Does the market benefit or harm government policies?

Government of India’s Economic Mind: Part – 2
Economic Survey: Summary of 2018 – 19 ‘
Prof. Hemantkumar Shah,
05 – 04 – 2020
Does the market benefit or harm government policies?
Government intervention in the economy is often accompanied by good intentions, but it also damages the market while supporting wealth creation and produces unintended consequences.
Look for any such government interventions;
(1) Under the Goods Act, there are often sudden restrictions on the collection of goods. This does not reduce prices and price fluctuations, however, it does benefit opportunistic traders and annoys their customers. Eg. T Pulses during 2006 – 13, sugar during 2009 – 11 and onion collection during September – 2019, if the government imposed limitations under this Act, their wholesale and retail prices had witnessed huge discrepancies instead of falling prices. In 2019, 5, 5 raids were issued under this Act. Even if we suppose the raids to be five, many employees are barred from enforcing this law. However, punishment under this law is limited to very few traders. Therefore, it seems that the Consumer Goods Act has increased consumer sentiment and increased profitability of traders. The Act came into being in 1955 in times of scarcity and shops. Today it is irrelevant and needs to be canceled. General Chat Chat Lounge
(2) As a result of the Drug Price Control Order in 2013, the prices of medicines which the government regulated were not those that were regulated by the prices of drugs. Had grown beyond them. The prices of expensive drugs went up higher than the cheaper drugs and the prices of the medicines in the hospitals increased more than the drugs from the shops. Um, the government order was intended to reduce prices but something else happened, 2006. The changes in prices of pulses, sugar, onions and medicines during the different period of 19 indicate that governmental intervention under the Essential Commodities Act has been ineffective and detrimental to the market.
(3) As a result of the government’s intervention in the grain market, the government has become the largest recipient of food grains and the largest importer. So there is no competition in the grain market. As a result, the Indian Food Corporation of India – Fci has a buffer stock gap, increasing the burden of subsidy on the government. There is a gap between the demand and supply of grain and there is no incentive for farmers to diversify their crops.
(4) State governments and central government forgive farmers’ debts, those whose debt is completely forgiven – those who owe their debt a little – consume less, save less, invest less, and increase their productivity. Debt waiver decreases even after that, the contribution of all farmers to debt forgiveness diminishes in total credit and hence the original purpose of forgiving farmers’ debt is killed. It means.