But that's the point, mid. Free market dictates that buying 6 trillion dollars of hospitals and supplies is bad business unless you can keep the hospitals at capacity and you have, at least, acceptable ROI on the supplies you bought. On the same token, it's the reason nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a free market enterprise either.
This is the dichotomy you face with the free market:
Hospitals are holding back from ordering more medical ventilators because of the high cost for what may be only a short-term e in demand from the coronavirus epidemic, supply chain experts and health researchers say, intensifying an anticipated shortage of lifesaving equipment for patients who become critically ill.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...u-coronavirus/
And from a business perspective, it completely makes sense. However, sometimes the mission is above ROI and fiduciary duty to shareholders. Especially during emergencies, or when national security is at stake. We all understand that. We all know nobody is building F35 planes out of their own volition as an investment without first getting fat checks and subsidies from the government. It's bad business.
I'm a firm believer of the free market 99% of the time, especially in normal times. But in very specific cases, it's simply not the solution to the problem at hand. When it comes to putting lives vs money on the balance, I think lives should take precedence.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't mean the free market is bad, or always fails (like boutons loves to say).
You know what free market dictates in times of scarcity? Pump up the prices. It makes total business sense, do you think it makes sense in an emergency, when people are looking for basic items like food, etc and they are scarce?
We rich folks on ST wouldn't have a problem, but we're hurting the poor, the unemployed, the people that need the most help during an emergency.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that capitalism, socialism, etc don't have all the answers to every problem. After all, almost every country, including the US, use different amounts of both depending on the need.
ie: We subsidize Medicare, because it's bad business to insure old people, or unaffordable. The end result is folks that need healthcare the most can't get it. It's a failure, we recognize it and so we use a form of socialized healthcare in that case, because the free market won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
And that's ok, we all know lives are at stake, and it makes sense some of our tax dollars go there.