This case is clearly an example of waste! To job the postman gets payed for is obviously to deliver mail. Anything else he does will not bring profit to the Post, which will then not be competing with maximum efficiency in the marketplace. It is worse than this, even. Those old people, since they can rely on the postman, don't contribute to GDP as they would were they to obtain those same services in the proper way, i.e. by paying for them. Also, the 'postman system' is obviously inherently unfair! It may come down to the personal likes and dislikes of the postman, for example, rather than to an unbiased distribution of services based on who can pay for what, which will yield the optimum distribution of such services, and GDP growth.

It was after hurricane Katrina that we were reminded of how 'price gauging' is actually good, with the example of bottled water. The one than needs the water the most will obviously be willing to pay more for it, and the rise in price is therefore beneficial to yield an efficient distribution. Otherwise we would have to rely on the biased judgment of the man with the water. Do you trust him to give it to the most needy? No? Well, I guess then the 'neutral' parameters of 'price' and availability of 'money' to the 'consumer' will have to do!