Brilliant. I couldn't agree more.
When the government changes the rules of the marketplace, it should do so in a non-destructive way. That isn't to say it should guarantee everyone's profits forever but rather that abrupt changes be smoothed to some arbitrary degree to be decided case-by-case.
Spite should not be a governing principle.
Ben: You confuse rules of the marketplace with government interference in the marketplace. They aren’t merely changing rules. In these cases they would cease doing bad things they have done. Why should the discomfort of the special interest groups that benefited from such programs count more than the pain inflicted on others when those programs were created?
excellent piece as usual -- the most pernicious part of each gov't intervention is how they try to bail out the "victims" of their interference, instead of admitting the wrong, stepping back and promising to stop @#$%ing with us ...I know, I dream
The "intervention" came as a rule (concerning fuel blending) in the marketplace, passed (as usual) for a mix of good and bad reasons.
Why should the "discomfort" of those hurt by the rule change not count for anything at all? If there's a group-theoretical treatment of wrongs, the relevant group is not the integers modulo 2.
The marketplace is one of voluntary exchange. The "rule" you refer to is not voluntary. It is not "in the marketplace" which implies something that arose through voluntary interaction. It was imposed on the marketplace from without for the benefit of a small clique of people. That that small clique is now hurt by the removal ought not be our concern. A rapist might not like being forced to pull out before he is finished but I don't care.
Commenting by HaloScan
