If the government restricts supply and subsidizes demand, out-of-control prices, resource shortages, and unpleasant ad hoc coping restrictions will follow. That is the natural (economic) law. The government cannot repeal it. But it can stop its attempt to plan.
Someone explain how coercive centralized bureaucratic control of medical decision-making and the purse can beat the decentralized free market with its undistorted price system. The government has many things besides medical care it wants to spend tax money on, and seemingly free medical care leads to unlimited, unmanageable consumer demand for services. What then? Will the bureaucrats never say NO to many people who need or say they need care? Where will the money come from? Will there not be intolerably long and life-threatening queues for exams, tests, and surgeries? Will doctors work for...
The "progressive" coverage of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson's murder has an unspoken premise: namely, that we could have had a system in which medical care was instantly superabundant and free for everyone. There is no such system. We live in a world of scarcity. Socialized medical systems limit or deny care because of resource and government-budgetary constraints, and they impose high and even lethal costs through long waits for tests, surgeries, etc. Our government-saturated system is a nightmare, to be sure, but more government control would make things even worse, as Obamacare...
We don't need a Department (sic) of Government Efficiency. (It's a nongovernment thing.) We need a "Department" of What the Hell Should the Government Be Doing in the First Place? Efficiency implies that you know the objective of a course of action and want to avoid or minimize waste in achieving it. What is the objective of government? We can't judge its efficiency if we don't know its objective.
Once upon a time, John Stuart Mill could write these words truthfully ("Of the Influence of Consumption on Production," 1844): It is no longer supposed that you benefit the producer by taking his money, provided you give it to him again in exchange for his goods. He was talking, of course, about government tax-transfer programs intended to stimulate employment by subsidizing consumption. We cannot say this today.
"It might be argued that only the 'rich' can afford to be capitalists, i.e., those who have a greater amount of money stock. This argument has superficial plausibility, since ... for any given individual and a given time-preference schedule, a greater money stock will lead to a greater supply of savings, and a lesser money stock to a lesser supply of savings.... We cannot, however, assume that a man with (post-income) assets of 10,000 ounces of gold will necessarily save more than a man with 100 ounces of gold. We cannot compare time preferences interpersonally, any more than we can...
"[A]ny man can be a capitalist if only he wants to be. He can derive his funds solely from the fruits of previous capitalist investment or from past 'hoarded' cash balances or solely from his income as a laborer or a landowner. He can, of course, derive his funds from several of these sources. The only thing that stops a man from being a capitalist is his own high time-preference scale, in other words, his stronger desire to consume goods in the present. Marxists and others who postulate a rigid stratification—a virtual caste structure in society—are in grave error. The same person can be at...
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production." —Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 "In the market economy the consumers are supreme. Their buying and their abstention from buying ultimately determine what the entrepreneurs produce and in what quantity and quality." —Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, 1947 If the ultimate purpose of economic activity is consumer welfare, you might think that government measures to increase consumption ought to be taken seriously. But that would be hasty. Even though many smart people, even economists, do so, there's a simple reason it's...
