According to this story, the “rich” can afford private fire protection. Let’s not forget that only the “rich” could once afford cell phones, televisions, cars, and electricity. Free the market for fire protection, and many things would change. (Thanks to Robert Murphy.)
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/7349/the-rich-and-the-fires/
The Rich and the Fires
Previous post: Can You Say Marginal Rate of Substitution?
Next post: Broken Window Watch
{ 6 comments }
The article also shows how fire protection can be provided without free-rider externalities, thus showing that it doesn’t have to be a “public” good. Thus undercutting the alleged need for government to provide it.
Having lived in San Diego a long time. It seemed that every single year they would say that we absolutely had to raise taxes to keep the fire department funds from being cut. When ever they went into “cost saving” mode (yeah right), it always seemed that the fire department and library were the first on the chopping block (and the administrative employees last, of course). Well, after 30 something years of “saving” the fire department it sure seems like they have nothing to show for it.
How come the author doesn’t ask why, if the rich can afford private fire protection, how come they get public fire protection? It does not make sense to moan, in one breath, that only the rich will be able to afford private fire protect, and yet, on the other, to support a system that allows those who, therefore, do not need it, to get tax funded fire protection.
Because that’d actually require the use of his brain.
Remember your lessons on acting at the margin – specifically, that the good/service with the lowest marginal utility in the eyes of the chop committee gets chopped first? Some joker, through using this principle as applied to the San Diego chop council, could come up with a witty piece of writing indeed.
Sorry, but the article neither (1) indicates that the rich are purchasing private fire protection nor (2) moans that only the rich get this service while also benefitting from public firefighting.
Rather, it shows that insurers are doing their best to mitigate their own highest and most easily controlled exposures – “free” to the insured.
Obviously this article and news of AIG’s program can be expected to increase demand by others for similar benefits, thus calling out further supply and lowering prices – as Lew suggests.
Let’s hope that government agencies that are in the business of sucking taxpayer dollars to keep their budgets bloated by focussing on firefighting don’t try to put a stop to competitors who lower private risks and thus threaten bureaucrat’s budgets.
TT
Comments on this entry are closed.