Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
It turns out that direct provision of fundamental needs is more "efficient" than leaving things to markets if the goal is to make sure everyone gets them. You can see it in how we didn't have nearly the level of unhoused people back when we actually had federal funding of public housing. Turns out markets don't want to create unprofitable housing for the most vulnerable.
|
Richard Epstein has this rhetorical trick he does where he explains both sides of what ever he's talking about, and then he says, "and it turns out that" what he thinks is right.
We have all sorts of examples of failures of different systems to provide goods and services in an efficient manner. The "direct provision of fundamental needs" is great if you ignore all the mistakes that governments make in assessing the nature of demand and the problems they have in providing the right incentives for their employees and other actors. Think Soviet breadlines. There is a real virtue in giving people money, so that the state doesn't have to try to predict what they most need. On the other hand, it is absolutely undeniable that "leaving things to markets" often doesn't work, not least because markets are regulated. The housing market doesn't work for poor people in part because of zoning, which has a huge influence on where and what people want to build.
