longer term effects of an action taken at the same time he sees the visible immediate results.

The French economist Bastiat wrote about all this in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen, a wonderful essay published in 1850. You can also find it by searching Bing or Google. It's a great read, in whole or in part.

Here's a sample from the essay's beginning:

"In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

1.2

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

1.3

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil."

A present day example of the essay's essence appeared on the editorial page of the WSJ recently and was titled "Bastiat in Kandahar." Since it's short, I'll quote its entirety.

"On a recent patrol through southern Afghanistan's cluster of villages known as Sangisar, 1st Lt. Michael Monty hears a familiar complaint: "You destroyed my fruit trees," local landowner Akbar Jan tells him. "You came in, you built that road and my land is now ruined."

Repeating what he's been telling disgruntled farmers all morning, 1st Lt. Monty, 24, says: "We destroyed a bunch of trees because we were getting shot at from a bunch of trees."

Mr. Jan bobs his head. He seems well-disposed to the Americans, and acknowledges that security has recently improved in the area, where Mullah Mohammed Omar founded the Taliban in 1994.

A Plattsburgh, N.Y., native who's serving here with the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, part of the 10th Mountain Division, 1st Lt. Monty goes on to tell Mr. Jan that if he attends an upcoming meeting at the battalion's outpost and presents his damage claims, he will be reimbursed. Attempting to compensate Afghan civilians in real-time for the destruction of war is now included on the long list of tasks that U.S. soldiers tackle daily.

At this offer, Mr. Jan furrows his brow and shakes his head.

"But -- they're trees, it's land!" he retorts. "How do I know how much fruit I would have grown this season or next season, what else I might have done with the land, how much I might have made selling the fruit? I can't know that."

Like most of his neighbors, Mr. Jan, who says he's in his mid-30s, is barely literate and probably not familiar with the works of Frédéric Bastiat. Regardless, he's clear on the costs of "that which is not seen."

"You can't pay me enough to compensate for that," he tells 1st Lt. Monty, who can only shake his hand, urge him to come to the meeting, and move on to the next farmer."

Maybe the barely literate Mr. Jan could explain this all too often unforeseen stuff to our politicians, congressional leaders and President Obama, too.

Come to think of it, maybe more of our fellow citizens could take the time to read the essay and then explain its easy to understand essence to their local, state and national elected officials.

If that ever happened, it would be big government spending, stimulus programs, tax increases and redistributionists, beware.

Thanks. Bob.