Friendly Reminder: TINSTAAFL

"Party Food" by (^_^) wellwin is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 

The Democratic Party Primary is well underway with the first two rounds of debates.  The crowded field resembles the chaos of the Republican Party Primary of 2016.  We could argue whether there is much separation among the candidates.  Each one has tried to brand themselves based on their public policy position.  Beyond the typical back and forth bantering to score political points, there has been a consistent theme from all candidates; the promise of free stuff.

That's right, the Democrats are standing in front of America and promising free healthcare, free college, free housing, free, free, free.  Of course this sounds terrific, especially if you are a hard working American struggling to get by.  These promises have been spewing from the mouths of politicians for as long as, well, politicians have been around.

Talking heads will try to convince you this is the most important election of our lifetime.  That this is a battle for saving democracy and staying off the path to socialism.  Instead of delving down that rabbit hole, we should instead be reflecting on the foundational claims of government being able to provide "free" services.

I remember the first time I heard it; I was a Sophomore in college taking a business law class.  The professor, the Honorable Jeffery Boles stood in front of the class and wrote the acronym on the board, TINSTAAFL.  I noticed some students shaking their head in approval as I tried to decipher this jumbled mess of letters.  He went on to spell it out "There is no such thing as a free lunch."  What in the world was he talking about?  If someone walked up to me and said "hey, I'll take you to McDonald's and buy your meal", that sounds like free to me.  I'm inclined to believe many people would view it this way.  If this is true, then how is there a cost to me if the government covers my college, housing, healthcare, etc.  Come on, this is sounding really good!  How could anyone be against this!?

Unfortunately, people who think along this line, stop short at seeing the cost associated with these choices.  Of course in analyzing the free meal there is no monetary cost to taking up the offer.  However, there are costs associated with making any choice.  For example, what of the time you give up to go to the restaurant?  You are giving up your time and bypassing other food you could have eaten.  In the world of Economics this is called opportunity cost.  In deciding to take the meal, you are giving up all other possibilities of what you could be doing.  These are called trade offs. We must understand this and apply this line of thinking when we hear politicians banter on about providing free services.

If you apply this thinking to the public policy topics being addressed in the debates, you can quickly see the costs associated with attempting to provide "free" services.  Clear judgement and discernment is clouded by emotions of student debt, grandma and grandpa not receiving their medications, the disadvantaged dying in the streets, etc.  Where is the money going to come from?  How else could tax dollars be used?  Does government have a claim to my money?  You can see how easy it is to deconstruct the "free" logic.  And as they say on those annoying 2 am infomercials; "but wait, there's more!"

To further complicate matters Democrats have gone a step further and now make claims that services like healthcare and education are "rights".  Again, when hearing this rhetoric, we have to think like an economist and ask the question; what is a basic natural right?  In short, if it exists naturally, you have a right to it.  Think air, water, food, natural resources, etc.  This excludes many items that modern society has invented to make life easier or extend our life expectancy, like medicines, housing, higher education, transportation, etc.

Even in the most sensitive of topics, like life saving medicines, we must resist the temptation to claim we have a right to those products.  We must instead remember that someone was motivated by the market to organize the factors of production to bring these products to market.  Making them "free" would deincentivize the manufacturer form continuing to produce or for others to enter into the market.  This is vital, because in the market, competition is what keeps prices in check.  Why are prescription medications so high?  A large part of that is due to government protection.

I hope this has at least caused you to reconsider how you think about these issues.  I know they cannot be simply solved by a blog post.  There are serious and fundamental issues with healthcare, education, housing and many other service industries.  Getting the government involved to provide a solution is not way to go though.  Just remember, There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!