David Mamet's Priceless Assertion

"At What Cost?"  (From The Jewish Journal, July 27- August 2, 2012)

This must be the governing question in economic and legal policy in this country. David Mamet was not afraid to ask this question, and we should not be afraid to rest on the implications of this question in our political discourse. Marxist, Socialist, Capitalist, Elitist: everyone must accept and contend with the reality of scarcity, that there is only so much of everything, of anything, and that the limits of these resources have to be allocated in some way.

Three cities filed for bankruptcy in the last two weeks, in large part because of immense pension and benefits promises predicated on the rising in property and sales tax revenues during boom times.

Following the Banking Crisis of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed, the state coffers lost a great deal of wealth as wages, jobs, and housing investments plummeted across the country.

Supply and Demand are inexorable, cold equations which will infiltrate financial decisions and determinations, no matter how much individuals will crow about their "right" to healthcare, education, or any other service.

Even the Declaration of Independence asserted that governments are instituted to protect our "rights", yet expanding the number of rights does not guarantee with it the proper or even possible expansion of government without encroaching on those rights.

Since when have we gotten into the habit of expecting the government to protect everything? To supply every need as well as define the limits of the wants which anyone can submit to the powers that be?

"At What Cost?"

If healthcare is free, as in nothing out of pocket, we pay the price in terms of time and access. If peace is nothing but empty assertion so comity and negotiation, which demand no investment in defense or stock in arms, then the one who has the bigger guns will win every time.

"The homeowner and the burglar cannot coexist happily." The root for this conflict is a moral and an economic one. One prizes his property, the other wants to take, and in taking undermines his own ownership. Rights without responsibilities are risible and irrational.

David Mamet articulates cost not just in terms of money but in terms of the balance between freedom and security. The cop walking a beat is allowed to carry a firearm both intimate and intimidate. Nothing less will suffice as prevention. Men and women will invest in empower a select number instead of taking up the cost in time and life that follows from reactionary policing policies.

"Insurance exists to increase premiums and decrease service and claims." This assertion can be misleading. Insurance exists to spread the financial risk, to socialize somewhat the losses which incur when an individual needs extensive care. The greater the likelihood of risk, the greater the premium so as to protect the investment of other clients in the insurance pool. Still, the rise of extensive insurance as a policy for medical finance management has created more problems than it has solved. A proper solution would be to spread the risk for more unlikely yet more costly needs and return responsibility for routine needs back to the individual consumer.

"At What Cost?" This question has been avoided or suppressed altogether, especially regarding the financial crises which have wracked finance markets for the past four years. The cost of implementing more extensive reforms has diminished access to credit for many prospective clients while harming smaller banks, which could offer smaller loans to lesser capitalized clients.

Mamet's priceless assertion must not go unasked.