I'm old enough to remember when The Economist was a source of good economic sense on most issues of public policy. By that I really mean only that they generally recognized that resources were not infinite, that choices needed to be made, and that all human problems could not be immediately solved by just spending enough money from the infinite piles of government loot. But over the last decade or so they have gradually lost track of these principles.
The levels to which they have sunk are well-illustrated by the lead article in the current (April 28 - May 4) issue, headline "Universal healthcare, worldwide, is within reach." You read that right. This is not an argument, à la Bernie Sanders, that wealthy countries like the United States now have sufficient wealth that they should use some (much) of it to provide universal health care to their citizens. Rather, this argument is that universal "basic" health care should be adopted everywhere:Read More