You are on page 1of 3

Brakken Barben Econ 1740 Professor Howell November 25, 2013

Free To Chose The first role is protecting society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies. The second role is protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it. In other words the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice. The third role is erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions. The fourth role is erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions. The first argument in favor of tariffs is as a means of national security, in some cases it is justifiable to promote security for objects bought. The second argument is to help the infant industry. They put a temporary tariff to shelter the industry to help it grow and develop into a larger industry. The third argument is “beggar-thy-neighbor” philosophy. This is that a major producer of a product joins with a small number of other people that sell the same product to raise the prices to become a monopoly. The fourth argument was made by Alexander Hamilton, he states, “free trade but that so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to.” The other countries that do impose restrictions hurt us as well as themselves. The first component of the reform would be to replace the ragbag of specific programs and change it to a single comprehensible program of income supplements in cash. The second would be to unwind Social Security while meeting present commitments and gradually having people make their own retirement funds.

4. The Friedmans discuss countries/governments that experienced hyperinflation at various times in history? List the countries/governments that were affected during the historical periods below: 1860’s (List 1) 1. Brazil After World War I (List 2) 1. Russia 2. Gernmany After World War II (List 2) 1. China 2. Hungary 1970’s (List 2) 1. Chili 2. Argentina 5. The authors wrote that liberty is enhanced when government promotes personal equality or equality of opportunity. Alternatively, when the government promotes “fair shares for all,” liberty is reduced. Using the “fair shares for all” concept to calculate class grades, all students would receive an average grade (C+). This would be accomplished by taking points away from students earning A’s & B’s to give to students earning D’s & E’s. Distributing points equally would result in “fair grades for all.”

this differ from “fair shares for all” economically? For example, what’s the difference between a successful student being required to give up some of his/her hard-earned grade & a successful business person being expected to give more of his/her hard-earned income? If you support “redistribution of income & wealth,” shouldn’t you also be willing to redistribute academic grades? After all, many of your

fellow students may not have had the advantages in ed own words, explain your thoughts in a minimum of 3 paragraphs Approving the method of giving the same average grade to all students heavily deters from the prestige of going to school. When looking deeper into the framework of the college experience one can see that the objective of a university is to filter students as well as educate them. The filtering of students can be defined in many ways. Universities filter students’ academic paths by offering specific majors, having certain requirements for enrollment, and by increasing the difficulty of the workload. By doing so, a person that graduates from college is assumed to have learned many key skills that are necessary to any given company. Many of these skills are non-academic. Enforcing an equal grade will diminish the competition of college and result in a less efficient and proficient student body. The more that successful students have their points taken away the less they will try to be successful. Similarly, the more points that unsuccessful students receive points the more they will not try to even complete small amounts of work. The trend now shifts from equality to an entirely unsuccessful student body. Soon enough there won’t even be points to redistribute. The same goes for business owners it takes away from the motto that America has about living the American Dream and forging your own future. If I worked 70 plus hours a week to give my family the best life possible and being able to reward myself and them isn’t possible because I’m distributing my wealth, I’m going to work less and reap the benefits of others. That’s why it would never work I believe society would financially collapse on itself.