Markets over Politics, Misers over Philanthropists
Two interesting articles caught my attention: What I Like About Scrooge by Steven E. Landsburg and In Defense of Markets and Misers. Landsburg's basic argument is that the reason's philanthropists and politics have such a good reputation is that the benefits of such are concentrated, while the costs are disbursed, despite the costs exceeding the benefits. Conversely, misers and markets get bad press because the benefitts are disbursed, the costs concentrated, despite the benefits exceeding the costs. When reading the second, I couldn't help but thinking to myself that the author was astonishingly pro-market and anti-interventionist, almost Austrian. Surely enough, the author cites Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable, as well as Thomas DiLorenzo's Unhealthy Charities: Hazardous to Your Health and Wealth.
Comments (2)
Do we understand economics?
Economics is usually defined as the problem of how best to distribute limited resources. In fact, as common sense tells us, rather than limited resources, we have an abundance of resources and this is a problem. Abundance is a problem because having more resources than is strictly needed to live presents a danger to the production processes and the command over resources that created the economic surplus in the first place. An abundance of resources means that not all need to work productively and that some can use more resources than others. Who shall be the lucky ones and how to keep the unlucky quiet also becomes a problem.
Published: December 22, 2004 7:45 PM
"Who shall be the lucky ones and how to keep the unlucky quiet also becomes a problem."
Not if there are Scrooges in the world.
Published: December 22, 2004 8:52 PM