[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Clueless. I like lots of choices but choices are hardly tied to freedom. For instance if the government breaks up a large firm under the guise that its a monopoly, then they are both acting to increase choice and negate freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Paraphrase: Too much choice causes paralysis, unable to choose

[/ QUOTE ]

In any case where many consumers face a burdensome process of compiling and understanding information there is a profit signal for an agent to specialize in that information, and provide service to the consumers by closing that information gap.

Any kind of paralysis due to too much choice is either a) the result of government interference (controlling what agents can and cannot do) or the result of agency service not being taken advantage of yet or has been determined by the market to be unprofitable.


[ QUOTE ]
Some choice is better than more, but more choice is not better than some. There is some magical amount, I'm not sure what it is, but I'm confident that we've passed that point where more options improve our welfare

[/ QUOTE ]

Some magical amount is what economists call market equilibrium.

He has absolutely no clue, nor can he ever have a clue, as to what number of choices *I* want to have, or what number of choices *someone else* wants to have.

The whole framework of welfare economics thought is seriously [censored]. By violently intervening into a market to restrict choice, you do so at the expense of some people in order to benefit some people. There is no cardinal measurement of value, so there is no way to sum and subtract how much value some gained and some lost, and so there is no way to determine if you've increased overall welfare.

The marginal utility of every dollar spent by every different individual is different, and so using $ as that cardinal measurement of value is just as [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
Income redistribution makes everyone better off

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus [censored] Christ.