Ding-Dongs

Aren't Ding-Dongs great? You know, those foil-covered chocolate hockey pucks? Especially when they're nice and cold from the fridge; the crispy crackle of the shell and the sofy squishy center separated by the moist chocolate cake. I might be over-romanticizing it, but they are good.

Let's say that we have a benevolent but naïve king who decides that Ding-Dongs, at $2.19 or so a dozen, are too expensive and that everyone should have access to reasonably priced Ding-Dongs. So, he decrees that his government shall promote a "public option" to supplement the private Ding-Dong industry, claiming that this would create competition and keep the private companies "honest".

For a while, the people are happy because the public Ding-Dongs are almost as good as the regular ones but are much cheaper. You couldn't go very far before seeing someone enjoying the benefits of government Ding-Dongs.

Actually, there are some people who are not happy. The private company that makes Ding-Dongs finds it increasingly harder to compete with the public Ding-Dongs. As a result, the private company has to cut costs by laying off employees and reducing product quality, which drives more people to buy the public alternative, until the private company is forced out of business.

Why does this happen? Because the government doesn't have to worry about turning a profit. (In fact, when there's a net loss, the king justs redistributes some funds from the general coffers.) And all the while, the government is taxing the private Ding-Dong company and using the money to fund the public Ding-Dong company.

In the end, there was only the government Ding-Dongs and no competition to keep the government honest.

The moral of the story: Say 'no' to government Ding-Dongs.