"Too much government can be hazardous to your health.
- But I’m not talking about government killing you because you bet on a football game.
- And I’m not talking about government killing you for selling an untaxed cigarette.
- Nor am I talking about government killing you with bureaucrat-run healthcare.
Instead, this is a column about the wonky issue of cost-benefit analysis.
This insight can even apply to regulations that are designed to save lives!
It’s quite common, when I first suggest this hypothesis, for people to think I’m nuts. But they begin to see the light when I share this example from an article I wrote 25 years ago for the Journal of Regulation and Social Cost.
People in wealthier nations, on average, live longer and better lives than residents of poorer nations. …government policy makers should consider the adverse effects on health and mortality of economic policies that impose costs on the productive sector of the economy.…it is quite possible that regulations designed to reduced mortality and morbidity, if they impose sufficiently high costs on the economy, actually can result in premature deaths and a less healthy population. Banning the use of motor vehicles, for instance, would save…lives lost annually in traffic accidents as well as preventing whatever number of premature deaths can be attributed to auto emissions. …It would be absurd, however, to…support the elimination of motor vehicles… The higher living standards made possible by fast and efficient transportation clearly must result in reduced mortality…rates over time for the general population..."
Much here, read on!
No comments:
Post a Comment