Dear John: Your broccoli comments could be viewed by some as market manipulation. Supply and demand can be a very personal and fickle thing, just like the like (or dislike) of broccoli.

Now, with the possibility of all your followers shunning the beautiful green flowering crest of that vegetable, the demand may drop, thus causing the supply to remain on the shelf with a comparative drop in the retail pricing to move the product.

You probably appreciate that broccoli has a very short shelf life. So thank you. I love broccoli!

It could be you just have not found the correct preparation process to satisfy your personal palate. Maybe even now, your tastes have changed and the next thing you know the price of broccoli will again be on the rise.

Yet all things must pass — and broccoli is very helpful in that regard. R.G.

Dear R.G.: Or maybe I really love broccoli and my plan all along has been to drive down the price so I can enjoy it more cheaply.

Wouldn’t that be devious of me!

But, no, what I said in a previous column about inflation was that I hate broccoli. But I really shouldn’t pick on that one vegetable.

In fact, I really don’t like much of what grows in the ground with the exception of strawberries (not a vegetable) and corn (which is far enough off the ground to satisfy me).

I guess you could say I’m a vege-terrorian.

Click Here: watford fc shirt

I know, I know. I’ve heard all the stories about the health benefits of vegetables and fruits. My daughter is a dietitian.

And if those scare tactics were really true, I would have been dead 20 years ago.

And, yes, sometimes the taste is in the preparation. Slather enough melted cheddar on any vegetable and I will eat even broccoli — but not the stems.

So, there, I’ve said it. I think there is a place in this world for people who don’t like vegetables.

Why are we discriminated against? Why the ridicule?

Dear John: I like your take on inflation — that the numbers understate price rises.

But as one of the people way down the income chain in this country, let me assure you that our group has seen the effect on pricing pressures for one reason:

There are way more goods and services available chasing our dollars than we have money to spend. So we rank and buy stuff only as it decreases in price to meet our parameters.

It is called doing without. You would be shocked at how far up the scale that attitude prevails.

The glorious service economy that carries big prices may not be as solid as you think. D.J.

Dear D.J.: Doing without is a grand old American tradition that is largely forgotten in our consumer-oriented society.

Someday, the doing-withouters will rise again. Austerity can be cleansing.

Dear John: You recently featured a letter that said “legal betting isn’t so good for any serious gambler who mostly wins.”

The numbers the author described don’t make any sense. He said he won about 56 percent of 1,500 picks. That would generate a record of about 840 wins and 660 losses. He said he was betting $200 to $500 per game.

That combination would earn a profit of around $35,000, not — as he stated — $3,500. (To approximate, use $300 for wins, minus $330 for losses, and you get a shade less than $35,000.)

Frankly, that’s fantastic for a $200-to-$500 bettor even after you account for taxes.

Legalized sports betting is really good for serious players. That’s why some sports books ban them or greatly limit their action.

From Jeff Fogle of VSiN, who provides daily sports betting articles for The Post.

Dear Jeff: Hmmm! Thanks for the very interesting note.

I guess that gambler’s figures either slipped or he doesn’t want the IRS — and his wife — to know how much he’s won.

But now we know. And we won’t tell.