|
Greedy politicians will be the downfall of this country. Great men and great women have abandoned politics to corporate stooges. Bush is a veritable poster child for this phenomenon.
The answer to the question assumes - or depends- on whether or not governement functions correctly - as it was designed. Competition is the only safeguard consumers need. But in the absence of competition, the government has to step in and fill the gap. Government can break up monopolies, it can foster competition and as a last resort, it can regulate pricing and industry practices.
So the real question for me is: Is government filling the gap or are they creating and/or perpetuating the gap (by fostering policies that reduce or stifle competition)?
There are numerous examples of government protecting the people from the economic consequences of a non-competitive market and there are many examples of government stifling competition at the expense of the consumer.
The answer, I guess would have to be the average benefit of the protection we get minus the average cost we bear when government doesn't do its job.
__________________
♠ ♥ ♣ ♦
|