Government intervention is aimed at enhancing the public interest and balancing social benefits. It has been debated whether it is successful or not. From our readings this week, we see a swinging pendulum between more and less government intervention. In prior weeks, we saw various market theories on how government intervention can affect positively or negatively. My opinion on the topic is that less is more. People generally will aim to do what is best for themselves and that is true in our elected politicians.

Justification of interventions varies depending on the circumstances. Externalities are side effects of the economy not working causing loss of benefit to end users or the producer. The government aims at reducing or eliminating those gaps to provide net benefits. Monopolies, governments aim to reduce the power of monopolies to address market power. This effort is to simulate competition to benefit society. Unchecked monopolies can leverage their power to reap higher profits, but lower overall market utility. Asymmetric information leads to people lacking the information, allowing people and organizations to take advantage of others. The government works towards reducing the gap in information alignment. An example of this would be the Securities and Exchange Commission. Public goods are items that would not work in a normal private enterprise. In these cases, the government works to provide the goods. Examples of this are things like public roads, police, and fire departments. (Dyck, 2002)

From the project standpoint, I would look at it as protecting the local environment to maintain a social benefit of A) the flowers and B) the butterflies. The loss of these would be permanent versus impacts from clean energy could have been addressed through other means. It would also probably provide political benefits as environmental groups could have caused issues for locally elected officials. On the economic front looking at the provided information, it probably had limited impact as power would be coming from other sources and are generally capped in cost in the short term. Long term it would have been able to lead to a lower cost increase in power as the cost would be managed by the private group.

For a solution to the problem, I would expect that a local environmental/school group could have been leveraged or some other government agency probably had a program that could have been used. This would have allowed for community support in moving the flowers along with improving the environment by utilizing the gasses from the landfill. I used to work at a local conservation district while in college and there were a variety of programs available for projects like this.

Elaborate please so I can understand better.