14
Nov
2014
Gruber Is Exactly What I Was Imagining
Remember in my latest video where I pretend to be a sharp economist advising the elites on how to bamboozle the American public while ramming through their unpopular agenda?
With that in mind, watch the opening 20 seconds of this, then skip ahead and let it play from 3:05 onward. (HT2 Glen Whitman)
Speaking of Gruber, David R. Henderson reminds us of some of his previous eyebrow-raising moments.
Inb4 anyone else:
Remember in my latest video where I pretend to be a sharp economist…
Ha ha.
Right, so it is all out there to see, people like Gruber and Pelosi aren’t evil in the way that they want to harm people as their actual goal (Who really is?). But they are nevertheless spineless elitist antidemocratic technocrats, using evil means to reach their agenda (be it a well meaning agenda or not). Of course you still have to differentiate. It is one thing to think lying to the public is ok to reach an agenda, and quite another to lets say murder people to reach a certain agenda… I am happy for every shred of spine left.. However their behaviour is absolutely unacceptable.
I have no moral guilt in agreeing with Gruber that your average voter is (rationally) ignorant. Most don’t understand economics, as Gruber points out.
But where I differ from him is that I don’t try to exploit that ignorance to violate their property rights. I don’t try to deceive them, but educate them when possible.
I wouldn’t want someone more intelligent than me to exploit me.
MF, they don’t exploit you. They help you, but you are just too ignorant to understand.
đ
For a guy who has just blamed other people for not understanding economics, Gruber brings up some strange points:
[1] Because employer health insurance is tax free (thus providing an incentive) people choose to buy excessive amounts of insurance.
[2] By introducing a tax on the customers of health insurance the government could collect vast amounts of money because, hey once the tax incentive has gone, no one would change their behaviour would they?
[3] By introducing a tax on the suppliers of health insurance the supplier would just pass equivalent price rises onto the customer because, hey no supplier could have already thought of raising the price to what the market is willing to pay, only smart government guys can think of that.
I think Gruber probably gets lessons from LK to help him understand “market clearing”.
Re: 1, I have always felt that people buy excessive amounts of oranges due to the absence of sin taxes on citric acid. If we raise the CA tax to an appropriate level, perhaps we can ensure that people buy the correct amount of oranges while generating extra revenue for the state.
Win-win. That’s what economics is all about, yes?
What goes unsaid, is that this is supposed to help people in general somehow – which is not nearly as obvious, I think, as they seem to believe. If pushed, they just resort to mindless sloganeering… “universal coverage”, “never have to worry again”, “healthcare is a right”, blah blah blah
And here’s the new Gruber video that’s going to add fuel to the fire:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/fifth-questionable-video-of-jonathan-gruber-emerges-video/
Gruber brags about forcing the rest of the country to pay for the MA healthcare bill.
Instead of a cadillac tax, why not just make health insurance and medical care/supplies tax deductible?
Gruber is wrong: Costs cannot be passed on to consumers:
Papa John and âPassing Onâ
http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/papa-john-and-passing-on/
All other things being equal, the individual either considers the value of a good to be greater or less than the alternatives he will have to forego in order to acquire it.
To be sure, in the case of health insurance, regulations prohibit cheaper services such as those which would rightly discriminate on the basis of “pre-existing conditions”, and so not all things remain equal as the government imposes burdens on business.
About that video … another important element in top-down control of “population-think” is the roll of thinktanks. Their job is to dig up statistics (numbers without context, if need be) to tack on to the official line put forth by the various agencies. These “numbers” from “independent” sources are intended for consumption by the “opinion-makers”, who will in turn pass them along in “news” stories. Reporters and columnists now depend on press releases given to them, prefering to reword and release this made-for-public-consumption pablum rather than risk losing any trough dining priviledges. Fourth Estate work of yestercentury exists — in small guys, and humor helps.