For what it's worth

The elections of self-described socialist mayors in New York City and Seattle this month have revived the chestnut that economists are monsters who don’t understand that the poor need a hot meal and a roof over their heads. Since food, lodging and healthcare are basic rights, let’s just give them to the poor for free. Economists oppose this because they are apologists for the filthy rich. Or so socialists argue.

In reality, I don’t know of any economist who blames poverty on the poor. Economists know that people lose their jobs because of a business cycle that no one can control, or because their skills suddenly become obsolescent. It was not the fault of the bank tellers that ATMs proved to be more efficient and convenient.

Instead, the economist’s argument against mandating free stuff is that it will hurt the poor themselves. Suppose that we give away healthcare. The hospitals will be overwhelmed by patients demanding cosmetics and repairs of hangnails. They won’t have time for gunshot wounds. The way to ensure that they give priority to threats to life is to set a price on each service that reflects its value as well as its cost. That’s what the market does. If the poor can’t afford this price, then the solution is to tax away the income that is due to good luck and give it to those who are poor because of bad luck. Let the poor decide how to spend the money, since they know their own needs better than anyone else. -– Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana USA tayloralmaty@gmail.com