Should goverments be responsible for homeless people Essay

Should goverments be responsible for homeless people - Essay Example Again, the government is responsible for the policies that are made, which result to high costs of living. These costs make people fail to afford homes. Governments are responsible for aiding their people, where the homeless are part of the people that should be helped. Many constitutions state that the government is for the people. Therefore, if the government is not able to support its own people, it shows a failure in its responsibilities. There are some countries like Scotland that support the homeless by providing them with housing facilities. This is a clear indication that it is very possible for other governments to support their citizens who are homeless. Another way of providing homes for the homeless is creating jobs for them. When the government introduces automated technology in the workplaces, which result to most of the workers being retrenched, it should provide alternative means for these people to get income. In conclusion, governments should be responsible for their own people. They should be in a position to offer homes and other needs because that is the main reason they are in existence; to serve their

Article Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 4

Review - Article Example Consequently, the market experiences a disequilibrium condition in terms of either surpluses or scarcities (Yetter, 2013). Given that, supply and demand assessment can be quite complex, the newsletter helps the reader to separate changes in both demand and supply from activities alongside supply and demand curves. The newsletter offers a practical meaning regarding two forms of government interventions within the markets, comprising price controls and quantity controls. One major supposition deduced from the newsletter is that government price floors tend to form surpluses, since they place prices higher than equilibrium price. As a result, the quantity of goods or service supplied surpasses quantity demanded. On the other hand, government price ceilings tend to form shortages since they institute prices lower than equilibrium, and as a result, the quantity demanded surpasses quantity supplied. However, Mishkin & Eakins (2012), observes that the semi-strong outline in efficient marke t hypothesis is the one that makes the present market prices to mirror information already present in the public domain. This is because market prices tend to adjust to any good information or bad news contained in the performance of the economy. Therefore, if a price ceiling imposed by the government becomes greater than market equilibrium price, then the price ceiling would have no effect on the economy. Nevertheless, Yetter concurs with Mishkin & Eakins that in current market economy, prices serve the duo purpose of sending signals regarding relative scarceness of both goods and services (2012). This is more so through the provision of incentives to both buyers and sellers. Therefore, there will be no supply restrictions or encouragement in demand. Both observe that the price ceiling will hold, only when the equilibrium price is higher than the price ceiling, and coupled with a shortage of the service or goods. Furthermore, the newsletter asserts that, if government makes market prices to be higher than equilibrium prices, then a surplus will follow. This is because more people will offer the services at a minimum price, compared to the number of people willing to pay for the service. Yetter argument can be observed in the current health-care market, whereby states governments, which incur most of their residents’ health-care bills, have made prices to increase (2013). Consequently, the high prices make the state governments to implement price controls, such that massive physician shortage takes place and which leads to massive queues and patients waiting lists. As such, only price caps enforced by government will only force the healthcare prices to return to liberated market rates. Therefore, the issue becomes whether government intervention will affect the demand and supply of healthcare considering the far-reaching government regulations such as Obama-care. Yetter in the newsletter observes that any increase in anticipated price will change the su pply-curve towards the right (2012). Yetter points out that in the case of airlines baggage, if government enforces a price floor due to increasing charges, then passengers will increase the number of baggage considerably, such that airlines can make available space to be relatively fixed while refusing to inspect additional baggage. Therefore, in healthcare paid by government, most people will be obliged to purchase insurance instead of buying as you go, and which