Capitalism v. Socialism
Capitalism v. Socialism
I’ve written before
that the importance of Paul Ryan’s brand of conservative reform is that
it puts federal policy on a fundamentally different trend line than its
current course under President Barack Obama.
From Ryan’s perspective, the American future post-reform looks like one where there’s more money in everyone’s pocket, less going to the government, and a fiscally sustainable social safety net.
As for President Obama, all you need to know is contained in his campaign’s “Life of Julia” web ad.
If Ryan is true to form, then during his time as Mitt Romney’s running mate he’ll accentuate the choice facing voters this fall of an American future that is either growing thanks to a resurgent capitalism or declining under the weight of a galloping socialism. Perhaps he’ll do so along the lines described by Harvard economist Robert Barro in the Wall Street Journal:
From Ryan’s perspective, the American future post-reform looks like one where there’s more money in everyone’s pocket, less going to the government, and a fiscally sustainable social safety net.
As for President Obama, all you need to know is contained in his campaign’s “Life of Julia” web ad.
If Ryan is true to form, then during his time as Mitt Romney’s running mate he’ll accentuate the choice facing voters this fall of an American future that is either growing thanks to a resurgent capitalism or declining under the weight of a galloping socialism. Perhaps he’ll do so along the lines described by Harvard economist Robert Barro in the Wall Street Journal:
The Obamacare Quagmire
The Obamacare Quagmire
The law will hurt the very people it's supposed to help.
Now that the Supreme Court has held President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional, mounting evidence suggests that the statute’s most ardent defenders may well come to rue the day. During the legal struggles over the ACA, its defenders both on and off the Supreme Court took for granted the proposition that the law would deliver on its major promise, which was to extend affordable coverage to the over 47 million people who now lack healthcare insurance, without disrupting the protection that others currently enjoy.
Unfortunately, these bold pronouncements failed to take into account the old and powerful economic law of unintended consequences. Sometimes these are positive, which is why the selfish actions of ordinary individuals in competitive markets prove socially beneficial. Adam Smith said that each individual “is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” But those unintended consequences often turn bad in connection with the many forms of government regulation that limit the scope of contractual freedom, which the ACA does in a big way.
Illustration by Barbara Kelley
The result may turn into an Obamacare quagmire. Public officials, at
both the federal and the state level, are grappling with the Herculean
task of implementing the law. Its internal complexity and flawed design
make it a program that was built to fail. The most recent evidence of
the ACA’s administrative breakdown comes via the New York Times in a story by Robert Pear—no
enemy of Obamacare—who reports that the fine print of the ACA could
leave the dependents of millions of low-income employees without
coverage from either their employers or the ACA’s insurance exchanges.
Now that the Supreme Court has held President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional, mounting evidence suggests that the statute’s most ardent defenders may well come to rue the day. During the legal struggles over the ACA, its defenders both on and off the Supreme Court took for granted the proposition that the law would deliver on its major promise, which was to extend affordable coverage to the over 47 million people who now lack healthcare insurance, without disrupting the protection that others currently enjoy.
Unfortunately, these bold pronouncements failed to take into account the old and powerful economic law of unintended consequences. Sometimes these are positive, which is why the selfish actions of ordinary individuals in competitive markets prove socially beneficial. Adam Smith said that each individual “is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” But those unintended consequences often turn bad in connection with the many forms of government regulation that limit the scope of contractual freedom, which the ACA does in a big way.
Illustration by Barbara Kelley
No comments:
Post a Comment