"Saving lives versus saving money" comparisons confuse ends with means. The end of saving the economy is not to have more money. The end is to have resources necessary to preserve the lives and health of countless human beings.
Entrepreneurs can offer new ways of serving established markets, but large institutions will keep with what has worked in the past so long as it just continues to work in the present. Radical change happens only in an emergency. For the British university that time has now arrived.
Egalitarians think that equality has intrinsic value: they advocate it for its own sake, not just to forestall bad consequences. But why is a situation in which some in it have been made better off, and none worse off, worse than one of equality?
Why should we think that government officials are better at acting “rationally” than those they regulate? Even if we were to concede that smoking deserves to be restricted, why should we think the government can do it in a reasonable way?
Politicians are very proud when they can say a proposed program is "paid for." But this only means they've identified their intended victims ahead of time. Naming who will be plundered does not justify plunder.