-- 10:22 PM; Wednesday, January 11, 2006
i have a new hobby. i'm trying to associate with what i learnt in economics with what our P has done to us (vballers).

imposing a total ban (taken from economics lecture notes)

the reason for such an action is to correct market failure. in order words, to minimise negative externalities (if i'm not wrong) and in fact, we did produce a little negative externalities, (dirtying the walls) but we did eliminate them (cleaning the walls) but some how, there is an outsider that is despicable, using unscrupulous methods, wanting to finish us off (this sounds abit too exagerrating, like villain wants to kill superheros)

so the government (the P) wants to reduce these externalities. so a total ban was imposed.

banning a product totally might involve a greater welfare loss than not attempting to control the situation. (adapted from JC2 economics term 1 2006)

explanation? read the notes yourself. its on page 14. youwill see we will involve a GREATER welfare loss.

did she ever attempt to control the situation?

No.

did she listen to our side of the story?

No.

she makes a poor principal?

yes, she's going to be worse if she is at the judging panel. look at what she's done to the school.

does she make empty promises?

yes, she did not fulfil them at all (this is a rhetorical question)

is she monopolising the school?

DEFINITELY.

eNd