Let them eat kale. On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Bill Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> I usually find Krugman pretty sober, but this technical claim seems > economically dubious: "When people choose not to buy broccoli, they > don't make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people > don't buy health insurance until they get sick --- which is what > happens in the absence of a mandate --- the resulting worsening of the > risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for > those who remain." > > While true that when people choose not to buy broccoli it might not > make broccoli "unavailable", it might affect "broccoli liquidity", > thereby prompting suppliers to switch to more lucrative veggies. > > Could those here with knowlege of substitution economics see if my > following point makes sense, as I think it does: > > While true that when people choose not to buy broccoli it might not > make broccoli "unavailable", it might affect "broccoli liquidity", > thereby prompting suppliers to switch to more lucrative veggies. > > So, suppose broccoli demand fell by 95%, and those formerly buying > broccoli developed a craving for spinach. Would that not basically > guarantee that the market for broccoli would all but collapse? > > I realize there are sound moral arguments for (universal) health > insurance that Krugman does not raise here, but does my criticism of > his point above make sense, in a technical economic sense? > > -- > Bill Lear > r * e * @ * o * y * a * c * m > * a * l * z * p * r * . * o * > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
