I'd expect an economist to know better than to evaluate a thing without looking at both the costs and benefits. It's easy to conclude collective solutions are good if you only look at the benefits side of the equation! What about the cost?
Unfortunately, the costs of government action is largely unseen. We don't get to see whether food, drugs, travel, and communication would be cheaper or better in a free market because the market is already distorted by regulation. In fact, isn't one of your soapboxes that public utilities undercharge for service?
I'm not saying America is socialist or even that we're heading there, but surely the fact that government does some things that have benefits (whether or not they're net benefits) is not evidence that America is not turning socialist.
Or maybe you're being ironic. I always miss that...
2 comments:
I'd expect an economist to know better than to evaluate a thing without looking at both the costs and benefits. It's easy to conclude collective solutions are good if you only look at the benefits side of the equation! What about the cost?
Unfortunately, the costs of government action is largely unseen. We don't get to see whether food, drugs, travel, and communication would be cheaper or better in a free market because the market is already distorted by regulation. In fact, isn't one of your soapboxes that public utilities undercharge for service?
I'm not saying America is socialist or even that we're heading there, but surely the fact that government does some things that have benefits (whether or not they're net benefits) is not evidence that America is not turning socialist.
Or maybe you're being ironic. I always miss that...
hahahaa -- well, I agree with you, twice
1) many gov't programs fail cost-benefit
2) we're socialist, so people should stop worrying about it.
Post a Comment