Regardless of government actions, many consumers, workers, and producers may seek changes that reduce exposure to disease in the workplace. The best way to do this is through markets.
Politicians and pundits have a blind spot when it comes to international economic transactions. They ignore a portion of trade! In particular, they ignore trade in claims on future income—that is, stocks and bonds.
It is precisely during a crisis that private property, the price mechanism, and the profit and loss system are most important, and when the government can do the most damage.
Anti-price gouging laws mean that those who really end up getting the short end of the stick are those who don't have the time or the means to beat the crowds to the store. Worse off are those of lesser means who rely on public transportation or walking to transport groceries home.
What needs to be done in such a crisis is not to attempt to steer the market to ensure it provides what is needed, but to let it free to do what it always does: match the goals of entrepreneurial producers with the needs of the populace.
The coronavirus crisis must cause us to rethink the idea governments can manage these situations. It is absolutely true that most private industry can be trusted, because the alternative for poor or unscrupulous providers is failure.
Governments that hamper entrepreneurship certainly damage it in the near term. But these measures destroy the conditions necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship in the future as well.
After an old red barn was given "heritage protection" by the city council, the owner demolished it anyway. Many townspeople cheered the defiance of the council's blatant violation of property rights.
Free market economics is often ignorantly dismissed for being "ideological" rather than scientific. It probably sounds smart to the economically illiterate, but it is decidedly not.
