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.”
Krugman is echoing Hillary Clinton when she defended the lack of choices in HillaryCare saying that most Americans’ were too busy to gather the information to make informed decisions between alternatives. HillaryCare offered only one set of benefits.
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.