Today Econo-Girl saw for the first time in her life: chocolate covered
POTATO CHIPS! UGH! Doesn't that make you want to HEAVE? The girl offering
them was so nice, so Econo-Girl feigned an allergy to grease.
This experience raises the last topic of the efficiency of the marketplace.
There is really a demand for such morsels as chocolate covered potato chips.
Just as there is a demand for heroin. Should we intervene and save people
from themselves? Should little rules make us cozy in our superiority?
People decry helmet laws. A friend once said, "I don't want to be told to
wear a helmet. I'll wear one. It just should be my choice." And about the
non-choice of taxpayers who pay to scrape you off of the pavement?
Similarly, these adventurers who get trapped by nature and need to get
rescued by (of course) the government are in need of government service.
ohoh - boss nearby
2 comments:
Yep, you're right. Where do you draw the line? Your points are excellent. That's why I agree with helmet and seatbelt laws. But there are times that government gets TOO involved. In Florida we have mandatory auto insurance, which cripples many poor families and delights our insurance companies. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it effectively encourages monopolistic behavior.
The market is about as efficient as a H2 going 90 mph.
But it is the only economy we have.
And I agree about the chocolate covered potato chip. There should be a STEEP TAX on foods like that. That way, when someone who eats that stuff has a heart attack, emergency rooms could bill the tax fund.
I look at the lack of helmet laws as chlorine for the gene pool.
Post a Comment