When a service like public transit is made free, it removes the financial incentives for efficiency and innovation. Without the pressure to compete for customers, bureaucracies swell, quality degrades, and problems like safety issues increase, ultimately making the service worse for its intended beneficiaries.

Related Insights

When governments become top shareholders, corporate focus shifts from pleasing customers to securing political favor and appropriations. R&D budgets are reallocated to lobbying, and market competition devolves from building the best product to playing the policy game most effectively, strangling innovation.

A bureaucracy can function like a tumor. It disguises itself from the "immune system" of public accountability by using noble language ("it's for the kids"). It then redirects resources (funding) to ensure its own growth, even if it's harming the larger organism of society.

Offering free or underpriced curb parking in busy areas creates an artificial shortage, incentivizing drivers to circle blocks searching for a spot. This generates significant unnecessary traffic and pollution. One Los Angeles neighborhood saw this behavior create 3,600 extra miles of driving daily.

Moses pioneered using independent authorities to issue bonds for infrastructure, sequestering revenue streams like tolls away from the city's general fund. This model starved public transit and other services, creating a structural vulnerability that contributed significantly to the 1970s fiscal crisis long after he was gone.

According to James Burnham's "Iron Law of Oligarchy," systems eventually serve their rulers. In government, deficit spending and subsidies are used to secure votes and donor funding, meaning leaders are incentivized to maintain the flow of money, even if it's wasteful or fraudulent, to ensure their own political survival.

Arguing to redirect inefficient government spending towards populist policies like free buses is a trap. It doubles down on a broken system by replacing one form of poor allocation with another, ultimately accelerating economic decline rather than fixing the fundamental problems.

The government often creates economic problems (e.g., through money printing), then presents itself as the solution with "free" programs. This cycle causes the public to misattribute their financial struggles to the failures of capitalism, rather than recognizing the government's role as the problem's source.

The most effective government role in innovation is to act as a catalyst for high-risk, foundational R&D (like DARPA creating the internet). Once a technology is viable, the government should step aside to allow private sector competition (like SpaceX) to drive down costs and accelerate progress.

Policies like price caps (e.g., for insulin) or price floors (e.g., minimum wage) that deviate from market equilibrium create distortions. The economy then compensates in unintended ways, such as companies ceasing production of price-capped goods or moving to under-the-table employment to avoid high minimum wages.

Well-intentioned government support programs can become an economic "shackle," disincentivizing upward mobility. This risks a negative cycle: dependent citizens demand more benefits, requiring higher taxes that drive out businesses, which erodes the tax base and leads to calls for even more wealth redistribution and government control.