I believe the government subsidizes healthcare because they REFUSE to
encourage Americans to consume less. They say, "This could only hurt
the economy." However, by encouraging lethargy and excess over the
years, the government has, in essence, subsidized wasteful spending by
the citizenry.
It is always one subsidy to take care of the
short-falling of another subsidy! They argue: "Last time, we just
didn't spend enough. This is the reason for this RECURRING situation."
This is a very circular argument to say the least! It is a dogma that
continually adds to the inevitable downside of these type policies; the
consequences become more serious the longer we continue.
So, what
happens if the government were to take a different approach? What if,
instead, they decided to form a committee to gather scientific evidence
about all the health risks directly tied to our eating habits. In
addition, the committee would build a strong case and start initiatives
to better educate the public about the consequences which exist from
such behavior. However, they avoid any subsidies, which can only create
false demand and create hostility among market competitors due to
fairness.
Likely, as with cigarettes, sound education would
finally begin to overcome many of our vices (except for those that
continue to CHOOSE to take part in risky behavior). This would entail a
likely decline in the market for unhealthy foods and behaviors. The
government would have you believe this is horrendous! We have lost
jobs!
However, what happens in reality is a reallocation of
employment to sectors such as the health food industry, gyms, etc. This
is a natural process. Retrospectively, what occurred was that by
subsidizing special interests, the government spurred a sort of false
demand in economic sectors which otherwise would not have existed. WITH
THE USE OF SUBSIDIZING POLICIES, THE GOVERNMENT REALLOCATES EMPLOYMENT
TO AREAS OF THE ECONOMY WHERE IT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN!
This is an unavoidable fallacy of Keynesian economics.
Follow @DerrelWalters
No comments:
Post a Comment