This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ven thinking at the expense
of people’s life. Moreover, he argues that governments should impose regulations on business behavior and
practices until they regulate themselves. List any propaganda, bias or faulty reasoning that you feel exists in either of the articles on this issue?
While Friedman’s arguments are too rational and economic, they also do not include society and the
environment people live in. Almeder, on the other hand, comes up with weak examples which lead to a
philosophical discussion without a clear solution at all. Furthermore, he didn’t mention any kind of
regulation that would be sustainable, effective, and in favor for the whole society. Which side of the argument seems to make most sense to you and why?
From a purely economic point of view, businesses are in competition and try to gain the most market share;
and only the ‘fittest’ will serve and stay in the market and earn a (normal) profit. However, this analysis is
based on model...
View Full Document
- Fall '13