Public Libraries are Kind of a Big Deal

Forbes recently managed to post a scalding hot take my an economics professor about how public libraries aren't very helpful and Amazon should be running them. Because, you know, Amazon does a great job running itself. The link to the Forbes piece "Amazon Should Replace Local Libraries to Save Taxpayers Money" now gives a 404 error because, of not just the backlash, but even the editors at Forbes finally realized what an awful take it was. The article is archived here as a monument to human thought.

The actual piece is filled with the usual stuff of how private corporations can do things better. It's also pretty clear the author hasn't stepped inside of a library in, perhaps, his entire existence. For example, Mourdoukoutas the author of the piece, writes that

There was a time local libraries offered the local community lots of services in exchange for their tax money. They would bring books, magazines, and journals to the masses through a borrowing system. Residents could borrow any book they wanted, read it, and return it for someone else to read.

Last I checked libraries were still doing that. And they do it pretty cheaply as well. Just as an example the Sno-Isle Libraries in Washington state have a neat little calculator to help patrons figure out just how much in taxes they pay for libraries services. That's right, if the home is assessed for $800,00 that person is paying a whopping $376 in library taxes. If I did the math right that's 0.05%. That's about the same percent I'd have of dunking a basketball on a regulation height rim.

Anyway, I was reading a very interesting take on the take and I had a bit of a thought on it. Over at Current Affairs Nathan Robinson wrote an excellent piece on just how important libraries are. Robinson writes that

Extreme as this article may seem, it’s worryingly close to the political mainstream

He's completely correct. It reminds me of a book excerpt the Atlantic published back in January called "The World Might be Better Off Without College for Everyone". The author of that article excerpt/book, Bryan Caplan, is another economics professor who argues that, basically, it's pointless to spend tax payer dollars to send students to college because, basically, "From kindergarten on, students spend thousands of hours studying subjects to the modern labor market." Because why would one want to read for subtle and subtext when one can just be told Orwell or Fitzgerald is useless?

It's all very rich and ironic coming from a professor who's got tenure at a public university. It's even richer and more ironic that Caplan is a fellow at the Koch brothers backed Mercatus Center. If this isn't a case of pulling up the ladder behind you on the way up I don't know what is.

This is all to say that whenever a boiling hot take like Caplan's or Mourdoukoutas's gets published it's a good idea to put the whole thing to the CRAAP Test. Most pieces of information will get dinged pretty badly by the last letter of the test: Purpose. What's the purpose of Caplan's book? To make a well informed case about the uselessness of a liberal arts degree? No. To further the agenda of corporate donors to the think tank and university he works at? That seems much more likely.

Of course, that's the rub: if everything is for sale, everything can be bought.

**All views in this post are the author's own and do NOT represent the views of Mercer County Community College**