The Hazards of Immorality

Thomas Sowell

Read related » "Moral Hazard" in Politics
[Reading this related article in its entirety is recommended.]
“Although "moral hazard" is an insurance term, it applies to other government policies besides insurance. International studies show that people in countries with more generous and long-lasting unemployment compensation spend less time looking for jobs. […] People change their behavior in other ways when the government pays with the taxpayers' money. After welfare became more readily available in the 1960s, unwed motherhood skyrocketed. […] San Francisco has been one of the most generous cities in the country when it comes to subsidizing the homeless. Should we be surprised that homelessness is a big problem in San Francisco? Most people are not born homeless. They usually become homeless because of their own behavior, and the friends and family they alienate to the point that those who know them will not help them. […] We hear a lot of talk about "safety nets" from big-government liberals, who act as if there is a certain pre-destined amount of harm that people will suffer, so that it is just a question of the government helping those who are harmed. But we hear very little about "moral hazard" from big-government liberals. We all need safety nets. That is why we "save for a rainy day," instead of living it up to the limit of our income and beyond. We also hear a lot of talk about "the uninsured," for whose benefit we are to drastically change the whole medical-care system. But income data show that many of those uninsured people have incomes from which they could easily afford insurance. But they can live it up instead, because the government has mandated that hospital emergency rooms treat everyone. All of this is a large hazard to taxpayers. And it is not very moral.”
— Thomas Sowell, 2010/08/27 (townhall.com)

Having audited several courses in the excellent department of economics at North Carolina State University, I now have a much better appreciation for the scope of this naively-maligned "dismal science". If economics is to be "dismal", then the political hacks (are you listening Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.), who adapt their perversions of economic concepts for their own despicable aims as purveyors of "political science", deserve a more descriptive sobriquet for their own field of endeavor — the "deplorable science".

If the nitwits in Congress would spend a fraction of the time they waste on trading insults, based on unsupported assertions and dis-proven assumptions, towards constructing legislation based on sound economic principles, we would undoubtedly be in much better economic health as a nation of traditionally work-ethic-oriented people. Not only do we have more than two-centuries worth of evidence to support such a contention, but most Americans know this intuitively.

We just need big government and progressive insanity to get out of our way.

Post 1,401 The Hazards of Immorality