Is Profit Healthy?

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:

Fran Hamburg stated in a recent letter that: “The primary mission of insurance companies is not to improve overall health care but to make a profit” (Indebted?, Aug. 5).  I agree!  What is often overlooked, however, is in their pursuit of profit, companies do great things for society.

I, for example, am sitting in a chair typing on my laptop in an air conditioned place where I have access to food, clean drinking water, lights, etc…  All these things are provided to me not because the producers personally know me and want me to feel good, but rather, because the producers are themselves seeking a wage or profit.  This point was clearly articulated by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations in 1776 when he said: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”

Fran then stated: “It would seem reasonable to expect that eliminating an extra layer of administration and profit taking would save money.”  It seems plausible at first, but what purpose does profit serve?  Aside from encouraging entrepreneurship and risk taking, it tells producers what people want.  For example, suppose I am a profitable producer of horse buggies.  Additionally, suppose an entrepreneur creates a new invention coined the automobile to compete directly with horse buggies.  Consumers will likely choose to buy less horse buggies and more automobiles.  These consumer choices become translated into a loss for horse buggy producers and a profit for automobile producers.  This economic activity is dynamic and guides the production of goods and the elimination of others.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to eliminate profits without eliminating the vital role it plays in conveying information between producers and consumers.  The health care industry is a trophy example – Lobbyist and insurance companies have used government to shield themselves from competition resulting in massive amounts of regulation and 23% of all federal spending being spent on Medicare and Medicaid alone.

The Price is Right

hayekKurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

I was reading through The Road To Serfdom by F.A. Hayek last night, and stumbled across a fantastic passage:  “In a competitive society the prices we have to pay for a thing, the rate at which we can get one thing for another, depend on the quantities of other things of which by taking one, we deprive the other members of society.   This price is not determined by the conscious will of anybody.  And if one way of achieving our ends proves too expensive for us, we are free to try other ways.  The obstacles in our path are not due to someone’s disapproving of our ends but to the fact that the same means are also wanted elsewhere.  In a directed economy, where the authority watches over the ends pursued, it is certain that it would use its power to assist some ends and to prevent the realization of others.”

Markets Anticipate the Future

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
Here is a great post from Cafe Hayek Today. Enjoy!

“Here’s a letter that I sent today to WAMU, a local DC radio station:

Dear Sir or Madam:

This morning your reporter interviewed a resident of Galveston, Texas, about the effects of hurricane Ike. The person interviewed said that she went to the gasoline station before Ike hit to “top off” her tank. But she was angry to find that gasoline prices had jumped 50 cents per gallon from the day before. “It’s ridiculous,” this woman opined. “Ike hadn’t hit yet!”

Your reporter should have immediately asked this woman: “Well, why were you topping off your tank? Ike hadn’t hit yet.”

Gasoline became more scarce — more precious — in Galveston the moment Ike’s arrival became likely. Gasoline retailers acted in anticipation of the future no more or no less than did motorists (such as your interviewee) who topped off their tanks.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux”

Today’s Unintended Consequence no. 1,920,533

~LM Ruhland

Today’s NYT features an article about U.S. problems as a result of foreign fuel subsidies.  From “Fuel Subsidies Overseas Take a Toll on U.S.“:

From Mexico to India to China, governments fearful of inflation and street protests are heavily subsidizing energy prices, particularly for diesel fuel. But the subsidies — estimated at $40 billion this year in China alone — are also removing much of the incentive to conserve fuel.

In most countries that do not subsidize fuel, high prices have caused oil demand to stagnate or fall, as economic theory says they should. But in countries with subsidies, demand is still rising steeply, threatening to outstrip the growth in global supplies.

It’s a good, basic illustration of the global ripples that government interference in the economy can generate.