Why are governments so enthusiastic about shutting down businesses when other less draconian measures are available and prudent? The answer lies in the fact that governments can act with near impunity and want to maximize their power.
It's time to stop pretending that the policies favored by some biologists—who know nothing about how economies work to lessen the health effects of poverty—come without grave costs to public health.
The costs of this government-forced economic collapse—in terms of lost lives and ruined health—are likely to be devastating.
Bob Murphy comments on various aspects of the response to the coronavirus.
The latest health crisis has made it clear that governments put their own interests before those of the public while hiding crucial information and imposing counterproductive regulations.
What needs to be done in such a crisis is not to attempt to steer the market to ensure it provides what is needed, but to let it free to do what it always does: match the goals of entrepreneurial producers with the needs of the populace.
Whether we're talking public health or economic growth, the Chinese regime's love of intervention and centralization has led to one crisis after another.
You are not even allowed to ask: "Is the price we’re paying worth it?" or "Is this an abundance of caution, or an overdose?" The "serious people" attack anyone who urges calm and encourages others to adopt a "don’t panic" approach. The new party line is: panic = virtue.
Although it doesn't explain everything, it's always a good idea to ask "who benefits" whenever governments step in to "solve" a crisis.
The coronavirus crisis must cause us to rethink the idea governments can manage these situations. It is absolutely true that most private industry can be trusted, because the alternative for poor or unscrupulous providers is failure.
