For the past few days a lot has been written and said about what was said by Mr. Gruber and the ACA. Here is my take on it with thanks to Don Boudreaux, Russ Roberts, Bryan Caplan, etc. This is GruberGate....Now, if we accept David Friedmans explanation, what Gruber should have said (should have thought before he opened his mouth) was that the American voter is rationally ignorant (somewhat sure that he wishes he had said it after the fact). We know that everyone is rationally ignorant about something or another. According to Don Boudreaux, Albert Einstein was rationally ignorant about the rules of American football (I dont know what Albert knew about football but I will go with Dons statement) because he had more valuable things to spend his time on. This is the same with most American voters because, for the most part, the Voter has more important things to spend his/her time on (such as working for a living) than gathering information about matters that they (their single vote) have little or no control over. This is about public-choice and is the main reason that rational ignorance in political choices is not as smart as the choices that folks make in the private market. (Most public-choice knowledgeable folks find that the outcomes of public-choice decisions are less than what the policies are imagined to be by the supports of the policies.) So really Gruber is just saying what is well known by most economists and public-choice thinkers. The difference is that the Grubers think that as long as good intentioned, smart people are behind a policy then any method or statement to get the policy done is acceptable because these good intention, smart people know what is best for everyone else. If Gruber (and the politicians) had told the voter that the ACA could/would cost a lot of them more money, and that they could not keep their health insurance and/or doctor, that the cost of medical equipment would be going up, and any number of other things that have come out of the ACA then there would have been very little support for the ACA and it would, most likely, not been passed. Rational ignorance does not mean stupid it just means that you have more important things to spend your time on.... I asked George Gaskin, a teacher, “would you think that your students would rather spend more time studying for a history test next week or reading 2000 page government policy that will not impact them till they are 20 to 30 years old? (I know, the answer is neither)”..... Just my thoughts and those pointed out by Don B., Russ Roberts, Bryan Caplan, etc. Regards, Jerry
Posted on: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:33:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015