When government interferes to make things equal, things become more costly

“The reason some people are willing to accept price discrimination when equal outcomes are desired is that they mistakenly assume that a well-meaning and diligent government is capable of managing the efficient production of all goods and services even in the absence of normal market signals, such as competitive prices. But that assumption has never proven to be true. The U.S. college cost dilemma is an example of the fallacy of this assumption.”

…

“(W)e need to stop giving colleges the information that is essential to sustain the price discrimination.”

(Yes, but more than that, we need to chop the billions of federal dollars shoved at potential students in the form of federal loans and federal grants. I have wondered for some time of the influence the 1944 and 1952 GI Bills had on convincing us that every person deserves a college education. If veterans deserved help, why didn’t all people deserve help? That, of course, led to the idea that if everybody is entitled to a college education, but some cannot afford the costs associated with that education, then the government assuring equality must step in and ensure the costs.)

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/august/the-high-cost-of-college-an-economic-explanation

At maggiesfarm.

‘Republicans Bungle the Battle Over Light Bulbs’

“As Bloomberg points out, bulb makers such as Royal Philips Electronics and General Electric have already worked to make bulbs more efficient. In fact, like any other corporate endeavor in the known universe, they're in favor of greater efficiency. They also see the benefit to giving the Energy Department the ability to enforce efficiency standards, as it would prevent lesser foreign products from negatively impacting the business.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/republicans-bungle-battle-over-light-bulbs-161211513.html?l=1

(Pay no attention to anything in that paragraph, save this: “They also see the benefit to giving the Energy Department the ability to enforce efficiency standards …” Why? Because the big companies want regulation that will drive others out of competition. Didn’t the big bulb companies pitch the not-incandescent bulb to begin with?

(It’s such a small thing, right? Why would anybody protest using an energy-saving device? Because the choice should be mine, not the government’s. That is the thing most Progressives do not understand, perhaps cannot understand.)

(And another thing: Why is it that the bulb announcing “Five-year life” goes out after a year? Maybe that’s the way the Energy Department enforces efficiency standards.)