 Jan owns an apple orchard and it's harvesting season. She has a bumper crop and needs to calculate how many apples she should pick in order to maximize her profits. For the purposes of this example, she will sell all of her apples to the local cider mill for 50 cents each. Jan knows that to maximize her profits, she should continue to harvest apples until she reaches the point that her marginal revenue equals the marginal cost. Jan calculates her marginal cost using the cost of ladder rentals and the wages of the apple pickers. The apples on the bottom third of the tree are the cheapest to harvest at a marginal cost of 30 cents per apple. This is because her workers can pluck apples off the bottom of the tree without a ladder. To harvest from the middle of the tree, employees will take more time to pick the apples, which increases the cost of labor. Also, a small ladder is needed. This increases the marginal cost to 45 cents. Harvesting from the top of the tree would increase her labor cost per hour and also requires renting a bigger ladder. This results in 55 cents marginal cost. Since Jan can only get 50 cents for an apple, she will stop picking apples when the marginal cost is greater than the marginal revenue she receives. Thus, she will harvest the apples at the bottom of the tree and she will make 20 cents per apple. She will also harvest those apples in the middle and make five cents per apple. However, she won't harvest the apples at the top because she would lose five cents on each one. With this example, the market economy would theoretically deem it most efficient to just leave the apples high up on the trees to rot. Some people believe that the government should provide subsidies to industries that would leave food and other essential goods to waste. Subsidies, however, cost other resources and create an unfair market. Should the apples at the top of the tree be left to rot? Or should someone step in and get involved? What do you think should be done?