Olivia Barr, Chapter 1, Question 3

The implications about the amorality of markets clarifies that diamonds will always be scarce and expensive, and for the most part (in the developed world) water will be plentiful, safe, and of insignificant price in comparison to diamonds because the market rewards scarcity. There are no explicit consequences to this, aside from the fact that I can't rely on the price of diamonds falling so if I want diamonds, I (or someone else) must be willing to pay a significant amount of money to purchase them. It is also implicit that when I travel to Europe, I run the risk of being kidnapped and sold into the European market for sex-workers, in exchange for a great profit for captor. This implication is both negative and frightening, however the number of girls kidnapped is almost insignificantly low (mathematically) compared to the number of girls in Europe, so it is a case of a situation where one risk is feared more than another more relevant fear like...falling into financial distress and not being able to afford health care, then falling ill and accumulating more debt, while getting sub-par care all because you're not profitable to care for. Yes, refusing care to people who are poor is unfair and immoral, but hey, all is fair in supply and demand, right? Wrong, its amoral, fairness is irrelevant, its profits that matter.