To challenge the premise from a different angle: "market failure," as I understand the term, typically means something the market cannot provide for *anyone* at *any* price. A common example is moral hazard in insurance: insurance reduces the incentive of the insured to avoid risks. The insurance agency can construct signals to reduce that risk-courting behavior, but they can't completely restore it to pre-insured levels.
To say that "the market failed the poor" isn't exactly a market failure, then. The market obviously did NOT fail the middle-class and well-off. So the market hasn't failed. In fact, it seems to be doing what it always does - providing for those who can pay. (This is, of course, entirely incidental to the truth of the matter, which is that the National Guard and FEMA have mismanaged this crisis abhorrently from the get-go and that companies like Wal-Mart and NGOs like the Red Cross are responding far more quickly. But when the premise of the question is mistaken from the get-go, it might be better to examine that first) -JP --- Michael Giesbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The government (local, State, and Federal) > appropriated responsibility > for the Mississippi River levy system, the drainage > systems, the pumping > systems, the road ways, and the bridges, but > apparently, they left it to > the market to provide the service of evacuating the > poor and the infirm. > Since they poor and infirm were not, to any great > extent, evacuated, is > this an example of market failure? > > > > > > Best regards, > Michael Giesbrecht > > ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
