October 27, 2023 • 33 mins
Have you ever wondered why a government, a system of institutions specifically designed to solve problems, often preserves and worsens the problems they are supposed to solve?
Buckle up as we dive into a lively discussion unraveling the Shirky Principle, which suggests governments are more prone to protect problems than solve them. We will break down a hilarious example involving the case of an Ontario-based carpooling site, PickUpPal.com, which was forced to shut down by the Canadian government not because it failed but because it was too efficient!
We will dissect the costly and often inefficient mechanisms of our government. Examples abound of how our government throws billions of dollars at problems that are never solved and often create worse problems in the process.
We will call out our dear politicians; however, it isn't malice or evil. Sometimes, it is mere stupidity how our politicians and bureaucrats go about solving problems. Brace yourselves as we scrutinize the colossal amount of funds funneled into sectors like the war on drugs, education, the military, and pandemic relief, with little to no palpable results. They simultaneously pledged billions to Israel for war, and Palestine for aid is called into question as we ponder who the real beneficiaries of this funding are.
Closing the episode, we scrutinize the deteriorating trust of the public in their government to solve problems and their motives in taking on issues.
It's a stark reality that politicians from both ends of the spectrum, the Democrats and the Republicans, often create problems only to present themselves as the solution.
Can we really hope for change when the same forces that created the problems continue to wield control and claim to be the solutions?
This episode promises to push you out of your comfort zone, compelling you to question the status quo and critically evaluate government actions.
Newsletter: https://intellectualfreedom.substack.com/
Follow Dr. Hopkins on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DavidDHopkins
-----
Keep Intellectual Freedom Free for Everyone! Become a member and DONATE to this project. It's a pay-what-you-want donation. Everything helps.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to the intellectual freedom podcast
where we unravelthought-provoking concepts and
dive into different world ofideas.
As all of you know, and I'myour host, david Hopkins, and in
today's episode, taking on afunny topic it's not a comedic
funny topic like ha ha ha funny,but funny in a dark, a sad and
(00:27):
a cynical way we're going to beexploring together the shirky
principle and it's a fascinatinginsight into how institutions,
and especially our governmentalinstitutions, deal with quote
unquote problems.
And you know, while preparingfor this podcast, I ran across a
(00:51):
quote from Upton Sinclair and Ithink when I read it it hit the
nail on the head for me when hesaid this quote it is difficult
to get a man to understandsomething when his salary
depends on his not understandingit.
End quote.
Well, of course, we don't haveany shortage of problems right
(01:14):
now that the government needs tosolve, absurd government debt,
inflation that can't seem to betamed, multiple wars in multiple
parts of the world, just toname a few headlines.
But today, when discussing theshirky principle, I want to
focus on just a few things.
I think understanding this oneprinciple it's going to go a
(01:35):
long way in understanding thecurrent state of affairs in our
sprawling government and thedifferent things that our
politicians try and tell usthey're doing, to quote unquote,
solve the problems.
So the shirky principle isbasically the adage that
institutions will try topreserve the problem to which
(01:59):
they are the solution.
In short, our governmentdoesn't actually want to solve a
problem.
I mean, what have you everheard from the mouth of a
democrat or a republican?
Hey, we built this agency, wesolve the problem and now we can
close this agency and reinvestthe money into a new problem.
(02:19):
Heck, almost feel like acomedian even saying such a
thing, because it never, everhappens.
The chance of a governmentagency actually solving the
problem that they were createdto solve and they set out to
solve and then disband and putthe money back in the coffers of
the taxpayers to take on newissues is about as likely as
(02:43):
finding a snowball in hell orseeing a big fly.
So suppose we take a governmentagency that's meant to address a
particular societal issue.
Well, almost immediately it'sgoing to get defensive and
territorial.
It's going to scratch out itsturf, it's going to protect its
(03:04):
funding and its existence fromany other group trying to
compete and it actively actuallyactively it's going to hinder
cooperation or attempts by otherto address that issue, to
ensure that this new agencyremains relevant.
Remember back to 9-11 when,after the horrific event
(03:27):
happened and all kinds of studyand analysis and different
groups were put together to seewhat happened, we pretty much
figured out that the FBI, theCIA, other intelligence agencies
, law enforcement, had almost nocommunication amongst their
departments.
They were all completelyterritorial, with the me and
(03:47):
mine mentality.
They weren't focused on workingtogether to make sure something
like that wouldn't happen.
They were worried about keepingtheirs and controlling theirs.
I mean, I guess, to theircredit, post 9-11, and the
supposed issue has beenaddressed.
I mean, whether that's actuallyfixed or not, who knows.
(04:08):
But the territorial aspect ofthe Shurkey principle, it's a
key characteristic.
Another fact with governmentagencies is that these agencies
become so focused on how itaddresses the issue that it
fails to adopt better or newsolutions as they become
available.
This is not breaking news.
(04:30):
Our government moves slowerthan a sloth in a tree and once
it goes down a path it's reallyslow to change.
Very different from the privatesector, which has to be agile,
focused and looking for acompetitive edge, government
agencies tend to be moreconcerned about keeping the ship
(04:52):
floating in the direction theybegan.
Their biggest concern seems tobe to keep the problem big and
relevant, so they warrant moreand more funding and employees
and thus prolonging the issueand getting bigger and more
powerful.
There are plenty of examples inthe federal government to apply
the Shurkey principle.
Just some statistics I found in1960 there were roughly 200
(05:17):
government agencies.
Sure seems like a lot, butthat's nothing compared to 2023.
There are now over 400government agencies.
So basically, we see more andmore agencies and people taking
on more and more problemswithout much success solving any
of these problems.
This system just keeps growingand growing.
(05:40):
But to share just one funnyexample of the Shurkey principle
from our from our friends upnorth in Canada, which, by the
way, you can find described in abook called cognitive surplus,
and this book is reallyinteresting.
It is written by clay shurkey,uh, and it contains one of the
the first discussions, obviouslythe shurkey principle with the
(06:02):
name clay shurkey.
But canadians, especially aroundthe ontario area, you you may
be very well aware of this story, so pick up, pal calm.
What this was is it's a.
It's a carpooling site and it'sdesigned to coordinate drivers
and riders planning to Travelalong the same route.
I mean it's a great idea.
Right in May 2008, the ontariobased bus company Trent way
(06:28):
wager Petition the ontariohighway transport board to shut,
pick up, pal down, because byhelping coordinate drivers and
riders, it worked way too wellto be a carpool.
What it worked way too well andyou're going to go to the
transportation board to shutthem down because it's working
(06:48):
too good.
I mean, it seemed like anawesome, no brainer idea to
alleviate a number of problemsfor people Inside of a city with
that needed transportation.
But oh no, solving the problemwould be problematic.
So Trent way wager invoked acertain section 11 of the
(07:08):
ontario public vehicles acts andthis just basically stipulated
that carpooling Could happenonly between home and work,
rather than, say, school orhospital.
It had to happen withinmunicipal lines, it had to
involve the same driver each dayand gas or travel expenses
could be reimbursed no morefrequently than weekly.
I mean, what a bunch of, what abunch of crazy bureaucratic
(07:30):
language.
Trent way wager was arguingthat because carpooling used to
be inconvenient Basically itshould always be inconvenient
and that if inconveniencedisappeared, then it Then it
could be reinserted by legalfiat through this section 11.
Nothing like keeping a problemaround for the good old state
(07:52):
funded bus company so that theycould just keep on inefficiently
, keep people beholden to themby slow routes, expensive routes
, routes that don't get themwhere they need to go.
Curiously, an organization thatcommits to helping a society
manage a problem Also Many timescommits itself to preserving
(08:17):
that very same problem.
And this, this issue in ontario, bears that out, because if its
institutional existence hingeson societies continued need for
its management, they'll never goaway.
See these bus companies.
They provide a critical servicepublic transportation, but they
(08:37):
also commit themselves, asTrent way wager did, to fending
off competition from alternativeways of moving people around
from one place to another.
And when this alternativebecame Way more efficient, way
more effective Maybe, is costeffective, well, all of a sudden
we got to stop that thing, thatsolving the problem that the
(09:01):
public transportation Wassupposed to solve in the first
place.
So the ontario board upheldTrent way wagers complaint and
and they basically told Pick uppal hey, you got to stop
operating in ontario.
But here's where I, you got togive pick up pal some credit.
They didn't just back down andwalk away, they decided to fight
(09:24):
the case.
They still lost in the nexthearing, but but and here's the
big thing.
You kind of got a spur underthe public and public attention
Became really focused on theissue and in, especially with a
year of very high gas prices uh,financial downturns.
Literally almost nobody tookTrent way wager's side.
(09:48):
The public reaction, I mean itchanneled itself, I guess,
through everything from onlinepetitions to t-shirt sales, and
I mean they even add on some ofthe messaging I read about this,
say, pick up pal on t-shirtsprinted and which is kind of
cool.
But the idea that peoplecouldn't use such a service Was
(10:09):
just too hot for the politiciansin ontario, even in ontario, to
ignore.
And within weeks of Trent waywagers victory, the ontario
legislature amended the vehiclesact to make pick up pal legal
again.
So, voila, they were able tohang around.
But no for certain, if thepeople had not rose up, got loud
(10:34):
enough, nothing would havehappened.
The shirky prince would haveplayed itself out in textbook
fashion.
Pick up pal would have beenkilled.
Trent way wager would belamenting to the public and
their next press release aboutthe huge Transportation problems
in ontario and the need formore money, research, staff,
(10:55):
funding for all kinds of newinitiatives to solve the problem
all over again, which, ofcourse, would probably never be
solved by this agency,considering that they tried
everything in their power tofend off an innovative solution,
or at least one that would havehelped alleviate the problem.
But I mean, ontario and canadais not unique in this.
(11:17):
From tax code to immigration tovoting you pretty much name it
in government.
Well, the shirky principle iseverywhere.
Heck for me right now, in thisvery complex problem of israel
and hamas and palestine, we.
We have our government Givingmillions, if not billions, if
not billions to israel, and alsotwo huge aircraft carrier
(11:43):
groups traveled right to themiddle east region.
Lord knows how much that cost.
But giving billions to israelto destroy hamas in palestine.
Then, even before the bombsreally started dropping, the
president of the united statespromises to give palestine
(12:05):
millions to rebuild.
Now, if that isn't quick,promote the war by blowing up
palestine.
Then provide aid to rebuildwhat you just destroyed before
you have really even begun thewar.
Wow, this isn't all that newHeck.
After the Iraq Wars, the UnitedStates spent over $200 billion
(12:26):
on rebuilding Iraq between theyears of 2003 to 2014.
Despite this massive investment, many Iraqis still lack basic
necessities like reliableelectricity and clean water.
The effectiveness of thereconstruction effort has been
widely criticized and obviouslyfar from effective.
(12:49):
But hey, the Shurkey principlestrong, as an estimated 80% of
that $200 billion that was spenton Iraq rebuilding Iraq went to
American companies.
Surprise, surprise.
This means that Americancompanies, like the Black Rocks
of the world, received about$160 billion in contracts for
(13:12):
work in Iraq to rebuild it,after America spent an estimated
$815 billion on the Iraq Warduring the combat phase, which
lasted from 2003 to 2011.
So invade Iraq, create theproblem, blow up Iraq, bring the
(13:33):
solution, nation building,rebuilding destroyed
infrastructure and, in the end,huge swaths of Iraq still need
more.
Iraqis, for a large part, stilldespise the West, and don't be
surprised if once again, at somepoint in the future, this
(13:55):
problem that started the IraqWar doesn't reemerge yet again.
But maybe wars aren't always thegreatest example.
Wars can be really complex.
Maybe not textbook examples ofthe Shurkey principle, but for
me that's what kind of sprung tomind, to my mind anyway, while
(14:17):
reading about the Shurkeyprinciple this week.
But where I think it hits thenail square on the head is when
it declares the complexsolutions like from government
entities can become so dedicatedto the problem that they, and
only they, are the solution tothe problem, and often they are
(14:40):
in fact the ones that it hadverdantly started or perpetuated
the problem to begin with.
Now, I'm not saying every timethe government intentionally
starts the problem, as sometimesthese agencies are so big they
just make stuff worse in general.
But the fact remains they oftencreate the very problems and
(15:01):
then they claim that they aloneare the solution.
They just have to roll my eyes.
After new administrations takeover, after an election, you
know the revolving door ofDemocrats and Republicans and
then back again.
But have you ever noticed thatthe party that is dead set
against increasing the debt inWashington DC is the party
(15:23):
that's out of power?
But the party that's in powerwill spend like a drunken sailor
.
Democrats were just fiscalconservatives.
On everything Trump wanted tospend money on, they would cry
oh, that's such a massive wasteof money, it's irresponsible.
(15:44):
We have such a huge debt.
And the Republicans were justsign on for all the spending.
Right now, republicans withBiden are aghast at the runaway
spending, but the Democrats areall for it.
It's all required and it's allneeded.
The fact is, these two partiesclaim to be the solution to the
(16:06):
federal deficit and care deeplyabout it when their party is out
of power and they don't get thepurse strings to spend the
money.
But when they're in power, itis spend, baby spend, and the
problem will persist and persist, and persist.
This way, they are all theproblem and they all claim at
(16:30):
various times when it'spolitically convenient or they
have the power to be thesolution.
In real, simple terms, theentirety of the Shurkey
principle is this Oneinstitutions stick to problems
they can't fix.
It's great for politicians tograb a side of an issue that
(16:51):
they can't fix.
Government agencies they oftenintentionally hold on to
problems because it helps themstay important, often because it
feeds their ideological base.
Even in the private sector.
If you're a diversity, equity,inclusivity officer at a major
corporation or a university thatis paying you really good money
(17:13):
and I know they get paid reallygood money would they ever,
ever, walk into the president'soffice and say, hey, my job is
done.
Here we are diverse, we areequitable and we are inclusive.
We did it, so fire me.
Of course, they will never saythat there's always going to be
(17:36):
an issue and it's never going toend as long as they want to
work there.
The government does the samething.
Number two when you createreally complex solutions, you
can make problems last a verylong time, as it takes infinite
(17:59):
time to implement very complexsolutions.
I mean solving huge, complexproblems.
Let's face it, it's never easy.
But the bigger the agency andthe bigger the problem.
The solutions of our governmentusually don't solve the problem
, but often make the problembigger and last longer.
Yet somehow our bloatedbureaucracy is never full and
(18:22):
there's always room to swallowmore.
Number three everything tendsto keep problems going.
According to the Shurkeyprinciple, every entity tends to
prolong that problem at solving.
They tend to prolong theseproblems without making any
claims about their intention.
(18:43):
They almost never do they setend dates to their existence.
But rather, no matter whatsuccess or lack of success,
there is always much, much, muchmore to be done.
Accounting for the Shurkeyprinciple can be beneficial when
it comes to several things.
Intellectually, it can help usin three ways Understanding the
(19:09):
past and current behavior andpredicting future behavior, and
then modifying behavior.
This is really where the rubbermeets the road when we hear our
politicians speak, when we hearour government officials speak,
when we hear bureaucrats speak.
So if we understand the Shurkeyprinciple, it helps you
(19:33):
understand why certaininstitutions are seemingly so
bad at solving certain problems,despite all the resources that
they're given, like time, effort, money that they dedicate to
these problems.
Thus we, as the people, whenpoliticians in the Uniparty or
(19:53):
the Duopoly, whatever you wantto call it the Democrats or
Republican whenever they tell usthey're going to solve the
problem for us, we just need tocreate this agency.
It's urgent, it's for yoursafety, it's for your
convenience, it's going to solvethis glaring global catastrophe
(20:13):
with these billions of dollars.
Well, maybe we can with listenwith our eyes a little more wide
open before signing on to thisrhetoric.
It helps us predict futurebehavior, for example, to help
predict how some of theseproblems are actually designed,
(20:34):
created or implemented toperpetuate a problem In order to
improve a politician's status,a political party's messaging,
destroy an opponent or elevatecredibility for personal gain
and lead to worse outcomes.
What's the old adage?
You can't predict the futurewithout understanding the past.
(20:55):
Well, the Shurkey principle hashundreds of examples in
politics, in the private sector,that help us predict future
behavior.
And that future behavior ofthem creating and designing
problems that they never solveor things that they say they
have the solution to that neveractually arrive, is just so
(21:18):
glaringly obvious.
It's hard to ignore andmodifying behavior.
For example, if the Shurkeyprinciple makes you aware of
someone's incentive to prolong aproblem, we, the people, are
armed with knowledge to attemptto eliminate these perverse
(21:40):
incentive politicians tell usare good, and we, the people,
can exercise our vote todisincentivize this type of
problem, creating behavior.
In practice, when we understandthe Shurkey principle, it helps
us assess relevant factorsabout our situation, such as
(22:02):
what's causing someone to actaccording to this principle and
what outcomes their behaviorleads to it.
Let's face it Trust in ourgovernment right now Is it an
all time low?
The Pew Research Centerconducted a poll.
This is fairly recent,september 2023.
The poll found that only 15% ofAmericans say they trust the
(22:24):
government in Washington to dowhat is right just about always
or most of the time.
This is among the lowest trustmeasures in nearly seven decades
of polling.
The poll also found that trustin the government is low across
all groups 2% of Republicans, 3%of Democrats say that they
(22:45):
trust the government just aboutalways.
I mean, these numbers areatrociously bad, and so it
becomes easy to just tinfoil,hat everything and believe every
time, always, that while thegovernment has some ulterior
motive and they'll mess up.
I mean, that's a lot of time,that's me a lot of the time
(23:05):
actually, but both you and I, wehave to at least suspend
judgment each instance longenough to evaluate a situation
on its own merits, despite ourlack of trust.
So there are a couple of otherconcepts that we can put in our
intellectual toolbox whenaccounting for this shirky
(23:25):
principle.
The first one is called we bono, and it's a Latin phrase that
means who benefits, who benefits, and it's used to suggest that
there's a high probability thatthose responsible for a specific
event or a specific agency or aspecific problem are the ones
(23:46):
who stand to gain from it.
If we analyze this, we may findsome root causes to help us dig
through our perceptions andopinions on significant issues,
rather than just go tinfoil hatall.
They're just trying to destroyus, no matter what, whether it
be war, cultural issue, economicissue.
Understanding, though, whobenefits the most when we hear
(24:07):
an agency or a politician speakon some initiative, some new
program or new spending plan, itcan be a real eye-opener for us
, and whether we should getbehind something and support it
or not is trying to figure outwho benefits from it, and it's
usually not the superficial.
It's going to help all thelittle people.
(24:27):
Almost never is that the case.
We need to look at these thingsdeeper, and that's called qui
bono.
The other related concept ishandlens razor, and this is a
well-known adage that you shouldnever attribute to malice or
evil what is adequatelyexplained by stupidity and which
(24:51):
would apply broadly, suggestedwhen we, when we assess people's
actions, we should not justassume that they acted out of a
desire to be evil or cause harm,as long as there is a
reasonable alternativeexplanation.
Sure, yeah, sometimes, well,maybe many times, our government
acts with malice or greed orother evil intention.
(25:13):
I mean, that happens for sure,you know, sometimes well, how do
I say it?
Our politicians are economists,or our bureaucracy, or military
intelligence or governmentagencies.
They're not always staffed withintelligent people, or they've
hired people with such arroganceand pride that they fail all
(25:37):
the time to just see thingsproperly and they just make
really dumb decisions.
That's handlens razor.
You know, the world is complexand well, it's damn hard to get
to core truths, root causes, andthen solve an actual problem.
(25:58):
Maybe sometimes handlens razoris true, and our politicians are
not always malevolent, but justwell, maybe they're ignorant
and messed up.
See, in our world today, though, it isn't easy to give our
government the benefit of thedoubt that they're ignorant,
(26:19):
that maybe they just messed upand they're not evil, because
the foundations of trust, as Imentioned, have been so that
have been shaken so deeply inour government that the Shurkey
principle is maybe more relevantthan when it was first
envisioned and coined back in2010.
It's hard to not go full stoplibertarian, but geez, as
(26:42):
governments are so ineffectiveand or corrupt anymore, and that
old adage that government workexpands to consume the resources
available for its completion,it's just, it's just almost too
true to be ignored.
I mean, really our government.
When they need money forsomething, they always, or at
(27:05):
least almost always, consumeevery initial resource they are
given to complete the work, andthen they won't complete it and
they will ask for more and moreand more to solve the problem
that they were initially taskedto solve, which never gets
solved.
In along the way, they want totake on more and more problems
(27:29):
and things without ever solvingthe reason they were formed or
funded in the first place.
This revolving door makes methink that the smaller we can
get our government, the betteroff we may be, because these
agencies, these bureaucracies inthe military, just simply can
never get enough.
They're insatiable.
(27:50):
They will spend and spend andspend and well, never solve
anything, yet continue toconsume more resources, which is
one of the key reasons whytrust is so low.
Then, as these administrativebodies get bigger, they tend to
not get more efficient, butrather their substantial
decrease in its efficiency.
(28:10):
And then once again it comesback to our government's desire
and officials in charge of theseagencies to increase the number
of their subordinates and theirofficials tendency to create
work for each other.
Politicians on the campaigntrail for both parties lament
the problem of divisiveness andideological extremism.
(28:31):
Such a huge problem, they say,and they are the solution to the
problem in DC and they're goingto bring people together.
Then, shortly thereafter,they're on cable news, twitter,
giving a rally to theirideological bases, stoking the
fires of extremism and division.
Politicians on the campaigntrail lament the jaw dropping 32
(28:51):
trillion and that's 32 trillionwith a T national debt in the
United States.
Then go back and vote for aidpackages for wars, humanitarian
aid, giveaways, stimuluspackages, without even batting
an eye.
We spend more on education inAmerica per student than any
nation and our school system isin shambles.
The solution is always what?
(29:12):
More money, more programs, moreadministrators?
We spend more on the militaryin America than the next five
countries combined.
Do we feel safer?
How long has it been since weachieved peace through strength?
I mean almost never in mylifetime, almost never.
The United States has spent anestimated one trillion dollars
on the war on drugs since itsinception.
(29:32):
The problem is drugs, thesolution.
We're going to end drug use.
How close are we to solvingthis problem?
We're probably further awaytoday than we were when we first
took on this problem.
According to a report by thePeople's Vaccine Alliance, the
top 20 pharmaceutical companiesreceived over $100 billion in
(29:53):
combined revenue from COVID-19vaccines and treatments in 2021
and 2022.
This includes both directpayments from the government and
sales to private health careproviders.
Well, let's face it, theresults were oh less than
stellar by most people's account.
To be kind about how effectivethe vaccine was.
(30:13):
As of today I heard a reportless than 3% of Americans have
actually got the latest booster,because it doesn't really
prevent COVID.
We spent an estimated $2.3trillion on the war in
Afghanistan, as I alreadymentioned, $815 billion in Iraq.
(30:34):
And did we win?
Are they our allies?
Is the problem solved.
Now we're starting again.
We've already dropped at least$80 billion in the urcraine to
help solve a problem, with apledge of another $60 billion.
And now the latest, israel.
We've pledged to Israel to blowstuff up and humanitarian aid
to rebuild what we just blew upover $100 billion for that, or
(30:55):
at least that is what the talkis anyway.
Do any of us actually believethat anytime in the near term,
either wars are going to be overin the urcraine or Israel and
peace will be achieved?
Sadly, I don't believe so.
Who's going to benefit fromthis?
The military industrialcompanies, for sure.
The Lockheed Martins of theworld, the General Dynamics, the
(31:21):
Black Rocks on the rebuild side, and all those associated
companies.
I mean, I wish I had an answerto all this madness.
I could go on and on and on, butall I know is, the more and
more I open my eyes and look atthe stories we are told, I see
the shirky principle play out indifferent ways, in different
forms Huge government agenciesand politicians creating
(31:44):
problems to solve problems.
I think the veil has been torndown in many ways and we can see
pretty clearly that well ourgovernment has forfeited the
right to be trusted in so manyareas.
In many ways, and many times,the very people that claim they
have the solution to the problemare the very people that
(32:08):
created the problem.
So maybe the problem is staringus in the face.
I'm looking at you, democratsand Republicans, and the duopoly
and uniparty.
Perhaps the way to solve theproblem at its core is not to
include either of these partiesin crafting solutions.
(32:28):
Just something to think about,because if we just leave these
two parties in power, there islittle you can guarantee in life
.
But one thing is pretty sure wewill continue to see
politicians create a problem,then claim to be the solution to
the very problem that theycreated in the first place, and
(32:52):
then, years down the road, thatproblem is going to be the same
or worse.
Welcome to the intellectual freedom podcast
where we unravelthought-provoking concepts and
dive into different world ofideas.
As all of you know, and I'myour host, david Hopkins, and in
today's episode, taking on afunny topic it's not a comedic
funny topic like ha ha ha funny,but funny in a dark, a sad and
(00:27):
a cynical way we're going to beexploring together the shirky
principle and it's a fascinatinginsight into how institutions,
and especially our governmentalinstitutions, deal with quote
unquote problems.
And you know, while preparingfor this podcast, I ran across a
(00:51):
quote from Upton Sinclair and Ithink when I read it it hit the
nail on the head for me when hesaid this quote it is difficult
to get a man to understandsomething when his salary
depends on his not understandingit.
End quote.
Well, of course, we don't haveany shortage of problems right
(01:14):
now that the government needs tosolve, absurd government debt,
inflation that can't seem to betamed, multiple wars in multiple
parts of the world, just toname a few headlines.
But today, when discussing theshirky principle, I want to
focus on just a few things.
I think understanding this oneprinciple it's going to go a
(01:35):
long way in understanding thecurrent state of affairs in our
sprawling government and thedifferent things that our
politicians try and tell usthey're doing, to quote unquote,
solve the problems.
So the shirky principle isbasically the adage that
institutions will try topreserve the problem to which
(01:59):
they are the solution.
In short, our governmentdoesn't actually want to solve a
problem.
I mean, what have you everheard from the mouth of a
democrat or a republican?
Hey, we built this agency, wesolve the problem and now we can
close this agency and reinvestthe money into a new problem.
(02:19):
Heck, almost feel like acomedian even saying such a
thing, because it never, everhappens.
The chance of a governmentagency actually solving the
problem that they were createdto solve and they set out to
solve and then disband and putthe money back in the coffers of
the taxpayers to take on newissues is about as likely as
(02:43):
finding a snowball in hell orseeing a big fly.
So suppose we take a governmentagency that's meant to address a
particular societal issue.
Well, almost immediately it'sgoing to get defensive and
territorial.
It's going to scratch out itsturf, it's going to protect its
(03:04):
funding and its existence fromany other group trying to
compete and it actively actuallyactively it's going to hinder
cooperation or attempts by otherto address that issue, to
ensure that this new agencyremains relevant.
Remember back to 9-11 when,after the horrific event
(03:27):
happened and all kinds of studyand analysis and different
groups were put together to seewhat happened, we pretty much
figured out that the FBI, theCIA, other intelligence agencies
, law enforcement, had almost nocommunication amongst their
departments.
They were all completelyterritorial, with the me and
(03:47):
mine mentality.
They weren't focused on workingtogether to make sure something
like that wouldn't happen.
They were worried about keepingtheirs and controlling theirs.
I mean, I guess, to theircredit, post 9-11, and the
supposed issue has beenaddressed.
I mean, whether that's actuallyfixed or not, who knows.
(04:08):
But the territorial aspect ofthe Shurkey principle, it's a
key characteristic.
Another fact with governmentagencies is that these agencies
become so focused on how itaddresses the issue that it
fails to adopt better or newsolutions as they become
available.
This is not breaking news.
(04:30):
Our government moves slowerthan a sloth in a tree and once
it goes down a path it's reallyslow to change.
Very different from the privatesector, which has to be agile,
focused and looking for acompetitive edge, government
agencies tend to be moreconcerned about keeping the ship
(04:52):
floating in the direction theybegan.
Their biggest concern seems tobe to keep the problem big and
relevant, so they warrant moreand more funding and employees
and thus prolonging the issueand getting bigger and more
powerful.
There are plenty of examples inthe federal government to apply
the Shurkey principle.
Just some statistics I found in1960 there were roughly 200
(05:17):
government agencies.
Sure seems like a lot, butthat's nothing compared to 2023.
There are now over 400government agencies.
So basically, we see more andmore agencies and people taking
on more and more problemswithout much success solving any
of these problems.
This system just keeps growingand growing.
(05:40):
But to share just one funnyexample of the Shurkey principle
from our from our friends upnorth in Canada, which, by the
way, you can find described in abook called cognitive surplus,
and this book is reallyinteresting.
It is written by clay shurkey,uh, and it contains one of the
the first discussions, obviouslythe shurkey principle with the
(06:02):
name clay shurkey.
But canadians, especially aroundthe ontario area, you you may
be very well aware of this story, so pick up, pal calm.
What this was is it's a.
It's a carpooling site and it'sdesigned to coordinate drivers
and riders planning to Travelalong the same route.
I mean it's a great idea.
Right in May 2008, the ontariobased bus company Trent way
(06:28):
wager Petition the ontariohighway transport board to shut,
pick up, pal down, because byhelping coordinate drivers and
riders, it worked way too wellto be a carpool.
What it worked way too well andyou're going to go to the
transportation board to shutthem down because it's working
(06:48):
too good.
I mean, it seemed like anawesome, no brainer idea to
alleviate a number of problemsfor people Inside of a city with
that needed transportation.
But oh no, solving the problemwould be problematic.
So Trent way wager invoked acertain section 11 of the
(07:08):
ontario public vehicles acts andthis just basically stipulated
that carpooling Could happenonly between home and work,
rather than, say, school orhospital.
It had to happen withinmunicipal lines, it had to
involve the same driver each dayand gas or travel expenses
could be reimbursed no morefrequently than weekly.
I mean, what a bunch of, what abunch of crazy bureaucratic
(07:30):
language.
Trent way wager was arguingthat because carpooling used to
be inconvenient Basically itshould always be inconvenient
and that if inconveniencedisappeared, then it Then it
could be reinserted by legalfiat through this section 11.
Nothing like keeping a problemaround for the good old state
(07:52):
funded bus company so that theycould just keep on inefficiently
, keep people beholden to themby slow routes, expensive routes
, routes that don't get themwhere they need to go.
Curiously, an organization thatcommits to helping a society
manage a problem Also Many timescommits itself to preserving
(08:17):
that very same problem.
And this, this issue in ontario, bears that out, because if its
institutional existence hingeson societies continued need for
its management, they'll never goaway.
See these bus companies.
They provide a critical servicepublic transportation, but they
(08:37):
also commit themselves, asTrent way wager did, to fending
off competition from alternativeways of moving people around
from one place to another.
And when this alternativebecame Way more efficient, way
more effective Maybe, is costeffective, well, all of a sudden
we got to stop that thing, thatsolving the problem that the
(09:01):
public transportation Wassupposed to solve in the first
place.
So the ontario board upheldTrent way wagers complaint and
and they basically told Pick uppal hey, you got to stop
operating in ontario.
But here's where I, you got togive pick up pal some credit.
They didn't just back down andwalk away, they decided to fight
(09:24):
the case.
They still lost in the nexthearing, but but and here's the
big thing.
You kind of got a spur underthe public and public attention
Became really focused on theissue and in, especially with a
year of very high gas prices uh,financial downturns.
Literally almost nobody tookTrent way wager's side.
(09:48):
The public reaction, I mean itchanneled itself, I guess,
through everything from onlinepetitions to t-shirt sales, and
I mean they even add on some ofthe messaging I read about this,
say, pick up pal on t-shirtsprinted and which is kind of
cool.
But the idea that peoplecouldn't use such a service Was
(10:09):
just too hot for the politiciansin ontario, even in ontario, to
ignore.
And within weeks of Trent waywagers victory, the ontario
legislature amended the vehiclesact to make pick up pal legal
again.
So, voila, they were able tohang around.
But no for certain, if thepeople had not rose up, got loud
(10:34):
enough, nothing would havehappened.
The shirky prince would haveplayed itself out in textbook
fashion.
Pick up pal would have beenkilled.
Trent way wager would belamenting to the public and
their next press release aboutthe huge Transportation problems
in ontario and the need formore money, research, staff,
(10:55):
funding for all kinds of newinitiatives to solve the problem
all over again, which, ofcourse, would probably never be
solved by this agency,considering that they tried
everything in their power tofend off an innovative solution,
or at least one that would havehelped alleviate the problem.
But I mean, ontario and canadais not unique in this.
(11:17):
From tax code to immigration tovoting you pretty much name it
in government.
Well, the shirky principle iseverywhere.
Heck for me right now, in thisvery complex problem of israel
and hamas and palestine, we.
We have our government Givingmillions, if not billions, if
not billions to israel, and alsotwo huge aircraft carrier
(11:43):
groups traveled right to themiddle east region.
Lord knows how much that cost.
But giving billions to israelto destroy hamas in palestine.
Then, even before the bombsreally started dropping, the
president of the united statespromises to give palestine
(12:05):
millions to rebuild.
Now, if that isn't quick,promote the war by blowing up
palestine.
Then provide aid to rebuildwhat you just destroyed before
you have really even begun thewar.
Wow, this isn't all that newHeck.
After the Iraq Wars, the UnitedStates spent over $200 billion
(12:26):
on rebuilding Iraq between theyears of 2003 to 2014.
Despite this massive investment, many Iraqis still lack basic
necessities like reliableelectricity and clean water.
The effectiveness of thereconstruction effort has been
widely criticized and obviouslyfar from effective.
(12:49):
But hey, the Shurkey principlestrong, as an estimated 80% of
that $200 billion that was spenton Iraq rebuilding Iraq went to
American companies.
Surprise, surprise.
This means that Americancompanies, like the Black Rocks
of the world, received about$160 billion in contracts for
(13:12):
work in Iraq to rebuild it,after America spent an estimated
$815 billion on the Iraq Warduring the combat phase, which
lasted from 2003 to 2011.
So invade Iraq, create theproblem, blow up Iraq, bring the
(13:33):
solution, nation building,rebuilding destroyed
infrastructure and, in the end,huge swaths of Iraq still need
more.
Iraqis, for a large part, stilldespise the West, and don't be
surprised if once again, at somepoint in the future, this
(13:55):
problem that started the IraqWar doesn't reemerge yet again.
But maybe wars aren't always thegreatest example.
Wars can be really complex.
Maybe not textbook examples ofthe Shurkey principle, but for
me that's what kind of sprung tomind, to my mind anyway, while
(14:17):
reading about the Shurkeyprinciple this week.
But where I think it hits thenail square on the head is when
it declares the complexsolutions like from government
entities can become so dedicatedto the problem that they, and
only they, are the solution tothe problem, and often they are
(14:40):
in fact the ones that it hadverdantly started or perpetuated
the problem to begin with.
Now, I'm not saying every timethe government intentionally
starts the problem, as sometimesthese agencies are so big they
just make stuff worse in general.
But the fact remains they oftencreate the very problems and
(15:01):
then they claim that they aloneare the solution.
They just have to roll my eyes.
After new administrations takeover, after an election, you
know the revolving door ofDemocrats and Republicans and
then back again.
But have you ever noticed thatthe party that is dead set
against increasing the debt inWashington DC is the party
(15:23):
that's out of power?
But the party that's in powerwill spend like a drunken sailor
.
Democrats were just fiscalconservatives.
On everything Trump wanted tospend money on, they would cry
oh, that's such a massive wasteof money, it's irresponsible.
(15:44):
We have such a huge debt.
And the Republicans were justsign on for all the spending.
Right now, republicans withBiden are aghast at the runaway
spending, but the Democrats areall for it.
It's all required and it's allneeded.
The fact is, these two partiesclaim to be the solution to the
(16:06):
federal deficit and care deeplyabout it when their party is out
of power and they don't get thepurse strings to spend the
money.
But when they're in power, itis spend, baby spend, and the
problem will persist and persist, and persist.
This way, they are all theproblem and they all claim at
(16:30):
various times when it'spolitically convenient or they
have the power to be thesolution.
In real, simple terms, theentirety of the Shurkey
principle is this Oneinstitutions stick to problems
they can't fix.
It's great for politicians tograb a side of an issue that
(16:51):
they can't fix.
Government agencies they oftenintentionally hold on to
problems because it helps themstay important, often because it
feeds their ideological base.
Even in the private sector.
If you're a diversity, equity,inclusivity officer at a major
corporation or a university thatis paying you really good money
(17:13):
and I know they get paid reallygood money would they ever,
ever, walk into the president'soffice and say, hey, my job is
done.
Here we are diverse, we areequitable and we are inclusive.
We did it, so fire me.
Of course, they will never saythat there's always going to be
(17:36):
an issue and it's never going toend as long as they want to
work there.
The government does the samething.
Number two when you createreally complex solutions, you
can make problems last a verylong time, as it takes infinite
(17:59):
time to implement very complexsolutions.
I mean solving huge, complexproblems.
Let's face it, it's never easy.
But the bigger the agency andthe bigger the problem.
The solutions of our governmentusually don't solve the problem
, but often make the problembigger and last longer.
Yet somehow our bloatedbureaucracy is never full and
(18:22):
there's always room to swallowmore.
Number three everything tendsto keep problems going.
According to the Shurkeyprinciple, every entity tends to
prolong that problem at solving.
They tend to prolong theseproblems without making any
claims about their intention.
(18:43):
They almost never do they setend dates to their existence.
But rather, no matter whatsuccess or lack of success,
there is always much, much, muchmore to be done.
Accounting for the Shurkeyprinciple can be beneficial when
it comes to several things.
Intellectually, it can help usin three ways Understanding the
(19:09):
past and current behavior andpredicting future behavior, and
then modifying behavior.
This is really where the rubbermeets the road when we hear our
politicians speak, when we hearour government officials speak,
when we hear bureaucrats speak.
So if we understand the Shurkeyprinciple, it helps you
(19:33):
understand why certaininstitutions are seemingly so
bad at solving certain problems,despite all the resources that
they're given, like time, effort, money that they dedicate to
these problems.
Thus we, as the people, whenpoliticians in the Uniparty or
(19:53):
the Duopoly, whatever you wantto call it the Democrats or
Republican whenever they tell usthey're going to solve the
problem for us, we just need tocreate this agency.
It's urgent, it's for yoursafety, it's for your
convenience, it's going to solvethis glaring global catastrophe
(20:13):
with these billions of dollars.
Well, maybe we can with listenwith our eyes a little more wide
open before signing on to thisrhetoric.
It helps us predict futurebehavior, for example, to help
predict how some of theseproblems are actually designed,
(20:34):
created or implemented toperpetuate a problem In order to
improve a politician's status,a political party's messaging,
destroy an opponent or elevatecredibility for personal gain
and lead to worse outcomes.
What's the old adage?
You can't predict the futurewithout understanding the past.
(20:55):
Well, the Shurkey principle hashundreds of examples in
politics, in the private sector,that help us predict future
behavior.
And that future behavior ofthem creating and designing
problems that they never solveor things that they say they
have the solution to that neveractually arrive, is just so
(21:18):
glaringly obvious.
It's hard to ignore andmodifying behavior.
For example, if the Shurkeyprinciple makes you aware of
someone's incentive to prolong aproblem, we, the people, are
armed with knowledge to attemptto eliminate these perverse
(21:40):
incentive politicians tell usare good, and we, the people,
can exercise our vote todisincentivize this type of
problem, creating behavior.
In practice, when we understandthe Shurkey principle, it helps
us assess relevant factorsabout our situation, such as
(22:02):
what's causing someone to actaccording to this principle and
what outcomes their behaviorleads to it.
Let's face it Trust in ourgovernment right now Is it an
all time low?
The Pew Research Centerconducted a poll.
This is fairly recent,september 2023.
The poll found that only 15% ofAmericans say they trust the
(22:24):
government in Washington to dowhat is right just about always
or most of the time.
This is among the lowest trustmeasures in nearly seven decades
of polling.
The poll also found that trustin the government is low across
all groups 2% of Republicans, 3%of Democrats say that they
(22:45):
trust the government just aboutalways.
I mean, these numbers areatrociously bad, and so it
becomes easy to just tinfoil,hat everything and believe every
time, always, that while thegovernment has some ulterior
motive and they'll mess up.
I mean, that's a lot of time,that's me a lot of the time
(23:05):
actually, but both you and I, wehave to at least suspend
judgment each instance longenough to evaluate a situation
on its own merits, despite ourlack of trust.
So there are a couple of otherconcepts that we can put in our
intellectual toolbox whenaccounting for this shirky
(23:25):
principle.
The first one is called we bono, and it's a Latin phrase that
means who benefits, who benefits, and it's used to suggest that
there's a high probability thatthose responsible for a specific
event or a specific agency or aspecific problem are the ones
(23:46):
who stand to gain from it.
If we analyze this, we may findsome root causes to help us dig
through our perceptions andopinions on significant issues,
rather than just go tinfoil hatall.
They're just trying to destroyus, no matter what, whether it
be war, cultural issue, economicissue.
Understanding, though, whobenefits the most when we hear
(24:07):
an agency or a politician speakon some initiative, some new
program or new spending plan, itcan be a real eye-opener for us
, and whether we should getbehind something and support it
or not is trying to figure outwho benefits from it, and it's
usually not the superficial.
It's going to help all thelittle people.
(24:27):
Almost never is that the case.
We need to look at these thingsdeeper, and that's called qui
bono.
The other related concept ishandlens razor, and this is a
well-known adage that you shouldnever attribute to malice or
evil what is adequatelyexplained by stupidity and which
(24:51):
would apply broadly, suggestedwhen we, when we assess people's
actions, we should not justassume that they acted out of a
desire to be evil or cause harm,as long as there is a
reasonable alternativeexplanation.
Sure, yeah, sometimes, well,maybe many times, our government
acts with malice or greed orother evil intention.
(25:13):
I mean, that happens for sure,you know, sometimes well, how do
I say it?
Our politicians are economists,or our bureaucracy, or military
intelligence or governmentagencies.
They're not always staffed withintelligent people, or they've
hired people with such arroganceand pride that they fail all
(25:37):
the time to just see thingsproperly and they just make
really dumb decisions.
That's handlens razor.
You know, the world is complexand well, it's damn hard to get
to core truths, root causes, andthen solve an actual problem.
(25:58):
Maybe sometimes handlens razoris true, and our politicians are
not always malevolent, but justwell, maybe they're ignorant
and messed up.
See, in our world today, though, it isn't easy to give our
government the benefit of thedoubt that they're ignorant,
(26:19):
that maybe they just messed upand they're not evil, because
the foundations of trust, as Imentioned, have been so that
have been shaken so deeply inour government that the Shurkey
principle is maybe more relevantthan when it was first
envisioned and coined back in2010.
It's hard to not go full stoplibertarian, but geez, as
(26:42):
governments are so ineffectiveand or corrupt anymore, and that
old adage that government workexpands to consume the resources
available for its completion,it's just, it's just almost too
true to be ignored.
I mean, really our government.
When they need money forsomething, they always, or at
(27:05):
least almost always, consumeevery initial resource they are
given to complete the work, andthen they won't complete it and
they will ask for more and moreand more to solve the problem
that they were initially taskedto solve, which never gets
solved.
In along the way, they want totake on more and more problems
(27:29):
and things without ever solvingthe reason they were formed or
funded in the first place.
This revolving door makes methink that the smaller we can
get our government, the betteroff we may be, because these
agencies, these bureaucracies inthe military, just simply can
never get enough.
They're insatiable.
(27:50):
They will spend and spend andspend and well, never solve
anything, yet continue toconsume more resources, which is
one of the key reasons whytrust is so low.
Then, as these administrativebodies get bigger, they tend to
not get more efficient, butrather their substantial
decrease in its efficiency.
(28:10):
And then once again it comesback to our government's desire
and officials in charge of theseagencies to increase the number
of their subordinates and theirofficials tendency to create
work for each other.
Politicians on the campaigntrail for both parties lament
the problem of divisiveness andideological extremism.
(28:31):
Such a huge problem, they say,and they are the solution to the
problem in DC and they're goingto bring people together.
Then, shortly thereafter,they're on cable news, twitter,
giving a rally to theirideological bases, stoking the
fires of extremism and division.
Politicians on the campaigntrail lament the jaw dropping 32
(28:51):
trillion and that's 32 trillionwith a T national debt in the
United States.
Then go back and vote for aidpackages for wars, humanitarian
aid, giveaways, stimuluspackages, without even batting
an eye.
We spend more on education inAmerica per student than any
nation and our school system isin shambles.
The solution is always what?
(29:12):
More money, more programs, moreadministrators?
We spend more on the militaryin America than the next five
countries combined.
Do we feel safer?
How long has it been since weachieved peace through strength?
I mean almost never in mylifetime, almost never.
The United States has spent anestimated one trillion dollars
on the war on drugs since itsinception.
(29:32):
The problem is drugs, thesolution.
We're going to end drug use.
How close are we to solvingthis problem?
We're probably further awaytoday than we were when we first
took on this problem.
According to a report by thePeople's Vaccine Alliance, the
top 20 pharmaceutical companiesreceived over $100 billion in
(29:53):
combined revenue from COVID-19vaccines and treatments in 2021
and 2022.
This includes both directpayments from the government and
sales to private health careproviders.
Well, let's face it, theresults were oh less than
stellar by most people's account.
To be kind about how effectivethe vaccine was.
(30:13):
As of today I heard a reportless than 3% of Americans have
actually got the latest booster,because it doesn't really
prevent COVID.
We spent an estimated $2.3trillion on the war in
Afghanistan, as I alreadymentioned, $815 billion in Iraq.
(30:34):
And did we win?
Are they our allies?
Is the problem solved.
Now we're starting again.
We've already dropped at least$80 billion in the urcraine to
help solve a problem, with apledge of another $60 billion.
And now the latest, israel.
We've pledged to Israel to blowstuff up and humanitarian aid
to rebuild what we just blew upover $100 billion for that, or
(30:55):
at least that is what the talkis anyway.
Do any of us actually believethat anytime in the near term,
either wars are going to be overin the urcraine or Israel and
peace will be achieved?
Sadly, I don't believe so.
Who's going to benefit fromthis?
The military industrialcompanies, for sure.
The Lockheed Martins of theworld, the General Dynamics, the
(31:21):
Black Rocks on the rebuild side, and all those associated
companies.
I mean, I wish I had an answerto all this madness.
I could go on and on and on, butall I know is, the more and
more I open my eyes and look atthe stories we are told, I see
the shirky principle play out indifferent ways, in different
forms Huge government agenciesand politicians creating
(31:44):
problems to solve problems.
I think the veil has been torndown in many ways and we can see
pretty clearly that well ourgovernment has forfeited the
right to be trusted in so manyareas.
In many ways, and many times,the very people that claim they
have the solution to the problemare the very people that
(32:08):
created the problem.
So maybe the problem is staringus in the face.
I'm looking at you, democratsand Republicans, and the duopoly
and uniparty.
Perhaps the way to solve theproblem at its core is not to
include either of these partiesin crafting solutions.
(32:28):
Just something to think about,because if we just leave these
two parties in power, there islittle you can guarantee in life
.
But one thing is pretty sure wewill continue to see
politicians create a problem,then claim to be the solution to
the very problem that theycreated in the first place, and
(32:52):
then, years down the road, thatproblem is going to be the same
or worse.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!