THEFT BY GOVERNMENT T here is a problem; it seems bigger than any one of us can handle - we ask government to intervene. It is a typical thought process. But it is a dangerous thought process. We learn that asbestos min- ers have a far greater risk of lung cancer - a cancer caused by prolonged exposure to loose free floating asbestos molecules. Someone notices that the insulation used in public schools is asbestos. Contained, won’t go any- where unless disturbed, asbestos. The governments response. “Remove the asbestos.” That is intervention all right. Although different forms of asbestos pose different risks Congress didn’t differentiate. It was estimated that by 2000, the program had already cost $20 billion to remove or seal asbestos in 200,000 schools. It was a questionable use of funds, considering the im- mense needs of our schools and the fact that contained asbestos poses no risk. The billions of dollars spent on inspecting schools for asbestos would have been better spent teaching teenagers not to smoke or even motivating them to stay in school. When economists speak of governmental intervention, they usually seem to have in mind the imposition of taxes or, less frequently, direct regulation of the activities of the firms or individuals concerned. This ap- proach has serious weaknesses. It fails to disclose the factors which deter- mine whether governmental intervention is desirable, and of what kind, and it ignores other possible courses of action. It has consequently misled
87
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online