Caroline Pellegrin, Chapter Four, Question Six

Prior to my reading of Chapter Four I understood that the government did not always act most "efficiently" or in a way that isn't totally impartial, but I did not understand to what extent. I was especially shocked at the passage that discussed both the stricter licensing for manicurist and doctors- both of which were implemented to undermine the potential success of new entrepreneurs and workers. The government was deliberately stifling capitalism and new economic growth and change. Capitalism would dictate that if one manicure salon will charge six dollars for a manicure and the other will charge twenty-five dollars that it is up to those salons to compete and perhaps negotiate, not the government. In my opinion, during this example the government was exerting too much of a strong hand, a partial hand at that. Now I feel a bit skeptical, what other policies is the government implementing that exhibits that same type of burden? How often does the government side with wealthy enterprises in order to gain more wealth and success for themselves?