Moreover, Lewis believes that with more regulations people would not make the same mistakes or take advantage of situations, since many received ciphers of seven numbers while others only received lower ciphers. In this I agree because there are people with all kinds of intentions. Both authors, as much as Lewis and Hazlitt speak of the bad economists that only look for to be benefited by the fall of the others. Which I think it would be convenient to have penalties for all people who do not act in a responsible or ethical way. The free market for me is an opportunity to grow, but in a quiet way where ethics and honesty should be the main thing in people, to prevent the economy from being affected. The regulations in my opinion must be in towards
…show more content…
If the government puts more regulations into the free market the economy will be more sensitive to having more crises in the present or future. This is because central banks are striving to achieve an inflation rate of 2% or more, while they depreciate the currency we invest in according to the statements of James Grant en el periódico Finanz und Wirtschaft. So, if we earn less than 2% and pay more than 2%, this only shows that these regulations benefit only one group and not all of us who are involved in some way in the development of the economy, and this could also have consequences long-term. This reminds me of what Hazlitt mentions in chapter seven, he says that "the central lesson is that we must try to see all the major consequences of any economic or development policies: the immediate effects on special groups and the long-term effects on all groups ". To a certain extent, I feel that the regulations only seek to benefit the government of this country, avoiding being affected in any economic situation. While free market motivates companies to innovate more, creating a fast-growing economy and an expanding society as well, trying new …show more content…
That leads to problems and distortions when the government tries to push an industry to do something to achieve a political goal that’s unrealistic. While Lewis says that investors acted without any knowledge ignoring the consequences of their actions or that they were so dumb that they could not see what was really happening in front of their eyes, and that only with the help of government regulations they were able to emerge from the crisis to which they led the country. So, I still in favor of the free market. Since, I believe that with the regulations the free market will not be able to act freely and do the right thing to avoid negative consequences. If the government has more control over the free market it will be a risk for all the people of the country because the dictions will only be taken for the benefit of the government.
Hence, I, Maria Ruvalcaba, have conclude that I am on the free market side of this spectrum of the economic system. I am aware that it would be good to have some limitations on the regulations in the free market, but regulations towards people and their actions. The free market in my opinion is the best way to create a favorable economy for all people, the only bad are people who sometimes take advantage of others
If the government puts more regulations into the free market the economy will be more sensitive to having more crises in the present or future. This is because central banks are striving to achieve an inflation rate of 2% or more, while they depreciate the currency we invest in according to the statements of James Grant en el periódico Finanz und Wirtschaft. So, if we earn less than 2% and pay more than 2%, this only shows that these regulations benefit only one group and not all of us who are involved in some way in the development of the economy, and this could also have consequences long-term. This reminds me of what Hazlitt mentions in chapter seven, he says that "the central lesson is that we must try to see all the major consequences of any economic or development policies: the immediate effects on special groups and the long-term effects on all groups ". To a certain extent, I feel that the regulations only seek to benefit the government of this country, avoiding being affected in any economic situation. While free market motivates companies to innovate more, creating a fast-growing economy and an expanding society as well, trying new …show more content…
That leads to problems and distortions when the government tries to push an industry to do something to achieve a political goal that’s unrealistic. While Lewis says that investors acted without any knowledge ignoring the consequences of their actions or that they were so dumb that they could not see what was really happening in front of their eyes, and that only with the help of government regulations they were able to emerge from the crisis to which they led the country. So, I still in favor of the free market. Since, I believe that with the regulations the free market will not be able to act freely and do the right thing to avoid negative consequences. If the government has more control over the free market it will be a risk for all the people of the country because the dictions will only be taken for the benefit of the government.
Hence, I, Maria Ruvalcaba, have conclude that I am on the free market side of this spectrum of the economic system. I am aware that it would be good to have some limitations on the regulations in the free market, but regulations towards people and their actions. The free market in my opinion is the best way to create a favorable economy for all people, the only bad are people who sometimes take advantage of others