Posted on 03/03/2021 9:21:48 AM PST by JV3MRC
New York Times economist Paul Krugman attacked capitalism for promoting “too much choice” for American consumers. One pro-market economist wasn’t going to let him get away with it.
Krugman decried in a new op-ed headlined “Too Much Choice is Hurting America” how the American economy has become too complex. Krugman used subprime mortgages, electricity contracts and health insurance as examples of how too many choices have created a “cognitive burden” on America’s poor. Krugman pontificated that “the next time some politician tries to sell a new policy — typically deregulation — by claiming that it will increase choice, be skeptical. Having more options isn’t automatically good, and in America we probably have more choices than we should.” CATO Director of Tax Policy Studies Chris Edwards rebutted Krugman in a one-liner: “I look forward to a Krugman column that proposes how to simplify the government.”
Edwards ripped Krugman for blaming American capitalism while ignoring that government deserves much of the blame for making life more complicated for American consumers.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Right-maybe a Cracker Jack, Econ degree would be preferable to whatever this clown got!
Gee, you’d think the instructions on how to make decisions would be printed on the Voter ID card. Oh, wait......
Krugman- poison dwarf!
Liberalism is about taking away choices.
Siding with sanders. The fewer choices the better. USSR comes to mind as just about perfect in the choice department.
I remember a college professor in the 60s complaining that choices we had in things like toothpaste for example—different sizes, brands, flavors, price etc. was inferior to the Soviet model. One brand, one size, one price—no choice about it at all. Krugman seems to be of the same opinion. And of course choice negatively impacts the poor, so we must be rid of it.
Soviet “choice” wasn’t limited to just groceries: Dwellings, news outlets, political parties, voting, “leaders”, schools, speaking, thinking. It was a biden/harris/pelosi/schumer wet dream come true.
“Liberalism” is about creating a technocratic elite that orders everybody else to obey—or else.
The best part of the Soviet model was that they managed to run out of the only brand of tootpaste and have empty shelves where the toothpaste was supposed to be—central planning at its best!
(Of course the Party insiders could travel abroad to get whatever they wanted...)
At least Krugman is consistent. He’s completely wrong about everything.
The comparison to what Clinton said about healthcare is apples/oranges.
Various industries are positioned differently along the spectrum between monopoly and fierce competition.
The healthcare industry suffers under government/lobbyist enforced monopolies, and could benefit greatly from a healthy dose of free market competition. Hillary Clinton was just wrong about that.
Lack of competition is clearly bad for the economy.
But what about industries where competition is not lacking? Can there be too much competition?
I say yes - too much international competition can be bad for the local economy.
Many industries, such as textiles, face fierce international competition, and the variety of choices from cheap international sources that can be had online does nothing to stimulate innovation and improve standards of living.
All it does is flood the local economy with cheap products, put local factories out of work and hurt local wages.
I think this is what Krugman was saying - in monopolized industries like healthcare, being offered more choices is good - in other industries it just a Trojan horse to justify more globalism.
He is right - we need to be suspicious when politicians tout the “free market”, “competition”, and “more choices”. Sometimes it is just a justification for shipping more jobs overseas, and getting more slave-produced Chinese made crap in return.
(Of course the Party insiders could travel abroad to get whatever they wanted...)
What choice? Despicable patriots certainly didn’t get a choice regardless of a record-breaking, red tsunami election win for Trump.
ah-hem... smells of:
Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule
The Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule is passed by the National Alliance of Railroads in section 145, allegedly to prevent “destructive competition” between railroads. The rule gives the Alliance the authority to forbid competition between railroads in certain parts of the country. It was crafted by Orren Boyle as a favor for James Taggart, with the purpose of driving the Phoenix-Durango out of Colorado.
“health insurance”
Your choice: PPACA conformant or none at all.
“electricity contracts”
§17.46(b) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act provides that it is a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice to take advantage of a disaster declared by the Governor under Chapter 418, Government Code, or the President by:
1.Selling or leasing fuel, food, medicine, lodging, building materials, construction tools, or another necessity at an exorbitant or excessive price;
or
2.Demanding an exorbitant or excessive price in connection with the sale or lease of fuel, food, medicine, lodging, building materials, construction tools, or another necessity.
“subprime mortgages”
Subprime mortgagees and California need-to-refinance mortgages (so government can get another mortgage recording tax payment) were the problems.
Krugman is saying the same thing I’ve heard directly from Democrats. I’ve been told that ObamaCare (and now Single-Payer since ObamaCare was a scam) was needed because it was just too much work to decide which policy was best.
IOW, it’s easier to be a slave, and take whatever Massa gives you, than live your own life. Krugman knows exactly why Democrats use the jackass as a symbol.
There is such a thing as decision paralysis, but I think that is corrected by the market as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.