[image source] 
I found Bylund’s discussion of temporary changes to the market very compelling. I especially appreciated his comparison of the hierarchy of needs in a person’s life to the hierarchy of needs within the economy or a business. The idea that certain needs, such as a means of production in any capacity, must be met before a business or economy can even consider additional wants, such as a way to speedline production or increase the quality of the product, makes complete sense when we consider what it takes for a business to prosper. This began to make even more sense when Bylund discusses how this hierarchy of needs relates to government regulation which plays a more constant role in affecting these needs. When we think of temporary changes, they seem like something that we can maneuver around or wait out until we have an opportunity to improve. However, with the constant role of governmental regulation, the ability to overcome the challenges placed in front of us become much more difficult or even impossible.
I also appreciated this chapter in particular as it highlighted to me how policy may be used to favor certain businesses, and this is something that I have not truly understood up to this point. I can now see that some effective regulation is done in a way that penalizes certain businesses, and as I see it, this can be seen in the modern U.S. time as something that is done to small businesses. An example of this may be seen during COVID with health and safety regulations. While larger companies that have chain restaurants that likely have larger profits and venues may have the opportunity to follow sanitation and social distancing requirements, smaller restaurants do not have this luxury and are more likely to have to close their doors while they are unable to follow these instructions which likely could put them out of business and prop up the corporate chains that remain standing.
Additionally, I liked Bylund’s discussion of how subsidies play a role in propping up certain industries which then may negatively impact an adjacent industry. For example, wind or solar energy that receive government subsidies that aid these industries directly impacts the oil and gas industry. While I do not personally see an issue with this particular example given the impact each industry has on the environment, I can understand the dangerous precedent this may set. Sure, I do not have an issue with this example, but I would if the opposite was occurring and oil and gas companies were getting subsidies while solar and wind energy suffers, and if this is possible in one direction, it is inherently possible in the opposite direction. This precedent sets the stage for a potential abuse of power by the government.
Congratulations @leighwelch! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 50 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz: